Expansion is back on the agenda this week – it has to happen of course, but it has to be done properly.

Fairfax Media reported that the FFA is set to introduce “expansion framework” after meeting with representatives from a Tasmanian bid this week.

Former NSL champions Brisbane Strikers appear set to launch a serious bid supported by former A-League coach Miron Bleiberg, while the rumblings continue about a third team in Sydney, based to the south.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

One thing is clear. If a new team is created, or reintroduced in Strikers’ case, a sense of tribalism is the key to success.

It’s well known the FFA wants to expand the competition in established metro markets. They want to fish where the fish are, and create more big selling, high ratings derbies in the major cities.

The two existing examples of this are Sydney and Melbourne, the latter city having a head start.

But if you ask any punter which derby is more passionate, more tribal and ultimate higher billing, it’s the Sydney version.

Why?

Because Sydney is now a city divided. West versus East, if you like, or at the very least west of the M4 versus east of it.



Battle lines were drawn when Western Sydney was created as a team with a geographical base. The fact that western Sydney as a region was the heartland of “old soccer” helped too, but plenty of Sydney FC fans from the west jumped ship when they were finally given their own team.

The geographical divide alone created a fierce rivalry, us versus them, west versus east, left versus right.

Fans “crossing the border” for big matches at Parramatta Stadium and Allianz Stadium, entering enemy territory, that’s what the Sydney derby is all about.

The Melbourne derby doesn’t have the same passion. It’s hard to replicate when Melbourne City were merely dropped into a city which only had Victory before then, with no clear divide.

They were merely an alternative, another team playing at the same ground, and while the Melbourne derbies have been fantastic football occasions, they have lacked the same sense of tribalism that reigns supreme in Sydney.

There was no reason for Victory fans to jump ship, and so City (nee Heart) relied on people changing sides for no reason, or on people who hadn’t properly supported football at all.

This is why I’m wary of Brisbane Strikers’ bid. Not because they’re not a great club with a decorated history, and not because Brisbane can’t handle a second team.

But aside from the original Strikers support base – who else will follow them or jump ship to give a Brisbane derby the same flavour and passion as the Sydney version?



In my eyes, genuine geographical expansion is the way to go, for now. Tasmania, Geelong, or a return for the Wollongong Wolves are just a few examples.

There will be plenty of time to add more teams to the major cities down the track, or a chance to reintroduce the likes of Strikers, Sydney Olympic, or the Melbourne Knights if we are ever in a position where there are two professional divisions in play.

There’s been a lot of talk about a third Sydney team. But supporters of a southern Sydney team have to be careful what they wish for.

Fish where the fish are, but if you drain the pond then you are asking for trouble, and the area around Kogarah and Hurstville is a stronghold for Sydney FC fans.

The FFA needs to look at places where A-League clubs don’t yet exist, in order to truly expand the competition and give it exposure in centres where it isn’t already prevalent.

Grow the game in different areas first, and give the fans and players a sense of the team being theirs, that it belongs to that stadium, that city, that region.

But if they decide to go the other way and expand in the major cities, the same formula has to be applied.