As the Titanic sank the band famously played on.
Is the same true of hockey at this point in time?
The FIH Men’s and Women’s World Cups are currently being held simultaneously in the Netherlands and Belgium and as you would expect the players are giving their all to progress within each tournament, but is the game itself sinking? If not sinking globally, then is it sinking in certain key markets?
The sport has two key events held within a four year cycle, that everyone will agree are the pinnacle of the sport, The FIH World Cup and the Olympic Games. To many the Olympic gold medal being the one that everyone wants. Meaning that being an Olympic Champion means more than being a World Champion. So keeping Olympic status as a sport is vital.
Hockey has been under a little bit of pressure since it was threatened with expulsion from the Olympic Games after 2012. Reports are mixed as to how close the sport actually came to being cut, but this was a wake-up call for the sport.
The IOC apparently has a system in which it’s Olympic Sports are placed in tiers according to their history within the Games and importance today. Not surprisingly Athletics and Swimming are in Tier one along with gymnastics. Depending on which source you go to Hockey fluctuates from tier four and five of the six tiers, modern Pentathlon, golf and rugby sevens consistently being placed in the lowest tier. These are the sports that will be under pressure if the IOC look to trim back the number of sports at the Olympic Games.
The Paris Olympic Games did not do Hockey any favours. The coverage was very poor. The white ball on a blue turf with the sun’s reflection off the turf made it almost impossible to see, and the cameras were too far away from the action, while the commentary was dour.
One of the other issues that continually comes up when new fans try and tune in during the Olympic Games is that the rules are hard to understand, and so many tune into something else. Every year the sport witnesses the rules being tinkered with but never is there a simplifying of the rules so that more people can comprehend the decisions being made by the umpires.
As has been suggested to for CEOs and the past three Presidents of the FIH they need to get players and coaches past and present, along with umpires and broadcasters in a room for at least two days and go through the rules one by one, and not only simplify them, but reduce the number that are open to interpretation, and ensure that they can be adopted at all levels of the game. The focus must be the whole of game, rather than purely the elite side of the game.
Leading into the London Olympic Games we featured the coach of France on Not the Footy Show and they stated how important qualification for the Olympic Games was to them. Only with Olympic qualification would the media in France give the game coverage. This of course had an impact on inspiring children to take up the game, and also attract sponsors.
Things are a little better in Australia but media interest only ramps up when the Olympic Games come around as Australia is expected to medal, yes, expected. The same is true of the Commonwealth Games. Otherwise coverage of the sport is minimal, as it competes with first tier sports for air time.
Technology has now worked against the sport. With broadcasters of the Olympic Games now offering multi-channel options so that you should be able to tune into the sports that you want to watch – In Australia this did not always work during the Paris Games – the number of people tuning into Hockey is reduced, as now in the main only the diehard fans will tune in.
The same problem is there with the current World Cup tournaments. In Australia only the Hockeyroos and Kookaburras games are being broadcast on Channel Seven. How can random sports fans get a perspective on the tournament without having all games being aired. Or even some introduction to the games or conversation at half-time? Viewers literally just get the game. Would this be the case with the Football, Rugby Union Rugby League or Netball World Cups?
If you want to see the other matches they are behind a paywall on the FIH’s third iteration of the Watch Hockey app. Once again only those who already follow the sport will go there to watch games, and in many cases reluctantly. It did not help that the platform fell over the first weekend of the tournament. How does that happen?
If you want to grow the sport it has to be visible. Stuck behind a paywall all you will do is reduce your following as there are simply too many other pay-per-view channels that families give priority too. As mentioned in the most recent Podcast, World Athletics make their events available via YouTube, because they want everyone to have access to them free of charge, and see that as the best way of growing participation and interest.
It is interesting to note that in the USA one of the reasons that the NFL is so strong is that unlike its main rivals Basketball and Baseball it has never gone behind a paywall.
The sad thing is it is not only in Australia where the tournament is not avialable to view, but also in Malaysia one of the hotbeds of Hockey in Asia.
