Post by Rubbernose on Jul 8, 2006 16:46:38 GMT 10
Football strikes back
July 8, 2006
By Frank Lowy
In his first comments since the World Cup began, Frank Lowy argues the taxpayers' contribution was money well spent.
AUSTRALIA has just experienced a rare episode of sustained national unity, with millions transfixed by the unfolding drama of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
The way the Socceroos performed, and the professionalism behind the scenes, make it hard to believe the game was on its deathbed a couple of years ago.
But those involved in the revival of the sport remember those dark days well and know the job has only begun.
Football now faces a 10-year journey to establish itself as a viable mainstream sport in Australia.
Only with continual hard work and a united front can we build on the remarkable World Cup experience and unleash the game's full potential.
But so far, so good. Very good.
Given this, it was curious to read the rugby league writer Roy Masters's article last Saturday describing the Government's contribution to football as a "net loss".
Only the most bigoted devotee of another code could quibble about the contribution the Socceroos and the new football administration have made to the country in such a short time.
And when such a devotee also happens to be a member of the Australian Sports Commission, which plays a critical role in determining government grants each sport receives, the motives behind his article become questionable.
The Government's decision to back football was brave. There had been many false dawns and there were no guarantees it would be different this time. But that investment has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the taxpayers, who Masters wrongly suggests are spoiling for a fight over funding for football.
Has any other government program got more bang for its buck than the investment in the revival of football?
Who else, other than Masters, has questioned its value? No one.
Our performance in Germany not only boosted our national spirit but gave us a new world presence. What this means for the Australian "brand" around the world is beyond measure.
Everyone has generously supported football's revival. It was good to see players and commentators from other codes wishing us well. The AFL's chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, and other AFL identities repeatedly said there was room enough in Australia for all football codes. They saw the success of football as a healthy development that was good for the country.
With the old ethnic rivalries behind us, football has become a symbol of a new Australia, and the game, which has the potential to advance our national interest in Asia and the world, has begun to flourish.
Amid this optimism, success and goodwill, Masters alone feels he must rain on the parade. But why?
It's only natural that after the near-death experience of the sport, followed by such rapid success, people are itching to write the history. And there will be many versions.
Now is not the time for me to write a full account, but some things need saying. Football's success has many fathers.
There were those from the old Soccer Australia and the state and territory administrations who saw reform was necessary and got behind the revival. Just one example during the critical months of 2003 was Tom Doumanis from NSW.
There was strong political leadership from the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Minister for Sport, Rod Kemp, supported by the Opposition sport spokeswoman, Kate Lundy, and all premiers.
There was the critical contribution of David Crawford, Bruce Corlett, Kate Costello, Mark Peters and the late Johnny Warren who formed the review committee that prepared the report upon which much of the reform was based. That committee was supported by the Australian Sports Commission, led by Peter Bartels.
Then came my appointment as chairman, and the board I established of influential business and sporting identities. Some nine months later John O'Neill agreed to become chief executive officer following his highly successful career with rugby.
The old game, with its ethnic divisions, vested interests and financial failures, had to be put out of its misery.
I made it clear to the Government that while the Crawford Review had provided a blueprint for the job ahead, I needed the right "tools" if I was to have any hope of getting the job done inside three years.
I would need a new board and administration.
But, most importantly at first, I would need "seed capital" from the Federal Government to move the game from bankruptcy to the point at which it could begin to build credibility and attract sponsors.
After cleaning up the past, in the first year of operation we had a deficit of $4 million.
The first six months involved furious activity to wind up the old Soccer Australia. We needed a clean sheet. We even changed the name, from "old soccer" to "new football."
Several leading accounting and bankruptcy experts, including my deputy chairman, Brian Schwartz, then with Ernst & Young, worked together, in some cases pro bono, to create the new legal structure.
At the same time we had to tear up some existing contracts that stood in the way of progress. The goodwill shown by sponsors, particularly Qantas and Channel Seven, in co-operating in this was further evidence that people saw the revival of football as being a project in the national interest.
The World Cup qualifiers were looming. After a series of poor performances by the Socceroos we took the tough decision to replace Frank Farina with Guus Hiddink just a few months before our do-or-die matches against Uruguay. To his lasting credit, Farina accepted the decision with dignity and was supportive.
