It was an interesting week in the world of Field Hockey last week.
First of all there was the announcement from the game’s governing body, the International Hockey Federation (FIH) on the punishment to be handed down to Pakistan for pulling out of their blue riband league, the FIH Pro League once it had started.
It is understood that the contracts signed by the participating nations stated that withdrawal would result in a two-year suspension from International Hockey.
The FIH Press release revealed no such punishment would be handed down. “This agreement consists of a settlement amount, with half of it to be invested by PHF in youth development and/or grassroots development activities in Pakistan within the next two years; these development funds will be monitored by the Asian Hockey Federation (AHF) and reported to FIH with documentary evidence,” it read. Surely this should be happening already and be monitored by the FIH?
It went on to say “The other half shall be paid to FIH in three installments until July 2020; in case the first installment is not paid until 19 August 2019, Pakistan may not enter the FIH Olympic qualifiers for the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020.” Yet the sum was undisclosed. (Our View – Fine? No Thanks)
Many other nations were far from happy with the outcome. This outcome stemmed from the Pakistan Hockey Federation submitting a disciplinary case opposing hockey’s world governing body. This “settlement” many felt was an indication of the FIH folding on a difficult issue, and putting next year’s FIH Pro League in jeopardy.
How could this outcome put next year’s event in jeopardy? A precedent has been set now in relation to the punishment for pulling out of the FIH Pro League and the FIH would be hard pressed to ban any nation moving forward who opted out of the League. With several nations recording large financial losses in 2019 some are believed to be considering whether there is a return on investment, and whether their national program genuinely benefitted by being a part of the League.
Yet when he met the media at the FIH Pro League Grand Final in Amsterdam CEO Thierry Weil was extremely upbeat on the first year of the Pro League. (Please note despite there being four matches in the Men’s and Women’s competition all FIH documentation referred to a single match, “The Grand Final”).
“I am extremely happy with the Pro League, it has been a long journey,” Weil said. “Some things were too much, like travel for the teams, in my view Pro League is a success,” he added.
He went on to explain that there would be changes in 2020. Gone would be the percentages to determine league positions, which caused so much embarrassment, heading into the semi finals, where the FIH’s mathematicians miscalculated and awarded Great Britain fourth place instead of Argentina. Many will breathe a sign of relief to see that go.
Gone will be the Grand Final format. There will no longer be a final series. The team that finishes top of the ladder will be crowned Champion. The downside of this structure is if a team from the Southern Hemisphere was to win the League again, the chances are they will always win it away from home.
Also gone will be the home and away season. In 2020, and moving forward a team will only play half the nations in the competition away, and half at home. This time instead of playing one game they will play two.
“We have to listen to the players, we must not be shy about making changes if changes need to be done.” Weil explained.
When asked about the lack of marketing to support the FIH Pro League Weill stated that he believed this would be helped by the new International calendar of events being put together by the FIH. This will be a four-year International calendar. “We will stick to the dates and not change as in the past. This is 80% finalized for the next two years,” Weill advised.
This could certainly help, but matches still need to be promoted by the governing body along with the host nation, with a cohesive well-coordinated approach if it is going to be successful and witness packed stadia.
One aspect that the CEO felt would assist in the promotion of the sport, and the National teams was the selection of host venues. From now on venues will have to meet strict criteria before they are granted hosting status. “If venues cannot offer professional looking events they will not be used.” Weil declared to those in attendance. It was a statement that many agreed with, but may well hamper the premise on which the Pro-League was built, which was taking Hockey home and to new audiences. Mr. Weill then explained that the success of the temporary pitch at The Stoop in London could well be an alternative to many nations whose stadia fail to meet the new criteria.
“I expect 100% professional events,” Weil said looking back on 2019, “some have done nice events, there have been learning issues.”
As a result of this requirement there is a murmour coming out of Lausanne that two teams from 2019 may be dropped from the 2020 League. Time will tell whether this is in fact the case.
This requirement and with the inclusion of India in 2020, who have more than the necessary stadia infrastructure in place, as we saw at the Men’s World Cup in 2018, means that there must surely be discussions taking place at the FIH regarding those nations who simply failed in delivering appropriate venue infrastructure throughout 2019. Could the FIH in fact be assessing a situation whereby some nations will need to be removed from the Pro League to make space for nations who could bring better facilities and crowds? These nations may be better placed to deliver in this aspect, and also help in sourcing the much needed revenue through sponsors and broadcasters. Time will tell whether this is in fact the case.
There clearly have been many learning issues and one has to question whether the 2019 Pro League that we witnessed what was envisaged back in 2016 when the concept was first conceived. For example was it a mistake to move to nine teams rather than the proposed seven? Was it a mistake to remain with nine once India pulled out of both Leagues?
One learning point has been that if there is to be Video referral in the League then the correct investment has to be made. Once the cost of the technology was cut it became clear in the product that was being aired and affected some of the decisions being made. This in turn was unfair on the video umpires who were being asked to make important match-determining decisions without the adequate technology.
