Quite by accident, I was talking to a member who rang AFANA yesterday and he asked my assessment of the new top management at the AFL. That's still pretty much an open question at this early date but among the questions facing Mr. Demetriou and the other top AFL execs is the future of some struggling AFL clubs. An interesting argument by Scott Wickstein is here:
Ubersportingpundit: AFL Perestroika.
While I'm not yet convinced the AFL is headed down to 12 clubs as Scott is, I am convinced that some of the current clubs, particularly the two or three weakest clubs in Melbourne won't be around a decade from now.
Their lifeline at the moment is the AFL's promise to run a 16 team comp until the conclusion of the current TV contract (end of 2006 season). That and the money from the disposal of the Waverley property have allowed the AFL to prop up distresssed clubs. The money and the contractual guarantee won't go on forever.
The sporting market is international as I have argued here before. Whether the AFL and the Australian sporting public fully accepts it, the reality is that the major international sporting organizations are already in the AFL's backyard. Soccer and rugby are merely the tip of the iceberg. The major North American sports bodies (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA) are already on Australian TV and their merchandise is in Aussie stores. Premier League is pushing it's marketing harder in Oz (witness the recent Essendon - Man Utd deal). When the multi-channel digital TV universe finally takes hold down-under coverage will expand even further (something has to fill all that bandwidth!). (Exercise for the Melbourne based reader: count the number of jerseys or jackets of an American college on the streets on a given day... compare it to the number of AFL jerseys and jackets.)
The AFL's future growth and survival depend on being competitive with those foreign codes both domestically and ultimately internationally. While parity NFL style or "AFL socialism" as Scott Wickstein refers to it, is desirable from a fan interest standpoint, it can be carried too far.
The weakest AFL clubs will ultimately have to fold or merge. It's simply unrealistic to think that the AFL will go on for very long past 2006 in loaning and giving extraordinary aid to clubs such as Melbourne, North Melbourne, and St. Kilda. Sure, one of them might stage a recovery in the short term as Hawthorn did after the failed merger about a decade ago. But in the longer term either there must be even more massive revenue sharing (ala baseball) or some clubs will have to go.
It's hard to think of any other major international city outside Melbourne that has so many major sporting clubs based there and competing for the same sponsorship dollars. With the entry of foreign codes into the market, that competition gets worse over time.
I can't predict just how it will happen, but mergers or other moves to cull the weaker clubs will happen between 2006 and 2010. So, if you want to know what I think of the new AFL management, the answer is they weren't hired to keep the status quo.
-Rob (watching from afar)
UPDATE: The AFL has pronounced all the current clubs safe. Excuse me, but I don't buy it. A couple of thoughts come to mind... Does anyone really believe that if the broadcasters came to the AFL and said, "the weaker clubs don't get ratings, they need to go" that the AFL wouldn't listen? Further, you'll note that the new "stratetic plan" only goes for three years.... let's see, that's 2004-2006. Oops, the TV contract ends in 2006. What a coincidence. Finally, what the AFL publicly has promised and insured by putting AUD$5 million a year into the aid fund, is that badly managed clubs or clubs simply unable to survive in the marketplace will be proped up. This is bad governance and in the long run bad for the AFL's future. It seems nothing more than a sop to those Victorian club presidents upset about the concessions to the Swans and Lions.
-Rob
Related Blog Entries:
Interesting comments Rob. I think only time will tell what the outcome of the 16 team league will be. I will say from the time I lived in Australia, living in Perth (Western Australia), we always felt the power base was solely and squarely in Melbourne and that the newly formed AFL was really just the old VFL (Victorian Football League) with a few outsiders thrown in (Brisbane, Sydney, Perth).
That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Melbourne based teams to continue on for longer than you might expect. They may die but they will only go kicking and screaming.
The number of Melbourne based teams is disportionate and needs to be addressed either thru natural "survival of the fittest", or thru mergers or relocation. The smart ones should plan to merge, but while the AFL continues to prop them up, they have no incentive to do so.
You make some interesting comments regarding the influx of foreign sports. No doubt they will have some impact on television viewers habits. But have no doubt about the passion of AFL supporters. I firmly believe the game will continue to grow in popularity, both in attendence and on television.
Nothing, but nothing will replace our beloved AFL!!
Bill
Posted by: Bill at February 18, 2004 06:22 PMWhislst it's indisputable that Melbourne is disproportionately represented by AFL teams ,I differ as to likely outcome .I think the AFL will try to maintain 16 teams by relocation . a general rethink on mergers has been given the thumbs down signal .You will finf the Roos will be playing more games in Canberra , the Hawks in Tasmania .Sydney and Brisbane have the populations for second teams and they have junior numbers nearly equivalent to WA and SA .