Just last month Malaysians could watch every game of the FIFA World Cup, a tournament in which their country has never qualified for the finals. In fact two channels were broadcasting that event! Now none are broadcasting an event that their national men’s team were competing at.
Malaysia has twice hosted the FIH Men’s World Cup and the Women’s event once. They finished fourth in the 1975 men’s event as hosts.
Malaysia has annually hosted the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup which dates back to 1983. It also hosts one of the only internaional under 21 tournaments the Sultan of Johor Cup. It is a Hockey loving nation.
Yet the reason that there are no broadcasters showing the World Cup or Malaysia’s games at the World Cup is because the audience is no longer there. It is no longer commercially viable to the broadcasters.
This will have a massive impact on the sport. A sport’s visibility is part of its development. Sports grow when children can watch players they admire and idolise them. They then imagine themselves in that player’s shirt.
The rules have played a huge part in this drop off in interest and support. The physicality that has been allowed into the game has put the smaller Asian nations at a huge disadvantage. This is reflected in only one Asian male team being in the top ten teams in the world, India, and they have had to adapt their game and sacrifice some of their traditional play to be able to match the physicality. In the women’s game only China and India are in the top ten. Only two other Asian countries are in the top 20. While in the men Malaysia (14) Japan(17) and China (20) are the only teams in the Top 20.
There can be no doubt that the FIH Pro league has had a great deal to do with the lack of interest from TV stations. How many of those who signed up to air the FIH Pro League are still on board with Hockey?
The FIH promised them and the fans in the words of the then CEO Jason McCracken “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 crowds were good for some games and poor for many and have declined over time. The lack of marketing, and the drawn out length of the league matches with games not being played each week meant that many lost track of what was happening, when games were being played and where. In fact many simply stopped watching at all.
The Pro league has had a direct impact on the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup as the FIH would not allow nations participating in the Pro League to play each other outside of the league, which meant that teams in the top ten in the world rarely participated at the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup. An event that many were frequently involved in. That in turn lowered the quality of the competition, and also meant that Malaysia along with many of the other nations were unable to pit themselves against the better nations to gauge where they stood.
Equally important to games being shown on TV is the access for budding coaches to study what those at international level are doing to affect change in games. Once again across Asia the development of coaching has been neglected with very few top quality coaches from these nations rising to the top.
Another factor that put the top teams off playing these nations was the new World Ranking system which sees higher ranked teams deducted world ranking points if they lose to a lower ranked nation. This is why many have said that World Ranking points should only be available in key tournaments.
The elitism of the FIH Pro League and the effects of it are now becoming obvious to those who are not part of it.It is such a long way from delivering the vision that Jason McCracken and the FIH promised, which was, “We strongly believe that this new competition will fuel the growth of our sport for many years to come, significantly increasing revenues for hockey.”
It is stifling growth and seeing the gap between those in the top six or seven and those outside that group widen. The results at the World Cup are reflecting this. It is also costing those participating a fotune to be a part of it. Costs that some countries realised before it started were unsustainable and some have only realised after being a part of it.
Australia allegedly did not carry out a full audit of whether entering the Pro League was going to be viable. They were also it has been claimed going to withdraw when New Zealand withdrew, only to change their minds at the eleventh hour. The cost of participation is one that all players in Australia have had to bear, as the fees to play locally have risen to try and offset the cost of participation.
Add to that the State bodies participation in Hockey One which replaced the Australian Hockey League; a mini version of the Pro League and the problem the sport faces are magnified.
The Australian Hockey League was always the competition on which final selections for the Kookaburras and Hockeyroos squads were based. Players had to play if they wished to be considered for the national teams. Now there are rumblings of discontent amongst many as the current national players do not have to play or only have to play a reduced number of games in Hockey One. Suddenly it is not an even playing field for all with international ambitions.
The problem here is that Hockey Australia under its former CEO encouraged its players to seek contracts overseas, so that they could earn a living from playing Hockey. Something that they are unable to do in Australia. However, Not The Footy Show has been advised that once a player makes that decision to play overseas, they no longer receive their AIS scholarship funding. As obviously they are no longer a part of the centralised program.
