AFL seeks compensation for World Cup disruption

[Giants FC]

Thats the nub of the arguement soccer would end up being hated by more people than any that maybe converted.

I'd be interested in how the results would go of an opinion poll that asked the following questions:
1. Do you want Australia to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018/2022?
2. Are you aware that Australia hosting the FIFA World Cup would result in the AFL and NRL being locked out of many of their regular grounds, including the MCG, Etihad Stadium, ANZ Stadium, the Sydney Football Stadium, Subiaco Oval and Suncorp Stadium, for 2 months mid-season?
3. Are you aware that Australia hosting the FIFA World Cup would require an outlay of in excess of $5 billion in taxpayers' money?
4. Are you still in favour of Australia hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2018/2022?

I would be absolutely certain that a lot of the support for the World Cup bid that would appear in question 1 would not be repeated in question 4. I would expect the difference would be enough to go from majority support to majority opposition.
And that's a problem. The more detail that comes out about the World Cup bid and how AFL (and NRL) will be damaged, the less attractive it becomes.

 

[RobbieK]

which means that if is held here it will not be held during the worst of our winter.
What I cannot understand is why is that such a bad thing for all the Soccer fans. I would have thought that having the World Cup here would have been good enough, even if it was staged during the spring say (for arguments sake) but no, nothing less than the complete shut-down of both the football and rugby seasons will do for some people.

and they call us the narrow-minded and insular bogans

The timing of the cup is non-negotiable. It is at the same time every world cup because that fits in with all the national club football competitions in the world - it allows all possible players to be available.

There is no "for arguments sake" on when it will be. This isn't about being vindictive or targeting AFL or Rugby. It IS insular to make all these assumptions without taking into consideration the global context.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Why do you assume that there will be a half full crowd when most of the crowd would have pre-purchased expensive tickets?

You keep going on and on about Fifa moving it's world cup because of supposed shocking conditions in Melbourne (tsunamis? blizzards? ice age?) but it has been highlighted regularly throughout this thread that it is played in June to avoid the domestic seasons of almost every football competition in the world. Moving the date is not an option. If we win the rights to host the World Cup it will be played in June. If we can't host it in June we won't host it at all.

People seem to think that, having chosen to have the WC in Australia, FIFA then sit down with someone and start discussing all the details. When/where it will be held, who will do what , etc.
I'm pretty sure all of this would be part of the bidding process and there would be little opportunity for negotiating after bidding. Think of it as a quotation.
Australia could probably submit a non-conforming bid, but It would make them a lot less likely to win it.
I'm pretty sure Chile and Argentina aren't known for their warm sunny weather in winter.

 

[RobbieK]

People seem to think that, having chosen to have the WC in Australia, FIFA then sit down with someone and start discussing all the details. When/where it will be held, who will do what , etc.
I'm pretty sure all of this would be part of the bidding process and there would be little opportunity for negotiating after bidding. Think of it as a quotation.
Australia could probably submit a non-conforming bid, but It would make them a lot less likely to win it.
I'm pretty sure Chile and Argentina aren't known for their warm sunny weather in winter.

If Australia submitted a non-conforming bid there is no chance that it would win. The WC has to be played in June for international reasons. That will not change. If Australia isn't prepared to host it in June, it won't ever host it.

 

[Pie eyed]

If Australia submitted a non-conforming bid there is no chance that it would win. The WC has to be played in June for international reasons. That will not change. If Australia isn't prepared to host it in June, it won't ever host it.

Hold it in Indonesia.

 

[mickctiger]

The timing of the cup is non-negotiable. It is at the same time every world cup because that fits in with all the national club football competitions in the world - it allows all possible players to be available.

There is no "for arguments sake" on when it will be. This isn't about being vindictive or targeting AFL or Rugby. It IS insular to make all these assumptions without taking into consideration the global context.

oh is that right well you better tell this bloke

I have to respond on the argument that winter is a bad time for the FIFA world cup.


