One Last Chance?

Looking back 2019 was not the best time to launch a new competition, for as we all know by March 2020 the World Health Organisation declared the Covid outbreak a Pandemic.

Internationally in the sport of Hockey the FIH Pro League came to a momentary halt on the 7th of March, and to the wonder of many returned in September, even though some countries would not be able to play any further part in the competition.

Despite the mistake made in season one, the FIH decided that the final League positions would be decided on percentages. (The Dawn of A New Rivalry)

Season three went ahead at the end of 2021 with new teams Canada and South Africa coming in to replace Australia and New Zealand in the men’s League, and India and Spain came into the Women’s League. Canada would subsequently withdraw due to travel restrictions, and be replaced by France.

Season four is about to get underway in November, with yet another new format being used. The league will now go through to July 2023, a period of nine months, although there will be no games from mid December until the 10th of February.

Sustaining interest over such a long period is a major challenge, especially in Australia where the national team does not play a game until February 2023! To have a competition drawn out over such a long period of time there needs to be a strategic marketing and media plan to keep fans engaged. In addition the television product has to be out of the top drawer.

Sadly that hasn’t been the case with the latter, and some broadcasters who signed up for the new league and were promised packed venues with noisy crowds are rumoured to have already announced they will not be renewing their contracts.

Hindsight is they say perfect vision, and if this is true, questions will no doubt be being asked as to the wisdom of keeping the League going during the pandemic, and how much that has contributed to this decision. Certainly we all discovered that sport with no crowds was extremely hard to watch. A competition that dragged on 18 months and did not see all of the games played was always going to find it hard to keep fans engaged. (A PRObable Record Breaker) So understandably viewing figures dropped.

Another competition launched in 2019 was Australia’s Hockey One League. This was created to replace the Australian Hockey League which was an annual competition between players from their home states. The new competition was to be franchise-based, and we were told was going to lift the sport to another level. To many it was a mini version of the FIH Pro League, which rather than costing the National Association vast sums of money was now going to cost the Individual State bodies several hundred thousand dollars a year. However, as they were all shareholders in the competition, they had invested in the League, and they would recoup this money once the league became profitable.

Costs would be shared across each state body, and a percentage of all ticket sales would go to the League itself, and the rest would be shared equally between the states. So there was to be a gain for all if the competition was marketed and promoted appropriately.

One question no one answered was if and when the competition reached that profitable stage who would receive money first? Would it be the players, who are the ones who are ultimately generating that revenue, or the State Associations who own the Franchise and are bank-rolling it for the first few editions? One would think the latter, which would mean the promises made to the players had a hollow ring to them. How long will it be before they see any money?

It is interesting to compare some of the rhetoric between the two competitions.. One document linked to Hockey One states that the new competition was going to be “The catalyst for hockey in Australia becoming a professional sport where players receive payments to play in the competition and the league can attract marquee players from overseas.” Compare this to the comment made by the then CEO of the FIH Jason McCracken in June 2017 when he announced the teams that would be a part of the FIH PRO League, “We strongly believe that this new competition will fuel the growth of our sport for many years to come, significantly increasing revenues for hockey. As a result it 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.”

“The FIH after three or four years, and talking to over 600 stakeholders, broadcasters and fans and athletes the decision was made to “Bring Hockey Home.” Mr McCracken said in 2017. The new League he told us would see hockey played in front of “Packed stands” It was going to be a “massive game- changer for our sport,” in the main due to the Television deals which would see “a tenfold increase of televised hockey globally.”

We had similar lines trotted out in relation to Hockey One, where a letter was sent out stating, “this study was conducted by the Australian Sports Commission and a number of recommendations were made which are now being further explored by Hockey Australia and its Member Associations.” They went on to say “The research indicates that the 11 a side game in its current form does not deliver enough ‘celebratory moments’ compared with other sports and therefore it is difficulty (sic) to build momentum and off field energy and fan engagement both at a venue and via a broadcast.”

Of course as covered back in May 2018 in “Who’s Idea Was It?” we found out that the Australian Sports Commission as it was at the time, now Sport Australia, made no such recommendation, and that there was no report compiled by the Government body. In fact the ASC said very clearly that “Our recommendation was the game remain as is.” In fact in our conversation we were told that the advice was that a “Big Bash” type event “was to be avoided.”

As for the Game Day Experience, Hockey Australia promised “Activation of venues to create fun and connection to a community, Building entertainment with fans off the back of ‘celebratory moments’ and breaks of play and Broadcast opportunities through a product which is even and available in multiple locations around the country – including all games to be live streamed in year one of the competition.”

