AFANA Footy BBS

Hi all,

AFANA is pleased to be associated with the World Footy News site and we share content on occasion. They have recently ran a series of articles summarizing the numbers of players of footy around the world. For North America the numbers included these:

Rank Country        Teams  Snr Players  Jr Players  Total  
 


 

1 New Zealand       22      536         10690       11226  
 

2 Papua New Guinea  64     1920          8000        9920  
 

3 United States     38      855            40         895  
 

4 South Africa       6      160           540         700  
 

5 England           18      435             0         435  
 

6 Canada            14      314            50         364

AFL Failure in NSW

> [By way of explanation, I have always believed that a complete marketing
> plan to promote and grow the audience for the game, centered around television, was
> the most effective way to build the game at all levels in North America. More fans
> generate more players, not the other way around.]
> Comments and suggestions welcome.

Here’s the first thought that comes to my mind…. even though I don’t know if AFANA can do anything about it.

I agree that exposure through television is probably the best way to generate interest in North America, but scheduling the U.S. telecasts at 2:00AM on Fox Soccer Channel does not cut it. It’s OK for those of us who already love footy because we will stay up and/or set our VCRs to record it for later viewing.

But the uninitiated won’t do this. About the only new viewers we will get is the occasional guy who watches FSC after he gets off the midnight shift (probably not that many) and leaves the set on until footy comes on, or the occasional guy who stumbles on it flipping through channels because he can’t sleep.

To really get exposure you need to get footy on a more popular network than FSC at a more reasonable hour to increase the “stumble on” factor. Also, like the networks that schedule their new shows adjacent to their already popular programs, footy should be scheduled in time slots adjacent to the more popular sports.

As I said, I don’t know if AFANA can do anything about it, but these are my first thoughts.

> I agree that exposure through television is probably the best way to generate
> interest in North America, but scheduling the U.S. telecasts at 2:00AM on Fox Soccer
> Channel does not cut it. It’s OK for those of us who already love footy because we
> will stay up and/or set our VCRs to record it for later viewing.

> But the uninitiated won’t do this. About the only new viewers we will get is the
> occasional guy who watches FSC after he gets off the midnight shift (probably not
> that many) and leaves the set on until footy comes on, or the occasional guy who
> stumbles on it flipping through channels because he can’t sleep.

> To really get exposure you need to get footy on a more popular network than FSC at a
> more reasonable hour to increase the “stumble on” factor. Also, like the networks
> that schedule their new shows adjacent to their already popular programs, footy
> should be scheduled in time slots adjacent to the more popular sports.

> As I said, I don’t know if AFANA can do anything about it, but these are my first
> thoughts.

You won't get any argument from me about the unsuitability of the TV schedules. I suspect that if I raised that issue with the AFL again, they'd say it was this or nothing in 2005. When the only TV coverage is at 2 AM in the eastern US now you won't have many kids watching either, so if the AFL goal is to build youth programs, it fails on that basis alone. (For the record, the AFL knows my feelings on the scheduling issue already or should.)

It's a separate discussion I suppose, but I think the AFL is way overdue moving toward PPV live match coverage here. Do the math... if 5% of the 150,000 US and Canadian footy fans paid $199 a season for live coverage of at least one match a week that is just under $1.5 million gross. After expenses and cutting the distributor their half, the AFL probably would net enough money to a) pay ESPN to put the highlights and MOTW back on at a reasonable hour and b) fund the USAFL and even offer something to AFANA (maybe but not likely!). Not that they are listening to me on this yet.

Our best near term hope is to muddle thru the end of the 2006 season and hope some other entity (IMG's TWI?) is the main distributor in 2007.

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA Blog

OK, after some more reflection here is my next round of ideas (just in case the AFL ever does decide to listen to the AFANA).