As I stated before many players play in cold conditions (including South America where they play during in 'our winter' such as June/August with their 'Apertura and Clausura' system). Therefore the game is faster and less draining.

so not all leagues play at the same time of year then. The above league would be disrupted by a World Cup campaign, going by your logic, yet they obviously don't mind.
so there is no reason as to why the World Cup cannot be held at a time that's not in June/July if it was held here. And no, I don't think FIFA would want to have their show case played in the least desirable conditions.
all those who keep rabbiting on about how the rules of FIFA are so inflexible and we must bend to them forget one thing. FIFA is a business, they will do whats best for their business. Whilst some venues are better than others "for business" so to are certain times best for their business. If holding the World Cup in Australia during our spring was good business for FIFA they would do it.

If FIFA is this all powerful organisation, that all you soccer fans keep telling us, then I'm sure all the Soccer leagues will fall into line if they said that the World Cup that will be held in Australia, will be played late August to early October

 

[Pepsczi Kohler]

What i dont understand is why they need the use of all the AFL grounds and not use the current soccer grounds (Hindmarsh in Adel ect) and perhaps the MCG and ANZ in melb syd.
Leaving Aimee, TD, Subi, Gabba, Launceston, Carrara and SCG for the AFL season to continue to run.

The whole no other code is allowed thing is stupid and last i checked the NFL didn't stop its season for it.

Because the majority of our rectangular stadiums are far too small for what the bid demands.

Additionally, the NFL season does not clash with the World Cup. The US also has a many, many suitable rectangular stadiums anyway because of their college stadiums - several were used for USA '94, as many of them also had larger capacities than NFL stadiums.

 

[mickctiger]

well play it in the States then, don't disrupt our domestic comps

 

[Pepsczi Kohler]

well play it in the States then, don't disrupt our domestic comps

That's probably what will happen in my opinion. Depends on what part of the world FIFA wants to target - do they want to try and give the game another kick in the pants in the US, or take advantage of our hugely favourable time zone for the Asian market.

 

[jpdixon]

It doesn't matter where it is - a significant number of the tickets go to travelling fans of the nations involved.

Yes, but all of the three "minnow" games with large crowds that you mentioned included countired with decent populations that could get to Germany for next to nothing in under an hour. Don't assume too much about them getting to Australia.

the "Olympics" might have had something to do with it, when was that match held? if memory serves me correct, the soccer started a few days before the Olympics officially started, so it could have been the one of the first matches played. Also werent the Soccer games some of the most accessible events of the Olympics ? wouldnt that alone explain the crowd?

No, all those 110k fans bought tickets to the Olympic football final, well before they knew who was playing. Dressing it up as Cameroon v Spain U23s is fun for a trivia question, but just plain stupid when trying to make a serious point.

Apart from all of that, the situation is really pretty simple - FIFA want to hold a WC with as many benefits as possible, and have guidelines to achieve that which pretty much assume that the WC will be seen as a massive event in that country and that the population distribution is like Germany, US, etc., rather than Australia.

The AFL, NRL and so on want to have their seasons with as many benefits as possible, and have contracts to play games at certain times.

FFA want to bring the WC to Australia. Many people think this is a pretty good idea, and the government are offering some support. The FFA need to put up a decent bid. They need to deal with the AFL/NRL and government to obtain stadia, and all parties could be expected to push for reasonable compensation (including stadium upgrades). This might involve the FFA getting FIFA to state that domestic comps aren't considered "major", possibly even real concessions to the guidelines (the 11 different cities rule isn't the best option for a tournament in Australia from anyone's point of view), but unless a deal is reached that all are happy with, FIFA will find somewhere else...

(Of course, soccer is a winter sport just like football - I don't think FIFA would be bothered by images of the Melbourne in July. The fact that the WC is in June/July just shows how much FIFA itself is ransom to the domestic leagues, the Olympics have flexibility because they are the major event for their sports by a long way, but FIFA has had to set up fixed windows because club soccer is so big.)

 

[Ari]

Seems like a great opportunity for the AFL to play some international games in the weeks leading up to the World Cup if you ask me.

Get the government to underwrite all cost as part of the compensation package and play a round (s) of games offshore. Could host them in:

S Africa
India
China
US
New Zealand
UK

Given they are played for Premiership Points I think you'd get a good response from expats and locals in all of those markets in terms of attendance.