Yet the coverage of Hockey One on Kayo sports in the first year was amateur in the extreme. It was far from slick and professional and lacked the polish one expects from for a pay-per-view channel. It did not enhance the sport in anyway whatsoever. In some respects it is probably a benefit that there was no competition in 2020 or 2021, as it should have given the Management at Hockey One time to sort out what was wrong, and ensure that the bar is raised considerably when it returns. Television is a very powerful medium, but if your product is poorly put together that power can be more detrimental than if you had opted not to go on air.

The decision to go with a Franchise model was bold, and it may prove again to have been a mistake, or rather ill-timed. As touched on in Podcast 110 global trends are saying that Franchise models in sport are facing tough times ahead.

The FIH Pro League was pitched to two other international sports who both rejected it as being unviable. Hockey clearly felt that they could make the concept work, however irrespective of the quality of some of the games it has fallen down in so many areas. Interestingly with Hockey One, as the ASC have stated clearly that they made no such recommendations for the competition, one wonders where it came from, and who collated all of the data to back the concept. If it fails are those individuals who created and approved the concept still involved with the sport, and will they be held accountable?

With hockey in Australia a large proportion of the players that go on to represent the Kookaburras and Hockeyroos come from the country areas prior to moving to clubs in the cities. As some parents, and others from country areas have commented, the Franchise model fails to recognise that fact, as only two of the seven franchise sides opted to keep the name of their state, rather than the name of their capital city.

Saying that in 2022 it has been announced that the finals will be held in Bendigo in Country Victoria. That is a positive move. Or is it?

This decision means that just as in 2019 all of the finals will be played in Victoria. Cynics have said that this has been decided to back up the State’s bid to see the High Performance unit move from Western Australia to Victoria. ( What Is Best For The Sport Must Be The Number One Priority) Others say that it is also linked to the State of Victoria rather than the city of Melbourne hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2026; this is the first time the Games will not be hosted by a City. As Bendigo is where it is claimed the Hockey tournament will be based.

After season one, many believe that the reigning Champions should have been awarded hosting rights for the finals. This would have meant that Victoria would still have hosted the Women’s final, but that New South Wales would have hosted the men’s. While this may throw up a logistical challenge surely if the competition is about growing the reach of the game it is the best option, and one that the victorious state has earned. The problem you have is what happens if they fail to make the final? So is it wise to opt on a city prior to the competition commencing if you are looking for the best outcomes and a packed house come the final?

One interesting development heading into the 2022 season is hearing that some players who were invited to represent a state other than the one that they come from turned down that invitation. Clearly representing your state, as was the case in the Australian Hockey League, means more than simply playing for another team. That of course may have changed if as promised the League meant that players were being paid. Credit must be given to the players heading into the 2022 competition as some of them are paying their own airfares or accommodation to be a part of the competition, and with games now being played on Thursdays and Fridays will have to take leave from their jobs to fly interstate and play.

Hockey One is planning to stick with the bonus point goal, where the player who scores a field goal is given the chance to double the value of that goal if they score in a one-on-one shoot out. This was one of the “innovations” that was supposed to create “more ‘celebratory moments” for fans and broadcast.” Yet it actually had the opposite effect. The player who scored was forced to cut short their celebration in order to take part in the shoot-out. This also meant that fan celebrations became muted as they watched the one on one. This lacked the excitement of a genuine shoot-out, as in most games it had little meaning or consequence.

There will still be a shoot-out if the game ends in a draw, as is witnessed in the Pro League.

Regrettably according to the rules on their website they are also sticking with five points for the winning team, two points each for a draw and a bonus point for the team that wins the shoot-out. The problem with this points system was that the last two weekends were dead rubbers as the top four in the men’s competition was already decided. The same was the case in the Women’s competition, although there were still final placings to play for. Had the traditional three points for a win and one for a draw plus a bonus point for a shoot-out win been in place there would have still been an opportunity in those last two weeks for teams to make the top four.

Another radical thought which would have ensured a much closer and exciting finish to the round robin stage would be to go back to two points for win, one point for a draw and a bonus point for the winner of the shoot-out. This would have made those last rounds of games have far more meaning.