The video referral is an area to where the FIH can bring in revenue, on television or at the venues. This is a golden sponsorship opportunity, like in Cricket where it is the most sort after slot. By having a company logo with “decision pending” on the big screen and on the television, that sponsor is guaranteed eyeballs on their logo. Companies pay big bucks for that guaranteed viewership. If this is to work, however fans have to be able to hear the decision and the dialogue-taking place. To rob them of that, as was the case in the latter half of the Pro-League is to diminish the game-day experience. It is also vital if new fans are to be attracted to the sport.
However the biggest issue of all has to be scheduling, and the payment of the players. The FIH has to look at working with the top leagues in Europe, and like FIFA create “International Windows” in which the Pro League games and other Internationals can be played, so that the club leagues are not disrupted. Like football in the 1980’s players are currently torn between the clubs who pay their wages and their country who pay a pittance. The Hockeyroos finished second in the Pro-League so picked up prize money of USD$62,500. It is believed Hockey Australia agreed to give the players 80% of this money, which when split between all players and coaching staff amounted to around about $1200-1400 per player. When you consider that on average their monthly income is around AUD$2000, it does not equate to a great deal of financial reward for their commitment over a six-month period.
If Hockey had a Players Union, there is no doubt that the League would be on shaky ground and the Union would be demanding a much better deal for the players who are the key component. It was the players and the coaching staff who played such a major part in making the 2019 FIH Pro League memorable.
Thierry Weil stated in Amsterdam that “We have to open it up, we have to have Pro-League two. Teams are locked in for four years. The Pro League is there only for elite teams and can damage other National associations so we need to make it open and not closed.”
Back in June last year when discussing the Hockey Series, which is already no more after one year in operation Weil said, “the Hockey Series provides an opportunity for teams that have never played on an international stage before to do so. At the moment we have a number of Associations participating in the Hockey Series Open. We had teams playing in Mexico, for example, who had never been on that stage before, that is fantastic. Regardless of the score-lines – and we had some big scores – they will learn from that and grow.”
On the FIH website it stated “Weil sees the knock-on impact of the Hockey Series as increased sustainability and development of the game globally. As more nations see the opportunities presented by the Hockey Series, including Olympic qualification and world ranking points, more nations will sign up to take part.”
So why has this been scrapped? Why could sponsorship not be found? What will replace it? Will the scrapping make the FIH Pro League even more elitist? What happens to the players and teams outside of the Pro-League and their opportunities to climb the ladder?
Nine key staff members have left the FIH since the Event Portfolio Working Group was created. This was the group that spent two years devising the Pro League. It was then handed to the Event Portfolio Implementation Panel to make it happen. So, more importantly why have so many who were involved in its creation left?
We have heard that travel has been the biggest cost in the Pro-League and also the Hockey Series. So surely the FIH need to find a travel partner or partners to assist the National associations and reduce travel costs? That is obvious, but maybe they need to expand the view of the Pro League.
Why not make it more regional. Have a European pool and an Asian pool. In Europe there are the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Spain, GB, Ireland, and France, while in Asia you have Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, Korea, and Japan along with either China or Pakistan. These could vary depending on the women’s and men’s competition.
To make up eight teams in each League the Champions of Africa and the Pan American Champions get to play in the Asian or European league. Clearly their travel costs would need to be subsidized in order to participate.
Once the League comes to an end. The top four teams play off in a Finals series where they crossover. Then the two third placed teams play off, the two fourth placed teams play off etc. With the bottom two teams playing off to stay in their respective league. Meaning that another competition similar to the Hockey Series would need to underpin the Pro League and give up and coming nations the opportunity of promotion. After all a League with no promotion and relegation soon loses its appeal with the fans.
This format would in the main reduce travel costs and would open up the League to 16 teams, almost double the Pro League in 2019. It would also pit the two regions against each other for bragging rights. By having it as a more regionalized competition it would broaden the sponsorship opportunities, as many potential sponsors have a market predominantly in that region.
Suddenly rather than asking for one large lump sum, you could ask two sponsors to cover that lump sum, which in turn makes the whole process easier, and more attractive to potential sponsors.
Yet to be a success the players must be included in any decisions moving forward, as the sport cannot afford to lose its top players from such a competition. Therefore they must be involved in any decisions on the format of the league
One feels that only by having a more regionalized focused approach will the Pro League or a similar competition ever be able to achieve the vision set out by Weil’s predecessor, Jason McCracken. He said that thanks to the Pro League Hockey “will become a professional sport, making it a career choice for athletes who will be given the opportunity to perform in big, bold, packed and loud venues both in their homeland and overseas. It will also allow fans to engage with more world-class hockey more often, whether on TV or live at their national venue.”
On many levels McCracken’s dream wasn’t realized, but maybe that was never the goal in year one. The key will be in year two, where lessons must be learned, TV coverage must be on point, sponsors must be found, and players and umpires must be paid a decent wage. Any short cuts in year two will not help the game moving forward.
