As some of you will know by reading our BBS or our TV & Media newsletter there is a proposal afloat for two AFL clubs to play a match in late January, 2004 in Los Angeles, California. We know for sure that the Kangaroos are involved. Early reports indicated the other club would be the Adelaide Crows however now we believe they are no longer interested. Details on this match remain pretty sparse beyond this.
While this might ordinarily be cause for great rejoicing, you'll excuse me for being a bit wary. No organization has more strongly pursued an exhibition match involving AFL clubs in North America than has AFANA. We've been lobbying for a match since our inception back in 1996. However, at each and every turn we have warned the AFL that they should not repeat the mistakes made with some of the matches held in the USA and Canada in the late 1980's.
First and foremost among those warnings has been that the worst thing they could do is schedule an exhibition with only a few months notice at an inappropriate venue. Sadly, that appears to be exactly what is happening here.
With no formal announcement yet made, we are now just 3 1/2 months from the proposed date of about 25 January, 2004. This is insufficient time to properly promote the event and the timing could not be worse it from a media perspective.
In case no one has noticed, there will be a presidential election next year in the US. The date chosen (during the weekend of "Australia Day") happens to be less than 4 weeks prior to the California presidential primary and smack dab between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. It is also about a week prior to the NFL Super Bowl. It should be obvious that getting media attention for this event will be very difficult. Further, very few Americans either know what Australia Day is about or care.
There isn't time to plan for the large numbers of US and Canadian fans likely to travel long distances to attend. This includes adequate hotel rooms, airline travel, car parking, security, etc. Fans also require time to arrange work schedules so they can get the time away from the job or family. The last weekend in January is about the worst winter weather weekend nationally making it all the more complicated for travelers.
We're not sure where this event will be held. A report in the Melbourne press indicated it would be at "UCLA Arena". There is no such venue and in fact, there isn't so far as we can determine, any appropriate venue on the UCLA campus. The only potential venues nearby, except for a temporarily constructed site, are the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum. Both are too large and expensive. Any location must be appropriately sized and have a suitable field as well as spectator amenities.
Any provision for television coverage is also a concern as taped delayed coverage of the exhibition would stand to be a significant promotional vehicle for the sport on this continent. It troubles us that there is no evidence any of the major footy organizations in the US or Canada, including AFANA, have been contacted regarding this event.
AFANA has written Rod Austin (acting General Manager for Football Operations) at the AFL with our concerns. We want an exhibition here but we want it to be the huge success it can be for the sport. The worst outcome from our standpoint would be another failure or an event that generates the wrong kind of publicity due to poor planning.
-Rob (who first talked to the AFL about an exhibition in 1996)
Posted by rkdesantos at October 9, 2003 05:12 PM
Related Blog Entries:
Great idea Rob, and if you need a photographer for the event that knows his way around a football match, let me know and I'll organise a passport and some free time early next year. Anyone interested in sponsoring a photographer?
All the best getting the match and the AFL on board.
Derrick
Posted by: Derrick den Hollander at October 11, 2003 03:36 AMThanks Derrick, and if the opportunity arises you'll be kept in mind. Again, I'd love to see an exhibition match in the US or Canada. But the proposal now out there is not one that I am comfortable with.
It's nice that the AFL does the match in London each year but according to the report on our web site posted today, the match yesterday was attended by just under 13,000 and half were ex-pats. So what's the point? I want a properly promoted match in the US to draw 20 to 30,000 and have 80% be native Americans or Canadians.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at October 12, 2003 01:32 PMYour concerns are totally valid, all around. As someone who lives in LA, I wouldn't have to worry about airfare, etc., but I'd still need parking and as you put it, "spectator amenities."
And you're right -- it's not going to come off well if the only people who show up are AFANA members and people involved with the local footy clubs. I do think it would be a mistake to over-focus promotion on fans of US football, or even soccer; the constant-motion aspect of the game could easily appeal to basketball fans, for instance. (Of course, it would be an even bigger mistake not to promote the exhibition at all.)
I suppose part of the problem from the AFL's side is that this game would have to be held here in advance of both the regular season and the Wizard Cup pre-season games. Given the strain of the trans-Pacific flight, I can easily see the teams wanting to do this so they have plenty of time back in Australia to recuperate before they have to play there.