As a start it might be better to first get the highlights program on at a reasonable hour, say around 4:00PM when people can’t take anymore Ophra or Judge Judy, or at 7:00PM when they’ve had enough evening news and are killing time channel surfing until the networks’ prime time programs start. With Americans’ short attention span, some probably can’t handle a whole 2 hour game where they don’t know the rules. Especially if they happen to come in at one of the “less exciting” times (ball up…pile on… ball up… pile on… ball up… hit out of bounds… throw in… etc.). They could flip right past without seeing the real action.

The highlights might be a better draw for the novice. The shortened match, Round Wrap and Top 10 is (almost) all action and the best plays. But I would add two things. First, I would bring back the short segment where they explained a different rule each week. Second, I would add a commercial for the MOTW at the end so those who liked what they saw would know where to see more.

With regard to the MOTW, I would remove the Round Wrap and Top 10 and devote the entire 2 hours to the match. I know the AFL has already rejected this idea, but I am fantasizing that the AFL might someday decide to actually listen to the AFANA.

With respect to developing youth programs, I think neutralizing the mommy factor is going to be a toughie. Much more so than when most of us were kids, the mommies of today don’t want their little darlings participating in anything that might bruise or scratch them. Not to reignite an old controversy, but I think one of the reasons youth soccer is growing in the U.S. is that it provides the kids with exercise with little risk of physical injury. It will take some fanatic fathers to convince the mommies that their angels will not be killed or maimed playing footy.

> As a start it might be better to first get the highlights program on at a reasonable
> hour, say around 4:00PM when people can’t take anymore Ophra or Judge Judy, or at
> 7:00PM
...
> The highlights might be a better draw for the novice. The shortened match, Round
> Wrap and Top 10 is (almost) all action and the best plays. But I would add two
> things. First, I would bring back the short segment where they explained a different
> rule each week. Second, I would add a commercial for the MOTW at the end so those
> who liked what they saw would know where to see more.

I pretty much agree and this takes us back to where the program was some years ago. The bigger question is what is the reason you have the program on the air? What are we trying to accomplish with it?

My answer is to popularize the sport and even more of what you suggest is where I'd go.

> With regard to the MOTW, I would remove the Round Wrap and Top 10 and devote the
> entire 2 hours to the match. I know the AFL has already rejected this idea, but I am
> fantasizing that the AFL might someday decide to actually listen to the AFANA.

Yes, I made this point when they first made the change and have repeated it but the response is that most countries don't take both programs so it isn't an option.

In fairness, the AFL has listened to us on the programs at different times. What they haven't listened to is our broader strategy for promoting the sport.

> With respect to developing youth programs, I think neutralizing the mommy factor is
> going to be a toughie.

That's all true and I agree. There has been considerable debate inside the USAFL on that point for some time. Their reduced size and simplified rules footy versions already address this so I don't think this is the only reason we're where we are.

Great feedback, Bob. I am more concerned in this debate with the bigger questions: not how to do these things but what things should we be doing? How do we convince the AFL to do those things?

-Rob de Santos
AFANA Chairman

AFANA Blog

> I am more concerned in this debate with the bigger questions:
> not how to do these things but what things should we be doing?

OK, with regard to the “whats”, here’s a thought.

Somehow it would be great to target those most able to influence the young peoples’ sports preferences. In addition to fathers, how about targeting their schools' physical education teachers? I remember eons ago when I was young, even though soccer was not popular in the U.S. they still made us play it in gym class.

I’m glad you are primarily concerned with the “what” right now, because I have no great ideas on the “how”. I love the TV matches, but they only provide a scatter gun approach, hitting only those who happen to stumble upon them.. Some kind of marketing approach more focused on the daddies and teachers might help. But how to do it, I don’t know.

To follow up on this here are the amounts the AFL spends by country according to an article in The Age this weekend:

Where football's development money goes
 

In Australia $29 million
 

NZ $150,000
 

S Africa $100,000
 

US $90,000
 

PNG $45,000
 

Other $115,000
 

(Overseas total $500,000)

AFANA Blog