Ironically some of those who have been most vocal speaking out against the centralised program and being away from their home states and clubs are the ones who have opted to head overseas. This would tend to indicate that the centralised program is not the problem, neither is the location. Could it be the problem is in fact money? The lack of payment for being essentially a full time sportsperson.
So, Hockey now faces a problem that Australian football faced in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Players based overseas and unable to be a part of the centralised training program full time. In football those playing in Europe paid their own way back to play for Australia; because the national Association at that time simply could not afford to fly them home for internationals; hence why some of these players have less caps than those who never played outside of Australia. Before the FIFA International breaks there was always a fight between club and country, as the clubs who were paying their wages did not want them to leave. This is now raising its head in Hockey.
Jay Stacy, one of the first Australians to head over and play in the Netherlands in the late 1990’s had agreed to play the season and return to Australia, but then when his club wanted him to prolong his stay he faced a dilemma. The Australian set up at the time took a hard line and said if you want to play for Australia you honour the agreement.
Alyson Annan suffered a similar fate at just 28 years of age. Annan was also playing in the Netherlands and had a commitment to her club, she had also started a degree in sports marketing the year before and was tied into her studies. She offered to return home for two weeks, but her offer was rejected.
In her biography “Beyond the Limits” the Australian Women’s coach at the time, David Bell is quoted as saying, “The difficulty was that she was playing a sport that was centralised in Australia. The ideal world for Alyson was to live in Holland and play for Australia, but when you try to put the dynamics of the group together, if you make allowances for one, you have five or six coming to you asking for the same thing.”
She did not play for Australia, and won the Player of the year in the Dutch League. Many still argue that it was Australia’s loss. Since that time the Hockeyroos have not won a World Cup or an Olympic medal.
Half a century later it is hard to take such a hard line when players have been encouraged to head overseas by those running the game, in order to be paid for their talent. As some have asked, is it morally right for a nation like Australia with so much history in the game to expect other nations to financially support their players?
Another question is can the coaches today take a line similar to that taken with Jay Stacy and Alyson Annan? Would, as some claim, it be a restraint of trade? Or does the coach have the right to select who they wish?
Just as with no free-to-air television coverage if you wish to grow the game these players need to be playing in Australia, even if it is only for the entire Hockey One season.
The centralised National players have been withdrawn from their club sides and many only play limited games, but they are somehow allowed to just return and play finals. This year the Hockeyroos have not been allowed to play for their clubs at all, what does that do in terms of inspiring the next generation? Many of the juniors at these clubs will not even know who these players are, as they never see them play. So they have no chance of being inspired.
With finals just around the corner, after the World Cup finishes there is already debate as to whether those international players who have not played for their clubs should be permitted to play. Some have suggested the clubs as a whole should stand united and not select these players. After all it is harsh on those who have contributed all season to miss out. Another argument that has some validity is how many extra fans will these players add to the gate? Sadly it will not be 100’s, so there is little to be gained for the sport.
Then some players who are part of clubs in the finals will opt to take a vacation after the World Cup rather than return and play, So, as one player suggested if they must play it should be all must play or none. Or should that be all should be available and it is up to the coach as to whether they select them? This is just another area which is proving divisive just like the availability in Hockey One. It needs to be addressed.
The other impact this has is it affects the crowd when the national team plays. There is not the connection between the club players and the national players that there used to be. Suddenly they are expected to support the team when the team – often through no fault of their own – are not supporting the clubs. While their team mates will be there many in the lower grades are missing.
The children are no longer begging their parents to take them to watch their idols because they no longer idolise the players because they cannot see them.
If you ever wanted proof that the game is no longer front of mind, it was there on the weekend. At games in the local competition it was interesting to eavesdrop on the conversations of those about to play. Despite both the Hockeyroos and the Kookaburras playing crucial games at the FIH World Cup, there was no conversation heard on the World Cup. Amongst the men the conversation was AFL and English Premier League. So if those who are playing the game are not engaged, the sport has clearly fallen a long way. Is that down to the visibility and promotion?
