The crisis has played out in stages over a number of months with each new step requiring detailed explanation of specific, often arcane issues

Australian football is once again in turmoil. It is being forced to change its governance arrangements but stakeholders have been unable to agree on what the new structure should look like.



FFA put eggs in Fifa basket as Australian football descends into chaos once again | Jonathan Howcroft Read more

As things stand Football Federation Australia has until 30 November to find a solution on its own before Fifa intervenes. Last week, two days of talks, observed by a Fifa delegation, failed to break the impasse. These negotiations were seen as the last realistic hope of a straightforward resolution to the conflict.

Given the complex nature of the unfolding crisis and it intricacies, it has been easy to miss the full picture. Below is an attempt to give a broader understanding of what is currently dividing the football community.

Governance

Underpinning everything is Australia’s governance model. FFA’s congress, the body that elects members of the FFA board and approves changes to the constitution, has been deemed by Fifa not “in accordance with the principles of representative democracy”. It contains only 10 voting members – the lowest of any Fifa administration. Nine of those 10 are state and territory federations, and Fifa has demanded a broader spread of stakeholders be represented.

For Australia to remain part of the Fifa family it is compelled to restructure. Discussions between FFA and Fifa took place in 2016 with an initial deadline for changes to be made set for the end of March 2017, this was extended to the end of November.



The delay, and increasing ire among all parties, is due to an inability to agree what the new make-up of congress should look like. The nine state and territory federations seem certain to remain in place, the players’ union, Professional Footballers Australia, will gain at least one seat, perhaps two, but the sticking point is over how many seats A-League clubs receive. They currently have one member but want an increase in representation that reflects their role as the lead revenue generators in the game. They began negotiations asking for six members but agreed to settle for five before a compromise deal collapsed.

The FFA board currently currently exerts significant influence over congress. It knows it has to dilute some of that authority but appears reluctant to relinquish an amount sufficient for a bloc to form against its interests. Negotiations of the past months have indicated commonality between clubs, the players’ union, and some states.

Change is inevitable – it is Fifa mandated – it just remains to be seen exactly how much power is redistributed from the states and territories, and to whom.

A-League independence

While democratic reform is a standalone issue, a significant motivating factor for the clubs is their interest in moving towards a more autonomous or independent A-League. They believe an independent league is central to the development of the game, arguing that greater autonomy would allow the competition to operate more successfully as a commercial venture. The seminal Crawford Report advocated this back in 2003 but it has never been implemented.

FFA has so far resisted any change, opting to retain central control of the professional game, much to the frustration of clubs. However, it acknowledged earlier this month that it “has strongly accepted and promoted the fact that the time has come to create a new operating model for the A-League that will give clubs more influence, attract more capital into the game, increase the value of the investment made by current owners and allow the league to expand with new clubs to 12 teams in the near future and then to 14 teams and beyond in the years ahead as it becomes financially viable to do so”.

It remains to be seen how any new operating model feeds back into the broader system, and there’s little doubt this will prove a controversial subject if a devolution process occurs. Clubs are yet to publish their intentions and are reluctant to do so until the governance issue is resolved.

Money

Why even $346m is not enough to prevent civil war in Australian football | Shaun Mooney Read more

FFA revenue has plateaued around $100m p.a. – roughly the same cost as running the game – meaning there is no spare money available to do anything more than what is already being done. That means the various populist causes such as A-League expansion, a national second tier, reducing the cost of grassroots football and so on, cannot be funded until new money is found.

The broadcast rights deal signed in December 2016 is significant to the timeline. Despite attracting a record sum – $58m p.a. for six years – it was a long way short of the hoped-for $80m p.a. and nowhere near enough to finance the growing number of high-profile ambitions. This was the last foreseeable game changer.

In addition to the challenge of growing revenue, clubs are arguing for a greater slice of the existing pie. They believe they are only receiving half the revenue generated by the A-League in redistributed funds, revenue that comprises up to 85% of the game’s income. Their existing allocation is $2.6m per club; FFA’s offer for 2017-18 is $3.25m, which was rejected by clubs, who are looking for closer to $6m.

The clamour for advancing the game is not going away. There is discontent at the professional level from clubs and players, the second tier is increasingly assertive, new franchises are stating their cases, all against a backdrop of challenges at the grassroots, issues with development pathways and frustration with the progress of national teams. To satisfy these ambitions money needs to be found from somewhere or for those ambitions to be put on hold. FFA has taken a safety-first approach which is not delivering what its restless audience wants.

“Football can have it all – a popular, financially stable and growing A-League; a flourishing grassroots and national and club teams that are routinely competitive on the global stage,” FFA chairman Steven Lowy said recently.

The question is, where will the money come from to fund it, and how long will it take to arrive?

Philosophy

Depending on your confirmation bias you can see what you want to see in recent events. At one extreme it could be a power grab from clubs risking the security of the game as a whole for financial gain; at the other it’s a reluctance to accept a new reality by a recalcitrant leadership prepared to retain power at all costs.

Lowy outlined his position earlier this month. “We are involved for no other reason than to serve our country and see football continue to grow, prosper and build on the huge gains of the past 13 years and to honour the legacy of those who served the game for decades before that.”

Simon Pearce, vice chairman of Melbourne City, and a leading figure behind the Australian Professional Football Clubs Association, outlined his club’s vision earlier this month. “I was asked recently what the ultimate ambition of the A-League should be, and it’s a simple question to answer: we are all here to create the best possible football competition that we can.” He added: “A competitive league creates tension that drives up the standard of youth training. Supporting and developing footballing pathways in a commercially sustainable way is our greatest responsibility and our greatest opportunity.”

Is Australian football ready to move on from the Lowy era, one synonymous with stability? Do we all just need to remain patient and allow the game to evolve at a reliable pace? Or, is it time to harness the ambition and energy of people within the community competing to get on the inside?

The game is heading for its most significant development since the creation of FFA. It has provided an opportunity to ask (and attempt to answer) the biggest questions concerning the game in this country, its purpose, and organisation. Joe Gorman’s recently published book charting the volatile history of football in Australia could hardly have been better timed.

Anything else?

Other issues are becoming increasingly relevant. Chief among them the opaqueness of FFA finances, an issue A-League clubs are pursuing in court, and likely to provide the next flashpoint.

What happens next?

FFA is committed to finding a solution before 30 November.



Should that fail Fifa has the power to suspend Australia from Fifa-mandated competitions. If this occurs, the board’s position would become untenable.



Should it be required, Fifa has the power to implement a normalisation committee which would oversee a transition of the board in a process that can take up to a year. Last year Argentina and Guinea received visits from normalising committees with the boards and presidents of both federations replaced.



How this process would be carried out in Australia remains unclear. There is currently no indication of how a normalisation committee would be comprised, nor how it would discharge its responsibilities. A Fifa spokesperson told Guardian Australia “an assessment of the recent visit of the Fifa/AFC mission to Australia will follow in due time.” In the meantime, the world governing body is “not in a position to comment nor speculate on potential future scenarios”.