When Football Federation Australia announced last week that it had called an extraordinary general meeting on 1 November “to vote on resolutions to change FFA’s constitution in order to expand representation on its congress,” it heralded the final stage in the imbroglio that has undermined Australian football for months. Unfortunately this endgame promises to be long and bitter with the civil war that has simmered behind the scenes ready to burst into the open.

FFA has waited until the last moment to call the EGM in a bid to keep open all possible routes to an amicable conclusion for as long as practical, proceed in accordance with Australian corporate law and stave off the threat of Fifa’s normalisation committee. An amicable conclusion appears as far away as ever.

The EGM resolution proposes to enlarge congress with the widely reported 9-4-1-1 model. The raw numbers here are less relevant than the percentage of power they represent. 75% of votes are required to amend the constitution, 60% to elect a board member and 50% to remove them. As things stand, member federations as a bloc comprise 90% of voting power, and under FFA’s revised model would still occupy 60%.

This does not meet with the approval of A-League clubs, who, along with Professional Footballers Australia, want to see a greater reduction in the voting bloc power of the state federations. In their eyes this would remove the opportunity for what Greg Griffin – chairman of Adelaide United as well as the Australian Professional Football Clubs Association – termed the gerrymandering of board appointees in an explosive missive to FFA chairman Steven Lowy earlier this month.

“There is no polite way of describing this other than it being an attempt to perpetuate the existing gerrymander which has resulted in there only being 12 new board appointments to the FFA board over a 14-year period without any dissent from the member federations so as to ensure that the existing board of the FFA maintains absolute control over who is to stay on or be invited to join the board”.

It is hard to disagree with the position Griffin lays out. It also begs the question: why are FFA so keen to micromanage the composition of the board, and risk everything to continue doing so?

The clubs believed member federations had agreed to a 9-5-2 model (since refined to 9-5-1-1) back in August when the Fifa/AFC delegation visited Sydney. It was revealed at the time that Lowy intervened twice to prevent consensus being reached.

The value of this single vote difference, or more pertinently, the 3.75% share of congress voting power cannot be overstated. It is the trigger for civil war.

Before FFA’s announcement of an EGM, Griffin informed Lowy that should he proceed with the meeting against the clubs’ wishes, the clubs would seek an injunction to prevent the vote from taking place. That threat remains, but it is by no means a certainty, with the clubs mulling a dilemma at the heart of the impasse.

As outlined above, FFA are keen to make clear they are proceeding in accordance with Australian corporate law. However, the progression of any agreed expansion of congress is only worth the paper it’s written on until it has been ratified by Fifa, and Fifa operates to a different standard. By taking FFA to court the clubs risk fighting a losing battle on procedural ground, and in so doing jeopardising the goodwill of Fifa, who, ultimately, wield the heaviest gavel.

Fifa’s position at this late stage remains the great unknown. They appear to be trying to avoid passing judgement at all costs, hoping for the situation to resolve itself. The relevant passage in Fifa’s statutes (15. j) is suitably vague: “Legislative bodies must be constituted in accordance with the principles of representative democracy and taking into account the importance of gender equality in football.”

In a letter to Steven Lowy dated 22 September, Fifa secretary general Fatma Samoura stated: “Fifa and AFC reiterate that the responsibility to reach agreement on a consensual membership model lies with the FFA and the stakeholders (member federations, A-League clubs and PFA). However, we remain hopeful that a consensual agreement can be finally reached in the interest of Australian football.”

This is consistent with all Fifa communication during this period, with the repeated identification of the various stakeholder groups continually standing out. Clearly consensus has not been achieved that includes all stakeholders.

However, in a letter from Lowy to Fifa on 18 September, the FFA chairman provides the logical counterpoint: “... the nine member federations have clearly demonstrated good faith in seeking to reach a unanimous position through their engagement with the A-League clubs and the PFA. It is apparent that this has not proved possible and you would appreciate that it was always going to be unlikely. To the point, we contemplated throughout and you also noted at the start of the meetings in Sydney that a 100% outcome may not be forthcoming and this eventuality is clearly recognised in corporate governance best practice models and legislation that require special majorities, rather than unanimity amongst members.”

In other words, that one vote or 3.75% impasse is too significant to ever be overcome, the state federations are happy, so life should go on. Bonita Mersiades, former head of corporate and public affairs at FFA, reported on Saturday that Lowy had met with Fifa president Gianni Infantino in Zurich late last week. Fifa’s member associations committee meets in the first week of December to adjudicate.

Whichever way Fifa leans the future looks toxic with potentially catastrophic consequences. The bitterness between the warring factions is so intense there seems little hope of reconciliation, especially with Lowy in charge.

Should Fifa’s threatened normalisation committee be imposed there remains the possibility FFA could challenge the decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, prolonging the instability. Depending on that judgement, Fifa may yet consider the situation so unworkable FFA’s membership is revoked and an alternative governing body is recognised.

Should Fifa ratify FFA’s model of an expanded congress the clubs are prepared to consider all retaliatory measures at their disposal. As things stand nothing is considered off the table. The clubs foresee this outcome as one whereby they have nothing left to lose.

All of this may appear esoteric squabbling among powerful men and women in business suits but there is operational fallout. The most significant example is the stalling of the development of a new A-League operating model, the revenue-raising centrepiece of the next phase of football’s growth in Australia.

Constructive dialogue between clubs and FFA led to the formation of a working group in April to explore the issue further. However, collaboration ceased after the first meeting in tandem with the congress expansion dispute. This project had trust issues of its own with clubs dissatisfied at the level of financial information provided to them by FFA, to the point where earlier this year Griffin threatened legal action to access details of the A-League’s accounts. it appears clubs will finally receive these figures early next week.

An independent A-League was a recommendation of the seminal reports into the founding of the competition and it has recently been considered the primary mechanism to raise revenue sufficient to satisfy the the Australian football community’s long and growing wishlist. Without it, there appears only enough money to cover ongoing costs, and little spare with which to speculate.

FFA remains confident the work on a new operating model is progressing well, with the possibility of a new structure in place in time for the 2018-19 season. However, clubs are unlikely to participate in further discussions with the FFA under Lowy’s leadership.

The clubs have also continued to pursue the cause on their own, leading them to conclude the A-League, under its current guise, has higher operating costs than should be reasonably expected and is delivering a commercial inventory less than its potential value. At the moment clubs do not want to publicise any competing vision, preferring to pursue all options within the existing framework.

If this position changes it could prove a decisive moment in the saga. To this point clubs have not engaged persuasively in the public relations war, laying themselves open to accusations of power grabbing and risking the prosperity of the football pyramid as a whole for commercial gain. If they could convincingly disprove that perception it would go a long way to reshaping the discursive framework.

While the prize fight is between the FFA and A-League clubs the undercard should not be overlooked. NPL clubs, coalescing as the AAFC, are agitating for a seat at the table and they don’t look to be going away anytime soon. Then there’s the lack of action in response to the Garcia Report exposing Australia’s dubious practices during the bidding process for the 2022 World Cup; Bonita Mersiades continues to ask questions but answers remain elusive. And now there’s the apparent mismanagement of the Socceroos coach.

Get used to the crisis headlines, get used to the legalese, get used to civil war. This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.