On Thursday, FFA chief executive David Gallop announced, among other things, in his State of the Game address that “a 10-team competition is not big enough”.

Upon first reading this I disagreed for reasons I will come to later, but it leads to an important question that begs to be asked: what is the right size for the A-League?

Many of you who comment on articles here on The Roar have expressed opinions like Gallop’s, that we need more teams in the league, and some have stated that expansion should coincide with the implementation of the next TV rights deal in Season 13 (2017-18).

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

The various candidates have been championed by many and I don’t want to discuss them in this article.

Discussion about candidates for the A-League generally leads to a focus on which clubs should be included at the expense of the remaining candidates. This view is in my opinion problematic and to the detriment of the development of club football in Australia.

The main thrust of these opinions portrays expansion as the preferred model for the league’s future development and improving its quality. The general idea being that through more teams, there will be more games. That means longer seasons, more opportunities for footballers and increased revenue from TV rights deals.

The problem is that more is not always synonymous with better. More teams in the one league will spread the amount of top talent more thinly within each team, thus diluting the quality of football on display. That will eventually have an influence on the TV ratings, sponsorship, fan engagement and match day revenue.

It is also an exclusive point of view as to which teams deserve to play in the top league. At its very core, it is the subjective assessments by FFA that determine who is admitted. While Gallop and his staff may have done a lot of good things, wouldn’t you rather have your team’s ability to play in the A-League determined by whether they meet the on and off-field standards through playing the game?

As we have seen previously with the experiences of Gold Coast United, New Zealand Knights and North Queensland Fury, expansion hasn’t been without its failures.



So what model is an alternative to expanding the league? Well there could be a push towards having promotion and relegation implemented into the game at elite level. This is an idea that appeals to many.

I prefer the concept of promotion and relegation over expansion as it provides inclusiveness, a better chance of clubs achieving sustainability and stronger incentive to improve. To show this, here’s my concept of how the A-League should implement promotion and relegation.

First, I believe a 10-team competition with a finals series is a large enough group. This would also be the case for a second-tier competition. A finals series would follow, as well as a promotion and relegation series between the two leagues.

By implementing a second tier, all of the potential candidates currently being touted for admission to an expanded A-League would be included. Third Melbourne and Sydney teams, second teams in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane, and other areas like Wollongong, Canberra, North Queensland and maybe even a second New Zealand team in Auckland could be included.

The A-League Two would have lower standards in terms of administration, facilities, playing regulations and squad management in order to allow an easier entry point to professional football. However, upon winning promotion to A-League One, clubs would need to apply for an A-League One license and thus meet the required standards.

Both tiers would be subsidised by FFA through the TV rights deals along the lines of today’s arrangements so that transitioning between tiers is not a painful process. This could be achieved either through a separate A-League Two deal with TV networks or by combining A-League One and Two in a multi-network rights deal.

Currently, each team plays each other three times, yet many view the season as too short. While some advocate expanding the amount of teams to increase the number of games, I believe this can be solved by adding a fourth game to make it a 36-round competition.

Or we could remodel the league along the lines of some of the South American competitions that have in some cases two distinct competitions throughout the season – separating spring and autumn competitions. Exactly how this could be implemented in Australia is complex, but my point is that there are possible alternatives.



Thus, it is clearly possible to have a longer season that includes more games without simply expanding the amount of teams in the league.

Additionally, some readers who are either volunteer (like me) or semi-serious coaches of youth football teams will recognise that dividing the group into smaller sections based upon skill levels will actually lead to more improvement, more quickly. Having smaller groups is preferable because the players play and train with others at a similar level – blowouts are beneficial for neither team and undermine what is being taught.

Selection needs to be dynamic, allowing for more frequent assessment of players’ skills and creating continual challenges that match the players’ skill levels.

I believe this principle applies to the development of the A-League too. Therefore, in order to prolong the development, the idea is to implement two leagues of a smaller size (than would be the case with simple expansion) with a promotion and relegation system in place to allow movement between the leagues to keep them dynamic.

Some of the drawbacks I have heard with both extending the season and promotion-relegation are valid, but can be mitigated.

Would extending the season water down excitement or fan engagement? No. This is not necessarily a problem caused by more games, but more by more meaningless or poor quality games. Thus, the onus is on both administrators and the clubs to keep their football at a sufficiently high level.

Is there enough market demand for a second tier? There’s definitely not as much demand as there is for a top tier and sponsorships, TV ratings, marketing and game-day revenue may be lower for the second-tier. But this represents an opportunity to run a professional setup on a smaller scale.

The salary cap could be lower in A-League Two, the requirements for stadia and broadcasting could be lightened and the club’s administration could be simplified.



Will dropping down a league result in disastrous circumstances? This scenario is not unique to Australia and is part and parcel of almost all other sports globally. This shows it is possible to overcome. But it can be mitigated, similar to England’s competitions, whereby teams relegated receive ‘parachute payments’ from administrators in order to soften the blow.

So what do you think, Roarers? Am I talking complete rubbish or are there some pearls of genius among what you have just read? Do we still need more than 10 teams in the A-League? Or could we possibly go for a scenario like the one I have outlined?