We needed new constitutions for the state football bodies. We had to develop the plan for the new national competition — the Hyundai A-League. We had to develop a match schedule for the Socceroos which generated revenue for the game and a competitive environment. We had to start building corporate support and sponsorship.
Another priority was to restore credibility with FIFA, and John Coates played a crucial role.
But we couldn't start without first creating financial stability. This is why government seed capital up front was crucial, and I spoke to dozens of people to ask for help in making football's case to government, at the Sports Commission and at the political level.
This was no simple exercise. It took months of detailed negotiations, all based on independent reports by Ferrier Hodgson and others which had looked into the financial mess that was the old Soccer Australia, and ahead at what was needed to kick-start the reforms.
At the end of that process, Rod Kemp announced a package of $15 million - a $3 million grant for each of three years and a loan of $6 million, which was only drawn down to $4 million.
It was carefully tailored to meet the minimum requirements for the sport to get back on its feet.
It's important to note that not one cent of taxpayers' money has been spent on the A-League. Public funds were used only to fill the black hole left by the previous regime, and to support our national teams, as stipulated by the Sports Commission.
Against the $3 million annual grant to football in 2005-06, there was $5.1 million to rowing, $4.6 million to athletics, $5.3 million to swimming, $2.2 million to volleyball and $2.3 million to water polo. This year, cycling got $4.6 million and hockey $4.7 million. Each deserves support.
Comparisons of Sports Commission funding to other football codes are misleading. The other three football codes have all been "top-down" funded from the professional end of the game whereas this sport has traditionally been "bottom-up" funded by the grassroots, like other sports regarded as predominantly amateur.
The rescue package and any future funding arrangements for football must be viewed in the context that:
> At the time the current board took over, revenue and expense projections were prepared for the prospective three years. In many cases the revenue projections were aspirational and the expenditure projections conservative.
> We fund eight national teams (including men's and women's Olympic teams) which all compete internationally regularly. With our move to the Asian Football Confederation, most of our teams have to qualify for Asian, FIFA and Olympic events, which in some cases means qualification matches in two-year cycles. While the move to Asia is strategically fundamental for the development of the game, it does not come without significant cost, which was not forecast when we took over in September 2003.
> We operate in a true world market when it comes to recruiting world-class technical resources for our teams and opposition for so-called "friendly" matches. We have to compete with countries with a lot more money. We often pay in euros or US dollars when we generate the bulk of our revenue in Australian dollars. It would be nice not to have to look overseas for coaches and other technicians but we won't be in that position for several years. We face a massive task to build a national development system for coaches and players, from the grassroots to the elite level. It is only by doing this that we will build the depth we need to compete with the strong football nations.
All of us involved in football have high hopes for the sport. We want to see a thriving national competition, with more regular matches against our Asian counterparts and the Socceroos mixing with the best in the world.
We're striving for a financially successful, self-sustaining sport that delivers much more to the country than it takes. We think we've made a good start but it's early days and we need all the help we can get - from the fans, sponsors, and the Government.
Frank Lowy is the chairman of Football Federation Australia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some serious ownage of Roy Masters by Frank Lowy, ya reckon?
I didn't read the Roy Masters piece in question, so I'll bite my tongue, but how anyone could question the Federal Govt funding the sport received as part of the reform is beyond me.
$3m per year over 5 years and a $6m loan...Master is bloody kidding me.
And so far you'd have to say that we, as football fans - and taxpayers - have copped a pretty good return, and only the most agenda ridden devotee of 'another code' or perhaps those who ardently oppose sports funding of any type could gripe about it. Particularly since it is THE most played junior sport in the country by some margin.
And further, one which has been propped up from the bottom up, as Lowy points out, with parents traditionally footing the bills for some fairly hefty rego fees in comparison to a lot of other sports.
It'd be very nice if the sport could grow to a financial position where that could change, it could be inverted, and relief could be fed back to the bottom.
For a country which spends so much money on sports, with generally little complaint, you'd have to think this is chump change and a very justifiable investment or 'leg up' to help bring money into the sport which is in A LOT of people's interests, not just us obsessed diehards either.
