As we have seen in the past week Australians can place far too much importance on sport. Sure sport teaches us a great deal about life. It is also good for us in so many ways, in terms of the health benefits and working as a team or as an individual.
Apart from the contests in sport, the back stories are also what intrigue us. The underdog rising up and defeating the Goliaths of the their chosen sport, athletes overcoming adversity, all of these stories hook us in. Then as we have seen in the past week there is the link between sport and our values, and the impact they can have on a wider society. Then there is the link between sport and politics.
This sadly raised its head in the past few days when an article appeared in The West Australian online. The paper, – if it warrants such a description these days, as so thin has it become the vinegar from your chips would seep through the paper should you feel it merited eating fish and chips from, – has failed to evolve with the times and sometimes skims the surface of an issue rather than actually delving into it.
Senior Business Reporter Sean Smith who we had issues with back in August last year (Is It Time To Change Priorities) penned a piece titled “Did the State Government short-change the Matildas?”
In the article Mr Smith writes that “there is disappointment in some quarters that the Government’s financial support was limited to a $50,000 grant cobbled together by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries. The money was put to good use in “community programs and activations around the game”, including workshops for coaches and officials, and school visits and open training sessions by the Matildas.”
First up why should the State Government have paid anything to host such a game? As we all know the state’s finances are in a far from healthy state, and what quantifiable benefit was there in paying to host such a game?
The fixture was shown on television in Australia, but was not aired overseas so there was little or no benefit in terms of exposure. It was a friendly match, and therefore would have tempted very few supporters from Thailand to make the trip to Perth.
Lastly as the Matildas coach Alen Stajic said on our podcast he wanted to have a camp here in Perth. The reason being that it was closer to the time zone of Jordan where the Asian Cup is being contested, and it would also take most of the players away from their families so they could be in camp and focus on the task ahead. Only two of the players in the squad had family in Perth.
Then, if ever the government needed justification as to why a larger investment was not appropriate, you can look at the crowd on the night of the game. There were 7549 fans who went to the game when the FFA were hoping for almost double that. If the Perth public want to see these teams play in Perth they have to get off their backsides and support the events. It is no use blaming the Government for not throwing more money at it.
Mr Smith then went on to write “there was nothing to help underwrite the cost of the fixture from a tourism budget which contributes big bucks to the likes of the Hopman Cup tennis challenge and the upcoming football clash between Perth Glory and English Premier League heavyweights Chelsea.”
Is this a fair comparison? A one off friendly match against an established International Tennis event?
The Hopman Cup sponsorship through WA Events, which is an arm of Tourism WA, is tied in not just with Tennis Australia but also with the International Tennis Federation. The event has been running now for 30 years. It is an event on the International Tennis Calendar that attracts top international players from around the globe. In 2017 Roger Federer had over 6000 people watch him during an open training session; almost as many as went to watch the Matildas.
In 2018 the match between the United States and Switzerland was watched by 14,029 fans, the largest ever crowd for a tennis match in Western Australia.
Tennis fans will travel to Western Australia to see the top players in action, so it does drive Tourism to the state. The games are shown on television stations around the world so it also brings international exposure to Western Australia, that is the reason why successive Governments have supported the event. There are clear economic benefits to be had.
When it comes to the Chelsea game one can claim that there is not such a strong argument, if you just take the game as a sole event. However it is understood that the Government has negotiated the promotion of Western Australia at Chelsea’s 2019 English Premier League home games as well as on Chelsea TV. Apart from being able to view Chelsea TV online, it is also available in 23 European Nations, North America, Africa, Pan Middle East, Pan Asia but not in China, Korea and Japan. So there is a vast global reach being achieved to showcase Western Australia and over an extended period of time.
Looking at the game as a stand alone event, having a Pre-season Chelsea playing the Perth Glory is not that an appealing match. The fact that the game comes just over a week after the World Cup Final is also not great timing, as many of their stars who will have graced the finals will be taking a well-earned rest. Also, if you are not a Chelsea fan there would not be much interest. However some fans will jump at the chance to see a Premier League side.