Sponsors get international exposure so they also win.

Seems like a no-brainer to me...

I really like that!

And if we see less games in Aus then reduce memberships accordingly. Instead of 22 games if we see 16 then reduce memberships to suit and the FIFA bid pays the clubs for the difference.

 

[jihg]

Australia has a small population and soccer is not the preferred sport of the country and our time zone means that the European heartland of the game would be shown at inconvenient times.

Add to this some not to happy locals who are annoyed that their preferred sports(AFL & NRL) have had to suffer because of it then the costs blowout(if the government are involved they will end up spending a lot more than planned) will annoy a lot of tax payers who will think the money could be better spent.

All in all I can't see Australia being awarded the WC anyway.

And lastly can we please stop with the MLB references ok they were played when the USA hosted the WC but here in Australia we all know that the major issue is the fact that we do not have enough stadia to share between all competing codes unlike America.

 

[Chuq]

but this is all moot. Should the World Cup be staged here, it will be staged at a time of maximum commercial benefit. As far FIFA is concerned, that would not be the depths of an Australian Winter

Ah, no.

I'm sitting here trying to think of a way to describe how ridiculous this is, and even more so how you seem to think that you know how FIFA works more than any soccer supporter ... I know it's just wishful thinking on your part, but really, no, if we get the WC it will be in June-July. The earliest a WC has ever started has been 27 May (in 1934) and has started on 30 or 31 May on 2-3 other occasions, but has never shifted from the general June-July period - and it has been hosted on 5 different continents in many different climates.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Ah, no.

I'm sitting here trying to think of a way to describe how ridiculous this is, and even more so how you seem to think that you know how FIFA works more than any soccer supporter ... I know it's just wishful thinking on your part, but really, no, if we get the WC it will be in June-July. The earliest a WC has ever started has been 27 May (in 1934) and has started on 30 or 31 May on 2-3 other occasions, but has never shifted from the general June-July period - and it has been hosted on 5 different continents in many different climates.

Northern Hemisphere > Southern Hemisphere

 

[DST]

The AFL's compensation will be access to 2 new stadiums built in SA and WA on the dime of the World Cup, not to mention a knock down and total rebuild of the Southern Stand at the MCG.

With an expected organisng budget of somewhere between $3 and $4 billion, a $1 million dollars cash for the inconvenience to each of the AFL and NRL clubs is chicken feed.

Fair compensation for what is really a trival 8 week break some 9 to 13 years away.

DST

 

[Chuq]

What i dont understand is why they need the use of all the AFL grounds and not use the current soccer grounds (Hindmarsh in Adel ect) and perhaps the MCG and ANZ in melb syd.
Leaving Aimee, TD, Subi, Gabba, Launceston, Carrara and SCG for the AFL season to continue to run.

Well, interesting stories about rectangular stadiums in Australia.

1. Stadium Australia.

Enough said.

2. Docklands Stadium.

Originally supposed to be for soccer and rugby league, and built as a venue for the 2000 Olympics football competition. However it needed to be multi-purpose in order to get the financial backing. Hence it became an oval venue.

3. Swan St Stadium

Melbourne has a 2nd attempt at a rectangular stadium. This time it is the right shape, but not big enough ...
In 2007 it was announced that the venue would be upgradable to hold 50k in the event of a World Cup bid. The foundations WERE designed for a 50k capacity upgrade. However in 2009 we found out that the roof would have to be completely removed and rebuilt in order to support this, and would not be feasible (we don't know what that means "would cost too much" or "would take to long" or something else). Either someone in the Vic government was very incompetent, or [insert conspiracy theory here].

4. Stadium WA & Perth Oval

The Labor WA government had a "Major Stadium Taskforce" which analysed the best way to suitably host major sports and events in the city. It's preferred outcome was two venues; (1) a 60k (upgradable to 70k) venue with cantilevered movable seating, - intended for AFL, Socceroos, Wallabies, cricket - and (2) a 20-25k rectangular venue - for Perth Glory and Western Force. Sadly the Liberal government which came into power in 2008 canned the idea, mainly due to cost.