Thoughts?
July 8, 2006
By Frank Lowy
In his first comments since the World Cup began, Frank Lowy argues the taxpayers' contribution was money well spent.
AUSTRALIA has just experienced a rare episode of sustained national unity, with millions transfixed by the unfolding drama of the 2006 FIFA World Cup.
The way the Socceroos performed, and the professionalism behind the scenes, make it hard to believe the game was on its deathbed a couple of years ago.
But those involved in the revival of the sport remember those dark days well and know the job has only begun.
Football now faces a 10-year journey to establish itself as a viable mainstream sport in Australia.
Only with continual hard work and a united front can we build on the remarkable World Cup experience and unleash the game's full potential.
But so far, so good. Very good.
Given this, it was curious to read the rugby league writer Roy Masters's article last Saturday describing the Government's contribution to football as a "net loss".
Only the most bigoted devotee of another code could quibble about the contribution the Socceroos and the new football administration have made to the country in such a short time.
And when such a devotee also happens to be a member of the Australian Sports Commission, which plays a critical role in determining government grants each sport receives, the motives behind his article become questionable.
The Government's decision to back football was brave. There had been many false dawns and there were no guarantees it would be different this time. But that investment has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the taxpayers, who Masters wrongly suggests are spoiling for a fight over funding for football.
Has any other government program got more bang for its buck than the investment in the revival of football?
Who else, other than Masters, has questioned its value? No one.
Our performance in Germany not only boosted our national spirit but gave us a new world presence. What this means for the Australian "brand" around the world is beyond measure.
Everyone has generously supported football's revival. It was good to see players and commentators from other codes wishing us well. The AFL's chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, and other AFL identities repeatedly said there was room enough in Australia for all football codes. They saw the success of football as a healthy development that was good for the country.
With the old ethnic rivalries behind us, football has become a symbol of a new Australia, and the game, which has the potential to advance our national interest in Asia and the world, has begun to flourish.
Amid this optimism, success and goodwill, Masters alone feels he must rain on the parade. But why?
It's only natural that after the near-death experience of the sport, followed by such rapid success, people are itching to write the history. And there will be many versions.
Now is not the time for me to write a full account, but some things need saying. Football's success has many fathers.
There were those from the old Soccer Australia and the state and territory administrations who saw reform was necessary and got behind the revival. Just one example during the critical months of 2003 was Tom Doumanis from NSW.
There was strong political leadership from the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Minister for Sport, Rod Kemp, supported by the Opposition sport spokeswoman, Kate Lundy, and all premiers.
There was the critical contribution of David Crawford, Bruce Corlett, Kate Costello, Mark Peters and the late Johnny Warren who formed the review committee that prepared the report upon which much of the reform was based. That committee was supported by the Australian Sports Commission, led by Peter Bartels.
Then came my appointment as chairman, and the board I established of influential business and sporting identities. Some nine months later John O'Neill agreed to become chief executive officer following his highly successful career with rugby.
The old game, with its ethnic divisions, vested interests and financial failures, had to be put out of its misery.
I made it clear to the Government that while the Crawford Review had provided a blueprint for the job ahead, I needed the right "tools" if I was to have any hope of getting the job done inside three years.
I would need a new board and administration.
But, most importantly at first, I would need "seed capital" from the Federal Government to move the game from bankruptcy to the point at which it could begin to build credibility and attract sponsors.
After cleaning up the past, in the first year of operation we had a deficit of $4 million.
The first six months involved furious activity to wind up the old Soccer Australia. We needed a clean sheet. We even changed the name, from "old soccer" to "new football."
Several leading accounting and bankruptcy experts, including my deputy chairman, Brian Schwartz, then with Ernst & Young, worked together, in some cases pro bono, to create the new legal structure.
At the same time we had to tear up some existing contracts that stood in the way of progress. The goodwill shown by sponsors, particularly Qantas and Channel Seven, in co-operating in this was further evidence that people saw the revival of football as being a project in the national interest.
The World Cup qualifiers were looming. After a series of poor performances by the Socceroos we took the tough decision to replace Frank Farina with Guus Hiddink just a few months before our do-or-die matches against Uruguay. To his lasting credit, Farina accepted the decision with dignity and was supportive.
