Show caption The AAFC say they have attempted to engage FFA in dialogue, with no success. Photograph: Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty Images Lack of meaningful debate reigns over football's proposed second tier Jonathan Howcroft Decisions about how the game is run in Australia continue to play out with a lack of transparency or accountability @JPHowcroft Sun 29 Oct 2017 19.19 EDT Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email 2 years old

There was an all-too brief but nonetheless glorious moment on Friday afternoon when meaningful debate on the future of Australian football threatened to emerge. This came in response to a discussion paper seeking feedback on a potential national second tier. Unfortunately the fun was over almost before it began with Football Federation Australia moving quickly to suck any breeze from the kite-flying exercise and issuing a media release stripping the conversation of any realism.

The proposed second tier, dubbed The Championship, is the brainchild of the Association of Australian Football Clubs, a lobby group formed to advance the cause of clubs competing in the National Premier League and the more than 30,000 players in their systems. Rabieh Krayem, the organisation’s chairman, said he was dismayed by FFA’s reaction.



“We have written to them on a number of subjects to engage them but they have not responded,” Krayem told Guardian Australia, contradicting FFA’s statement that they have “yet to have been engaged” about the proposal.



“We’ve been communicating with the FFA since our association was formed in March. We’ve been corresponding with them, they have not returned that correspondence. In our August meeting with the FFA, AFC, and Fifa we acknowledged we were working on a discussion paper for a second tier competition to be released by the end of October.”



Krayem was also disappointed by FFA’s implication the new competition would be a drain on resources. “It is very clear in our modelling that this second tier will be self-funded. Our discussion paper clearly outlines this does not require any funding from the FFA, member federations, or anybody else,” he said. Adding, “in our meeting with Fifa, AFC and FFA they [FFA] made it clear they don’t have any money, and we told them we’re not looking for any money from them. The disappointing part is they’ve come out with comments without entering into the consultation process, and with preconceived ideas.”



Krayem has written to FFA chief executive David Gallop to raise these concerns. The letter concludes: “May I suggest, with the greatest of respect David, that perhaps your initial position ought not to be ‘this won’t work’; but ‘how can we work together to make this a reality for the betterment of the code?’”



The FFA release also makes reference to the need for any scheme to have “broad support” from the football community, including member federations, A-League clubs and FFA – stakeholders already consulted according to the AAFC’s letter.

“In our discussions with the A-League clubs, the PFA and some of the state federations, and subsequent to release of the preferred model on Friday, many of the stakeholders have agreed in principle to our proposal.

“Of course, there is discussion to be had in relation to its final shape, and how The Championship is best integrated with the A-League and the state based NPL competitions – but that is the purpose of consultation.”



PFA chief executive John Didulica told Guardian Australia that “we share a collective ambition for the sport and always welcome the discussion.”

“Ultimately, the game needs to align around raising standards and creating quality opportunities across the industry,’ Didulica said. “We need to build our international competitiveness, so there is no harm in bringing people together to help achieve these objectives, provided it is done from a position of knowledge and genuine collaboration.”

Genuine collaboration in Australian football – including that involving head office – has been in short supply. FFA’s response to the AAFC ends with a quote from David Gallop.

“Certainly at the right time a second tier is part of our own thinking about the future of the game,” the CEO said.

It’s hard not to decode that as the FFA establishing the future of the game will happen on its terms, and its terms only.

Against the backdrop of political infighting, the A-League season continues. Photograph: Nigel Owen/Action Plus via Getty Images

There are parallels to be drawn with the breakdown in FFA’s relationship with A-League clubs. There has been a failure to collaborate effectively on a revised A-League operating model, on revenue distribution, and on how much influence over congress clubs are entitled to for generating around three-quarters of the game’s income. All of these issues have contributed to the governance crisis that has handicapped the game for a year.



That crisis took another twist over the weekend with clubs withdrawing their threat to seek an injunction to Wednesday’s extraordinary general meeting, instead calling on FFA to cancel the meeting. The EGM was called by FFA to vote on expanding Australian football’s congress along the lines of FFA’s preferred 9-4-1-1 model, an outcome A-League clubs are vehemently opposed to.



“Our membership calls unanimously for the FFA board to rescind its EGM motion and to return urgently to the process of meeting Fifa’s clearly stated requirements for the governance reform process,” wrote Greg Griffin, chairman of the Australian Professional Football Clubs Association in a letter to FFA chairman Steven Lowy seen by Guardian Australia.



“It is vitally important that it is understood by the entire FFA board that, for all APFCA Members, the board’s credibility and its continuing mandate is dependent on it withdrawing this EGM.

“The decision to enforce a member federation-facilitated motion could only be interpreted as a final cynical act to undermine the governance reform envisaged by Fifa and those stakeholders who are underrepresented and without representation in the current congress.”



Griffin’s reference to stakeholders without representation could arguably include the AAFC, who have been lobbying unsuccessfully for their own seat at congress. At present, the agents for NPL interests are the member federations – the same group Griffin previously argued were gerrymandering on behalf of the FFA board.



All the while, there is next to no transparency or accountability. This festering dispute continues to be played out behind closed doors with only perfunctory attempts to communicate the situation. Football fans haven’t seen their game’s leaders front press conferences or take dedicated interviews; challenging questions haven’t been posed or answered publicly; arguments haven’t been prosecuted. It is as if it is all occurring in a parallel universe.



This is all compounded by a dispiriting lack of media coverage and interrogative challenge, contributing to a poorly-informed football family at arm’s length from a process that will fundamentally alter how the sport in Australia is run.



One relevant example, specific to Wednesday, involves the voting intentions of the member federations. Back in August there was a presumption that of the nine member federations the FFA could count on seven votes, with the support of Football NSW unlikely, and the undecided Football Federation Victoria emerging as kingmaker. “Our understanding is that the FFA board is engaged in ongoing meetings with member federations to recruit them to supporting the EGM,” wrote Griffin in his most recent letter to Lowy.



How does this recruitment manifest? What – if any – horse trading is taking place? Where is the documented reasoning behind the member federations’ decisions? What factors are influencing votes? Where is the transparency and accountability of decision-makers representing vast numbers of constituents?