5. New Adelaide rectangular stadium

FFA had a clear preference for a new rectangular stadium to be built in Adelaide as part of the World Cup bid. The second best option was a new multi-purpose venue like Docklands, which would host cricket, AFL and soccer, but the SANFL wanted no part of this. The South Australia government has nominated an upgraded Adelaide Oval (which will primarily host cricket and AFL)

So there we go. Several attempts at rectangular venues which would have been suitable World Cup host venues and would have caused minimal interference with AFL. Unfortunately none of them worked out as planned.

 

[mickctiger]

Ah, no.

I'm sitting here trying to think of a way to describe how ridiculous this is, and even more so how you seem to think that you know how FIFA works more than any soccer supporter .

I have a fair idea i understand how business works better than most of the soccer fans like you who post here

I know it's just wishful thinking on your part, but really, no, if we get the WC it will be in June-July.

unless it was in the business interest for FIFA to hold the World Cup at a different time, there may very well be times when that is the case. As a business FIFA will do what gives them the best return. If that means holding the World Cup on mars in Febuary, then guess what ? they will, as a business they would be remiss not to chase the best RoI

The earliest a WC has ever started has been 27 May (in 1934) and has started on 30 or 31 May on 2-3 other occasions

so the June/July schedule is not as concrete as what you would have us believe? Obviously there were reasons why the scheduling was different then? Why should Australia be any different from those exceptions ?

but has never shifted from the general June-July period

Old saying, never say never. You have just shown that there can be flexibility in the scheduling of the World Cup, and if its condusive to business then obviously it will be scheduled at a different time. But then, as always with the soccer supporters, the story is always fluid, with a ready excuse. "oh it would only be 4 weeks without footy" that changes to 8 weeks, suddenly now its become 10 weeks at least, so you'll forgive me when I'm skeptical of your insistence that the World Cup can only be staged in June/July.
You tell me that this FIFA is all powerful, then tell me that they cant change the schedule because all the leagues play in our summer, and a World Cup would interfere with their schedules (lucky Co-incidence for aLeague that its the AFL/NRL making the sacrifice as its the A-Leagues plaything) Yet we hear from other posters that other leagues play during our winter (so isnt a World Cup not supposed to interfere with their season)
you seem to treat footy fans as stupid, yet we've got a right to question the bid, especially as the story changes constantly, after all it seems that its the non-soccer fans that lose the most in all this. (but were the ones paying for it remeber

and it has been hosted on 5 different continents in many different climates.

So? that doesn't distract from the fact that playing a World Cup in an Australian winter would be a bad look a bad image for your sport.
You know what, i would have thought you soccer people would be keen to explore another scheduling option. Holding it in late August/september for instance would keep everyone happy. Better weather, less disruption to the football season (cheaper as less compo to AFL/NRL that way) you still get your pre cious world Cup (complete with England/Germany riots at fed square after the match )

yet you lot seem to want to shut down the football season more, and thats shame really

 

[mickctiger]

of course the billions that the FFA expect the taxpayer to chip in for their wank-fest could go towards public housing and solve the housing crisis(well only a fraction of those $$$ needed really)
but then whats that compared to a prima-donna dive fest ?
you know it brings the money in for ........
coke
kfc
park hyatt
quantas.......

 

[footyfreak]

Has anyone got any stats on tourism effects prior, during and after world cups?

Here is an article re Olympics:

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2009/11/12/tourism-has-not-benefitted-from-olympics-study/

Doesn't look like it helped too much.

I'd love to get the world cup, just thought it might be interesting to look at previous hosts and how it has effected their tourism.

 

[footyfreak]

Here is an article i found in the lead up to Germany 2006:

http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=5232

It covers all areas of economics, not just tourism.

 

[mickctiger]

Here is an article i found in the lead up to Germany 2006:

http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=5232

It covers all areas of economics, not just tourism.

NSW Government are still paying off the Olympics
The Vic Government pays off the GP Corp yearly
The Feds will outlay many billions of $$ to help the FFA with their bid.
It will also compensate both the AFL and NRL ( and it will be a lot, they will have to cover lost income/revenue for half a season minimum etc)
any "money" that does come on will not be returned to the TAX-Payer
the TAX-Payer will continue to pay for this for many years to come, as I stated, the NSW Government is still paying for the Olympics, why should the World cup be any different

 

[mickctiger]

and the figures in that article are mixed

 

[footyfreak]

I guess the real people that benefit are the corporations and small business operators.

