“Welcome to day one of the 20-day PR war.” That was the foreboding message I received last Wednesday by someone close to the latest chapter in Australian football’s governance crisis.



Wednesday was 1 August, the day after the Congress Review Working Group submitted its report to Fifa. As predicted, it was a day full of media releases, a day awash with spin but bereft of substance, and the start of a run of up to 20 days of filibustering.

Why 20 days? Fifa’s Member Associations Committee meets on 20 August to consider the 100-page CRWG document. A Fifa statement approving or rejecting the proposal is expected on the 21st. That in turn will spark another skirmish, likely to last until the FFA special meeting, scheduled to take place in mid-September, when the CRWG proposal will be put to a vote of FFA’s 10 congress members.

Amongst the spin, what can we confirm? And what can we expect to happen from here?

As a starting point we know the CRWG has submitted a proposal to Fifa in accordance with its terms of reference. We know the CRWG document was signed off by an independent chair (Judith Griggs), and all working group members, including FFA director Chris Nikou. We know during its lifespan the CRWG received submissions from a variety of special interest groups. What we don’t know yet is the content of the report, which is not currently in the public domain, although there are suggestions it could be distributed as soon as next week.

We also know for certain that the board of Football Federation Australia is unhappy with elements of the proposal. Until the report is published, along with FFA’s concerns, we can only speculate as to what these crucial aspects are. It is believed to come down to the specifics around the process for establishing a new A-League operating model, and bloc voting thresholds, the sticking point that has proven insurmountable throughout the months-long melee.

Disagreement with the CRWG findings is shared by Australian football’s four smallest member federations (none of whom had a seat on the CRWG but did contribute to the selection of the four delegates representing the member federations as a stakeholder bloc). Both FFA and the four-member federation alliance dispute suggestions there is anything untoward in this similarity of opposition to the CRWG proposal, an eventuality that could be viewed as serendipitous.

Despite the concerns raised by the FFA board and the four member federations it is hard to establish what mechanisms, if any, remain at their disposal to influence the proposal now that it has been submitted to Fifa. One person close to the process described Fifa’s position as “binary”.

Why the member federation opposition to the recommendations is important has not been broached publicly by participants but is understood clearly behind the scenes. The four member federations each have a vote at the FFA special meeting that will determine the success of the CRWG proposal (if, as expected, it is approved by Fifa). Should three or more of these member federations vote against the recommendations the proposal will fail and the congress expansion process will once again require rebooting.

As a side note, it is relevant here to point out that during this entire congress reorganisation failure two processes have been operating in tandem: one involves FFA discharging its responsibilities in accordance with Australian corporate law, the other FFA attempting to comply with its obligations as a member of Fifa. The space between the two is at the heart of the latest impasse.

FFA’s governance arrangements satisfy Australian corporate law but they are considered unsuitable by Fifa. However, any changes requested by Fifa have to be enacted in accordance with Australian corporate law. Consequently, to FFA as a legal entity, the CRWG recommendations are only that – recommendations – to be put to the 10 voting members of an Australian corporation. What happens at the vote is the purview of the 10 voting members.

Throughout this process FFA has been consistent in acting in accordance with Australian corporate law. However, the nature of the existing congress has made passing reform within this framework extremely challenging. Consensus has proven elusive for over two years, for example when FFA’s proposed solution was put to congress late last year it was voted down.

Back to Fifa. Every time there has been a blockage in the reform process Fifa has been invited to intervene. However, their influence extends only so far. It cannot compel FFA to do anything to change its constitution under Australian corporate law, it can only offer incentives to reform (continued membership of Fifa) and disincentives for recidivism (threats of, and eventually suspension from, Fifa).

To date Fifa has done all it can to facilitate Australia’s stakeholders into reaching an outcome on their own that doesn’t require a drastic intervention but they are running out of options. If the CRWG they mandated fails at September’s meeting then the issue will be returned to their Member Association Committee for further consideration. Their next decision will likely prove the most crucial of all in this omnishambles.

Faced with yet another failure on the part of FFA to pass reform, especially with the latest incidence a public rejection of a proposal with Fifa’s imprimatur, the Member Association Committee will be left with little room to manoeuvre. The imposition of a normalisation committee remains an option but it has been suggested the CRWG was already considered “normalisation-lite” by the world governing body. Consequently suspension now appears a likelier outcome.

This is the doomsday scenario and could jeopardise Australian participation in all major events, including the Socceroos’ bid to defend the Asian Cup and the Matildas’ quest for a World Cup in 2019. Fifa have form in this regard too. In 2015 they prevented Indonesia from competing in qualifiers for Russia 2018 and UAE 2019.

We may be a few days into a 20 day PR war right now, but the stakes are rising, fast.