The Kookaburras were knocked out off the tournament while the Hockeyroos have progressed to the semi-finals and still have the hope of a medal. They took home bronze four years ago and will be looking to go better this time around. However, one has to point out that this was their only medal in a meaningful competition since silver in the 2018’s Champion’s Trophy and silver in 2019’s first edition of the FIH Pro League, when all nations were committed to the league. For the men, apart from a Silver at the Tokyo Olympics it has been an extremely lean time for a team that was at one time one of the strongest hockey nations.
Another question being asked in Australia is the same as one being asked in Asia where are all the coaches coming through?
For the first time ever Australia appointed a foreigner as a coach of a national team when South African Rhett Halkett was appointed coach of the Hockeyroos. Recently another South African was appointed the Women’s pathway coach.
Halkett may well be the perfect man for the job, but for a nation that is incredibly proud of homegrown talent this revealed a problem. Where are the next generation of International coaches in Australia, and are they up to that level yet? Clearly those making the key decisions felt that they weren’t. So what is being done to give talented coaches the opportunity to gain that knowledge and experience?
In Asia the same is true as overseas coaches are being given the key roles. Some bring a great deal to the table, some less and appear to be attracted to the money on offer, but while these individuals are being employed part of their remit has to be to assist in the development of local coaches to underpin their efforts and improve the nation in the long term.
There are talented coaches out there, many sign up for the various courses and diligently attend them, only to then be passed over by someone who has not made the same commitment, or does not have the same results to back up their claims. There is nothing more demoralising, and so credit should be given to those who still hang in there, for they are truly committed.
There can be no doubt that the sport in Australia has suffered poor management and a lack of awareness as to where it was heading internationally by the board and the CEO’s in at least the last two, possibly three Olympic cycles.
It is no comfort to see other nations in Asia suffering in a similar way. For ultimately it is the sport that is suffering the most.
It was dropped at the recent trimmed Commonwealth Games but is likely to return with India hosting the next games; that is unless Commonwealth Sport, who run the games deem that it was not missed. A decision that will be based on viewership figures and which broadcasters would purchase the rights.
There is an old saying ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it,’ but it would appear that the game is broken. it has hit an iceberg and is listing badly. it needs to be fixed or rebuilt.
There are so many factors that need addressing, with the rules being a priority. The rules have needed serious attention for at least ten years, probably longer. Why is this so hard? Are the right individuals overseeing this, and are they listening to what people in the game and those who aren’t are saying?
The calendar also is crucial with competitions domestically and internationally dovetailing, as young players are being burnt out especially with the Junior World Cup being played every two years. Many young players are not being given the chance to develop properly, and that is apparent in countries like Malaysia where few are ready to step up and replace the senior players. The senior players keep playing even though they are no longer at their peak, and the gap widens between them and those coming into the side. As a result the nation’s performances slip.
Teams can manage a dip as a side transitions but not a slide from which they fail to bounce back.
Does the sport have the right people in place to make the hard decisions. As one former international player stated ‘the game internationally is no better run than a club.’ That may be harsh, but the sentiment is clear. If you look at the administration of the game domestically and internationally you will meet people who are quick to tell you how much they ‘love the sport,’ but does that love blind them from making decisions that have to be made? Did that passion get them the jobs they are in, rather than their expertise?
One area where the Hockey administration in Australia dramatically dropped the ball in the past ten years was as women’s sport came the fore. Australian Women’s hockey had been a dominant team on the sporting landscape for decades, It had been successful on the international stage. They were the first team sport male or female tio win an Olympic team gold medal – based on the IOC’s definition of a team. Here was the perfect time to celebrate that, and have those heroes from the past talk up the sport and its benefits. Nothing happened, and now we see so many women’s sports have passed hockey in terms of profile, sponsorship, funding and participation.
Once again the question has to be asked were the right people at the helm at that time? They may have been nice people, and may have “loved the game” but ultimately they let have the game down.
Where to now? A new CEO is on the cards but will they be able to right the ship as the players continue to play on, or is it time for the lifeboats?