We needed new constitutions for the state football bodies. We had to develop the plan for the new national competition — the Hyundai A-League. We had to develop a match schedule for the Socceroos which generated revenue for the game and a competitive environment. We had to start building corporate support and sponsorship.
Another priority was to restore credibility with FIFA, and John Coates played a crucial role.
But we couldn't start without first creating financial stability. This is why government seed capital up front was crucial, and I spoke to dozens of people to ask for help in making football's case to government, at the Sports Commission and at the political level.
This was no simple exercise. It took months of detailed negotiations, all based on independent reports by Ferrier Hodgson and others which had looked into the financial mess that was the old Soccer Australia, and ahead at what was needed to kick-start the reforms.
At the end of that process, Rod Kemp announced a package of $15 million - a $3 million grant for each of three years and a loan of $6 million, which was only drawn down to $4 million.
It was carefully tailored to meet the minimum requirements for the sport to get back on its feet.
It's important to note that not one cent of taxpayers' money has been spent on the A-League. Public funds were used only to fill the black hole left by the previous regime, and to support our national teams, as stipulated by the Sports Commission.
Against the $3 million annual grant to football in 2005-06, there was $5.1 million to rowing, $4.6 million to athletics, $5.3 million to swimming, $2.2 million to volleyball and $2.3 million to water polo. This year, cycling got $4.6 million and hockey $4.7 million. Each deserves support.
Comparisons of Sports Commission funding to other football codes are misleading. The other three football codes have all been "top-down" funded from the professional end of the game whereas this sport has traditionally been "bottom-up" funded by the grassroots, like other sports regarded as predominantly amateur.
The rescue package and any future funding arrangements for football must be viewed in the context that:
> At the time the current board took over, revenue and expense projections were prepared for the prospective three years. In many cases the revenue projections were aspirational and the expenditure projections conservative.
> We fund eight national teams (including men's and women's Olympic teams) which all compete internationally regularly. With our move to the Asian Football Confederation, most of our teams have to qualify for Asian, FIFA and Olympic events, which in some cases means qualification matches in two-year cycles. While the move to Asia is strategically fundamental for the development of the game, it does not come without significant cost, which was not forecast when we took over in September 2003.
> We operate in a true world market when it comes to recruiting world-class technical resources for our teams and opposition for so-called "friendly" matches. We have to compete with countries with a lot more money. We often pay in euros or US dollars when we generate the bulk of our revenue in Australian dollars. It would be nice not to have to look overseas for coaches and other technicians but we won't be in that position for several years. We face a massive task to build a national development system for coaches and players, from the grassroots to the elite level. It is only by doing this that we will build the depth we need to compete with the strong football nations.
All of us involved in football have high hopes for the sport. We want to see a thriving national competition, with more regular matches against our Asian counterparts and the Socceroos mixing with the best in the world.
We're striving for a financially successful, self-sustaining sport that delivers much more to the country than it takes. We think we've made a good start but it's early days and we need all the help we can get - from the fans, sponsors, and the Government.
Frank Lowy is the chairman of Football Federation Australia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some serious ownage of Roy Masters by Frank Lowy, ya reckon?
I didn't read the Roy Masters piece in question, so I'll bite my tongue, but how anyone could question the Federal Govt funding the sport received as part of the reform is beyond me.
$3m per year over 5 years and a $6m loan...Master is bloody kidding me.And so far you'd have to say that we, as football fans - and taxpayers - have copped a pretty good return, and only the most agenda ridden devotee of 'another code' or perhaps those who ardently oppose sports funding of any type could gripe about it. Particularly since it is THE most played junior sport in the country by some margin.
And further, one which has been propped up from the bottom up, as Lowy points out, with parents traditionally footing the bills for some fairly hefty rego fees in comparison to a lot of other sports.
It'd be very nice if the sport could grow to a financial position where that could change, it could be inverted, and relief could be fed back to the bottom.
For a country which spends so much money on sports, with generally little complaint, you'd have to think this is chump change and a very justifiable investment or 'leg up' to help bring money into the sport which is in A LOT of people's interests, not just us obsessed diehards either.
Thoughts?