I'd be happy with it, I have a tourism related business. But i could understand the average tax payer wouldn't be happy shelling out for bugger all or negative return.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Australia has a small population and soccer is not the preferred sport of the country

Once again, Association Football is substantially more popular around the country than RL (or union).

 

[McCrann]

Well, interesting stories about rectangular stadiums in Australia.

1. Stadium Australia.

Enough said.

2. Docklands Stadium.

Originally supposed to be for soccer and rugby league, and built as a venue for the 2000 Olympics football competition. However it needed to be multi-purpose in order to get the financial backing. Hence it became an oval venue.

3. Swan St Stadium

Melbourne has a 2nd attempt at a rectangular stadium. This time it is the right shape, but not big enough ...
In 2007 it was announced that the venue would be upgradable to hold 50k in the event of a World Cup bid. The foundations WERE designed for a 50k capacity upgrade. However in 2009 we found out that the roof would have to be completely removed and rebuilt in order to support this, and would not be feasible (we don't know what that means "would cost too much" or "would take to long" or something else). Either someone in the Vic government was very incompetent, or [insert conspiracy theory here].

4. Stadium WA & Perth Oval

The Labor WA government had a "Major Stadium Taskforce" which analysed the best way to suitably host major sports and events in the city. It's preferred outcome was two venues; (1) a 60k (upgradable to 70k) venue with cantilevered movable seating, - intended for AFL, Socceroos, Wallabies, cricket - and (2) a 20-25k rectangular venue - for Perth Glory and Western Force. Sadly the Liberal government which came into power in 2008 canned the idea, mainly due to cost.

5. New Adelaide rectangular stadium

FFA had a clear preference for a new rectangular stadium to be built in Adelaide as part of the World Cup bid. The second best option was a new multi-purpose venue like Docklands, which would host cricket, AFL and soccer, but the SANFL wanted no part of this. The South Australia government has nominated an upgraded Adelaide Oval (which will primarily host cricket and AFL)

So there we go. Several attempts at rectangular venues which would have been suitable World Cup host venues and would have caused minimal interference with AFL. Unfortunately none of them worked out as planned.

Well, there has to be the demand there in the first place so we don't go around creating a series of white elephants.

Of course the SANFL would want to get a good deal out of a new billion dollar plus stadium in Adelaide - and also get the best terms.

They don't want to be screwed over like many AFL clubs were in relation to Docklands. Funny isn't it that the Melbourne Victory have had a better deal at Docklands in recent years than many Melbourne clubs - and yet the place wouldn't have been built without the steady stream of 40+ AFL matches every year. Wouldn't have been viable.

I can't blame the SANFL for wanting a big say in the new stadium given Adelaide and Port Adelaide are clearly the No. 1 and No. 2 tenants of any new stadium - they should be getting the best deal.

If other sports (Soccer and Rugby for a couple of internationals against the likes of Namibia perhaps), or the SA Government, can't accept this then they'll probably never get their stadium built (Maybe a 30K rectangular stadium - but certainly no more than that).

Simply put - they must get the SANFL on board - and Cricket Australia even to make the place viable. They knkow that, we know that, everyone knows that.

Why would the SANFL handover having control of a stadium (that wouldn't be viable without them) to another body? That's why they built Football Park in the first place afterall.

As for WA, slightly more interesting case - but the AFL still brings the best product to the market and must be Priority No. 1 in any new WA stadium - although the presence of the Western Force gives them slightly less leverage than the SANFL.

But in the AFL's favour is the prospect of a 3rd WA team - perhaps by the time of a 2022 World Cup. This would mean probably a minimum of 35 AFL games there per year - easily making the AFL the biggest tenant (and of course with the biggest crowds year in year out).

You can see why the politics of this is all so important - and there will simply not be built rectangular stadiums in either of these cities that meet FIFA requirements without getting the AFL on board - and as the major tenant.