As for the amount of merchantdising this really a failing of the AFL to market consumer-friendly clothing as per rugby tops and jackets even these do exist to a small degree .
Now let's look at external threats .
Soccer banished to a summer league with diminishing crowds .Ditto for basketball .the national league for baseball ended years ago .Ice hockey just doesn't go with the climate .Gridiron gets less exposure each year .Rugby Union still has acted after it's World cup winfall and Rugby League's talking point is the threat of AFL .
Bill -- You'll get no disagreement from me that the failing clubs will go kicking and screaming. You're exactly on target though that as long as the AFL provides bailout money the necessary realignment will get delayed further.
I also have little doubt about the passion of the supporters. We have that here in the US. When Aussie football fans complain about TV coverage here, the networks run and hide. We're vocal, and they know it. I am of the opinion that though that the weaker AFL clubs wouldn't last long if the AFL pulled the financial rug out from under them.
Cos -- you might have a point that the AFL will choose to keep a 16 team comp but that's dependent on the television networks in my view. It's the TV consortium that reportedly insisted the AFL guarantee a 16 team comp until 2006. I wouldn't count on that view lasting forever.
The merchandising failures of the AFL aside, the sales of clothing, etc. is the leading edge of the marketing invasion and the building of a fan base. Don't mistake match attendance by domestic leagues for the "external threat". I was talking about the threat from competitions outside Australia. They'll first work on television coverage and merchandise sales. The rest comes later, maybe a decade later. But by then, it will be too late. Believe me, if the NFL wanted to launch an Aussie version of "NFL Europe" they can do so tomorrow.
Don't assume anything. The AFL can't continue to plan on the assumption that soccer and rugby will continue to be incompetently managed. There's signs of turnarounds in both sports and they can certainly eat into the AFL's predominant position in Australian sporting culture.
The TV networks will continue to insist on a 16 team competition as long as the ratings keep going up. In 2003 they were good, mostly thanks to the continuing success of Brisbane and Sydney having a good year, but they were static in Melbourne and down in Adelaide.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein at February 21, 2004 12:49 PMPretty much agreed Scott. We should not assume that soccer and rugby will always be badly managed. And I concur on the question of the networks to the extent that as long as the networks think it beneficial they'll press the AFL on that point. Just a hunch on my part... that the networks would find a benefit in having an additional AFL club in Sydney if it drove ratings.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at February 21, 2004 02:57 PMYou make some excellent points. I think what we're seeing is the "teething pains" of a regional sport going (hopefully) truly nationwide in Australia. I don't know how many teams will wind up in the competition, but I suspect that as time goes on they'll be less focused on the Melbourne metro area. I doubt the G will be dethroned anytime soon as the "cradle" of Aussie Rules, however.
I remember when it was considered wild that Los Angeles had *two* NFL teams -- in the days the Rams and the Raiders were both located here -- and Los Angeles (including the surrounding suburbs, etc) is one of the biggest and most populous metropolitan areas on the planet. LA has over twice the population as Melbourne ... which supports TEN AFL teams?!
Even if you grant that people in Melbourne are much more passionate about footy than people in the US in general are about the NFL -- five times as many teams for half as many people is a situation that just can't endure forever.
Posted by: George Madison at February 21, 2004 10:59 PMApparently officials at Geelong and Hawthorn don't believe the guarantee either.
Posted by: Rob de Santos at February 22, 2004 09:11 PMIf the 16 man competion is to further evole, how should the teams be divided up???
Here is how I would do it.
Perth 3
Adelaide 3
Sydney 2
Brisbane 1
Tasmania / Canberra 1
Melbourne 5
Geelong 1
I think Perth and Adelaide might have a tough time with 3 teams each, so maybe only 2 teams each, and then make it a 14 team comp.
Just my 2 cents.
Wadda yall think??
Bill
Here's the logical breakdown of supporting an AFL team .Firstly requires a population of 500k.
Perth and Adelaide are very comfortable at the momentbut could extend to 3 teams .Melbourne would be much more comfortable with 8 teams .Tasmania has a spreadout population of 400k so could make it .Canberra has a population of 500k but has already 2 national football teams .Both Brisbane and Sydney have the populations to support more teams but these aren't tradionally AFL societies.However if we look at juniors ,we see that NSW and QLD have junior numbers approaching WA and SA and superior to Tas. and fast expanding .Together that makes a second team for QLD or NSW a better option .In particular the Goldcoast has a pop. of 400k and fast expanding mainly due to migration and was the original base for the Bears,together with Southports' turnover you have a ready made option .In Sydney there is a stadium just waiting to be filled in the geographical heart of the city .Relocation provides for new and easier sponsorships and is preferable to a slow death or merger .