Hockey One we were told was going to give us a “new and exciting brand for hockey in Australia (something different to what we have seen before).” Maybe Hockey should have taken a leaf out of Cricket’s book, where changes to the laws of the game have over the past century been introduced to stop negative play. One of the dullest elements of Hockey at the present time is seeing the defenders pass the ball back and forth for a couple of minutes waiting for a gap to appear. If the sport wanted to be eliminate this passage of non-play, which is not pleasant to watch, maybe they could have introduced a time limit from a 16 by which a team must have advanced into the opposition’s half? Failure to do that would result in a free hit on half way to their opponent. The key point here is to try and stop something which is detrimental to new viewers and is extremely boring to established fans.

During the two years that the League was on hold what has been done to revisit the format, or to bring in money to improve the broadcast product? Was a well-planned and thought out marketing and media campaign put together leading into the season, to try and ensure that Hockey inches closer to keeping the promise that this is a league “where players receive payments to play in the competition?”

This is a reasonable expectation, as despite the League being put on hold for two years the General Manager remained employed. Tony Dodemaide, who held that role since the inception of Hockey One only stepped down in November 2021. So what did he do in this time? His replacement, Andy Crook was appointed in February 2022, six months before the start of the second Hockey One season.

Mr Crook has come to the role after having spent five years as Chief Operating Officer for the National Basketball League (NBL) and was Chief Executive of netball’s Trans-Tasman competition – the ANZ Championship. He is also the Managing Director of his own company Whitewall Sports who according to his Linked In profile specialise in ‘Sport business strategy development & implementation, and sport property management.’ Apart from Hockey One, the company website lists their clients as including Baseball Australia and the Australian Baseball League, Tenpin Bowling Australia, Squash Australia and Luis Leeds Racing. So Mr Crook comes to the role knowing what it takes to elevate a competition such as this.

The competition is due to start on September 29th but talking to Marketing experts the League has once again missed the boat in terms of promotion. Videos on Facebook and emails to clubs and players is never going to be enough to lift this product to where it was claimed it was going to end up.

Where is the above the line advertising, some of which was leveraged in season one with naming rights sponsor Sultana Bran in season one? The competition starts in under three weeks and few know that it is about to start.

Questions have been asked again about the timing of the League, as most club hockey competitions are currently in finals mode. With these due to be completed in the next couple of weeks is it wise to try and come in straight after a long season? Any promotion done now is going to be lost, as local players focus on their clubs, and if their clubs are not involved they are already taking a break from the sport and some are focussing on their Summer sport of choice.

The 2022 Hockey One competition is going to have to raise the bar from the 2019 edition in terms of how it is presented as a live event and also a televised event, otherwise its future just like the FIH Pro League is questionable. Depending on how it looks, the crowds, and the viewing figures will decide whether retrospectively questions need to be asked as to whether enough was done to re-evaluate and improve during the two year hiatus. Time will tell.

In 2018 the Project Manager -AHL 2.0 Mr Andrew Skillern, who has been the CEO of Hockey Victoria since 2014 wrote on Linked In “This new approach to sport, this thing called sports entertainment is here to stay.”

The same question needs to be asked as it was four years ago, are the sport’s administrators in the entertainment business or are they in the business of sport? If they are in the former how much knowledge and expertise do they have in that field? Or is their expertise in fact in sports administration? This is a very important question as it will determine who the sport employs in order to succeed. It may also explain why as an entertainment package it is well below par. If you are looking to use television to promote the tournament there has has to be a considerable investment to deliver a quality product, and that has to be backed up by a well thought out and strategic marketing and media campaign.

At present if one reads the constitutions that exist in each state is not the key role of these sports administrators is to take on the responsibility of safeguarding the sport, and ensuring its future long after they have left? Their job is surely to ultimately leave the sport in a better place when they do move on. Maybe the constitutions need to be re-written, however that is unlikely as they are still relevant to the majority of people who play the sport. People who will never play in an Australian Hockey League or in Hockey One.

Is the cost of Hockey One to the State bodies sustainable and justifiable to their members? How long will it be before one State says they can no longer justify the cost? Where will that leave the competition? What are the projections for season two?

The Australian Hockey League was contested for 90 years, with different names and different formats. The reason many of these formats were settled upon was because they were believed to be the best option based on a number of contributing factors such as cost, and player availability, taking into consideration that all were amateurs.

For many 2022’s Hockey One is make or break for the competition as it is currently.

Australian Hockey’s first national competition is believed to have taken place in 1928, long before Australian Rules Football or Soccer had national competitions. For those who appreciate how important history is to sport it would be good to see this revived in time for the centenary. Imagine that being run in conjunction with a financially viable and fully backed Hockey One league, that is a credit to the sport. (Can You Put A Price on History?)