George
Posted by: George Madison at October 13, 2003 12:06 AMSpectator amenities would obviously include parking but also include concessions, washrooms, etc. This is particularly important if the venue isn't a traditional "stadium" or a temporarily constructed venue.
I'm not so much worried about attendees being just local AFANA members or footy clubs since by themselves those groups don't have the numbers to matter. They do matter on a national basis though and would represent a significant portion of those likely to travel to see the match. They also would have a majority that would be American or Canadian born. Two thirds of the footy audience in this country is already non ex-pat.
From my view, it's not about promoting this to US football fans. It is about promoting the match both locally and nationally well enough to the existing fan base to get the numbers needed to succeed. First time out, we're likely to get big numbers from current fans or at least those already with a vague interest in the sport. To get the potential fan means local promotion thru local media.
I understand why the AFL clubs might want to play this well in advance of their first Wizard Cup match but the date under consideration is just ill advised. Far better would be to look at a date after the 2004 season or a date sometime in early 2005.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at October 13, 2003 12:40 AM I think a match in the U.s is an exelant Idea, I have attended 2 games at the Oval in London this year and last, this year was fantastic and regards to a small 13000 crowd, the stadium was almost full to capacity and the atmosphere was fantastic it took me back to the early eighties in melbourne attending small grounds like western oval and morrabin, both teams gave comitment and passion unlike the year before.
yes promotion is important and the game actualy got coverage in the free london paper,Metro, before and after the game which is more than I expected as the A.F.l.gf is lucky to get a mention at all which is something that needs remidie
keep up the good work
sinderely brenton bishop
p.s. please excuse the spelling mistakes
Posted by: Bishop Brenton at October 13, 2003 04:17 PMSpelling mistakes excused. :-)
So there is no misunderstanding... 13,000 might well be a solid crowd for the U.K., I couldn't say. I'd like to think that with proper planning we could do better here. Something about having 300,000,000 to draw from.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at October 13, 2003 04:34 PMI don't normally make too many comments on chat pages like this too much but I thought I would make the comment on "The Oval game" and detail some of it's benefit for the League in the UK.
It has created good links between Surrey Cricket Club and the BARFL which may of benefit in the future as the league expands. We had 2 pages on the program where we were able to promote our sponsors and explain that the league it not just for Aussies. We were able to take BARFL sponsors to lunch in the Bedser lounge, current and new sponsors for 2004 which are yet to be announced.
We made contact also with potential sponsors at the game and other functions held in London.
The game was on SKY and we always have a BARFL player commenting on the game from the studio. That player is always British and he is Ronnie Wilkinson (you can see him on the BARFL video section - "The Footy Show".
Our new sponsor in 2003 Vili's Pies sold a lot of Pies at the Ground and the league gave Vili's the contact.
There is a definite benefit for leagues having an AFL game. A lot of time is required for organising it. I'm sure we could have done more but having a full-time job prevents every idea that we have being achieved.
In regard to the size of the crowd. The Oval is not a big ground. Full capacity is less than 20,000 at the moment (though is being expanded next year)
Although these exhibition games aren't set up to really promote International Football they do help them and one day they just might be there for that purpose.
I hope these comments are constructive and maybe give you ideas for a game in the US.
Posted by: Martin Tunley at November 5, 2003 07:00 AMThanks for your feedback, Martin. BARFL has done a fine job in regards to the annual AFL match in London. There is much in your efforts for us to copy here, if we get the right opportunity.
My concern about the LA proposal remains that it is ill timed, apparently not well thought out, and it does not involve AFANA (or the USAFL to our knowledge) which eliminates any chance we have to follow the London example. With five times the potential audience here, we should be able to do better attendance wise. California alone has over half the population of the UK. We have to have a bigger ground to start with.
In your comments, you stated that the matches aren't setup to promote international footy. (You wouldn't know that by how the AFL tries to portray them to the Australian media.) The fault with this is with the AFL not BARFL. If they aren't doing them to promote footy in the UK then it is a sad commentary on the AFL's priorities.
I'm encouraged that SKY covers it and provides an opportunity for participation by a British commentator. We can only hope that we get the same chance here.
Thanks again for your comments. Much appreciated. As an addendum... we still have no confirmation from the AFL that this proposal will go ahead or any further details from the organizers.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at November 5, 2003 11:05 AM