As for whether the game will pull in fans from Asia this too is unlikely. Chelsea do not rate as highly in terms of support in Asia compared with their Northern rivals such as Manchester United and Liverpool. In South Korea they are ranked second due to Samsung’s sponsorship. In fact a 2015 report showed that Chelsea’s main support comes from Southern Europe and Latin America with the exception of Chile. In addition Chelsea had a pre-season tour of Asia in 2017 and despite full crowds in China failed to sell out in Singapore against Bayern Munich and only attracted 32,457 against Inter Milan in a stadium that holds 55,000.
Finally, there is the one issue that does have many upset, and that is why the Government are financially backing a private business in such a venture? Perth Glory is privately owned, and will no doubt be allowed to keep any profits from the game once they have covered there own costs. In these tough financial times there are some who believe that any profits should be shared between the Government and the Club, or be paid back to the Government.
To be fair Mr Smith did touch on the issues above when he said “the traditional partnership model still has governments opting in and out of sporting and cultural events by reference to suspect methodology which measures the economic and promotional benefits of those events.”
He then went on to say “It’s a model which disadvantages women’s sports because they don’t have the drawing power of the male codes. The Matildas aren’t going to lure to Perth the number of interstate visitors perhaps attracted to a big Socceroos or Wallabies clash, at least not yet.
But they’re making a considerably bigger, more important impact in football by attracting a new generation of young female — and male — fans to the game and potentially extending its reach.”
This was extremely refreshing to read from a paper that is obsessed with one code of football, and that has given the fledgling female version of that code more coverage of late than many other well established female sporting competitions. So why do they not give the Matildas or other female sporting codes more coverage?
The reason is simple, because just like the Government they make decisions which are based on a commercial return. The Editors at the West Australian will tell you that they have six pages of AFL because that is what the public wants to read. Their sales figures in recent times however may beg to differ.
Mr Smith draws to a close and writes, “You’d like to see our major sporting teams shared equally around the country but the reality is that money talks.” There are many who would like to see The West Australian give our sporting codes equal coverage, let alone the two versions, male and female. The same excuse is given, money talks.
He closed by stating that the Government’s “unwillingness or inability to cough up more money in support of the Thailand clash could jeopardise its chances of securing other Matildas fixtures given competition to secure the team from bigger-spending States.”
Of course the Football Federation of Australia will always look to have to spend the least amount of money when hosting such fixtures. However talking to an FFA official they were extremely happy with the way the camp went in Perth, and the support they received from the local people to ensure all went smoothly. The only area where any disappointment was raised was in relation to the crowd. As mentioned they were hoping that they would have attracted around 14,000 for the game. Could the West Australian newspaper have done more to pull in fans and attract attention? Maybe, but as mentioned their dwindling readership these days means that in the main the sports pages are only read by those who follow AFL.
The crux of the whole issue though is should Governments be bankrolling sporting events? Surely organisations like Rugby Australia, the NRL, the Football Federation of Australia and the AFL should fund such events themselves. Hosting a World event is a different matter and as mentioned there would be clear benefits to Government to be involved.
If we look at Football alone, before the FFA was formed and the game was being administered by the Australian Soccer Association, the Australian Government gave $15million to football. That was the sum Frank Lowy demanded to be involved in the resurrection of the game. In 2008 the Rudd Government gave a further $16 million over two years to support a televised national women’s league, this was quoted as being “on top of existing four-year funding of $16.0 million.” According to a Government website since the establishment of FFA in 2004, the government has provided more than $150 million in support of football in Australia. The FFA has received $122 million of that funding including $16 million from the Australian Sports Commission for High Performance and Sports Participation programs, $57 million of special assistance funding, $7 million for early work associated with hosting the 2015 Asian Cup and $42 million for the 2022 World Cup bid. They are now supporting Australia’s bid to host the Women’s World Cup in 2023.
So should Governments really be spending more on the game, or should they be spending it where it is more needed? Or if money is to be spent on sport is it time more money was spent on the second tier sports?
