while those stats are good, keep in mind the level of immigration to Australia is so high that the majority of that growth is from people who weren't born in Australia and thus have no interest in AFL. Population growth amongst Australian born people is basically static.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The great AFL marketing con job...going absolutely nowhere FAST.
- Thread starter Bollox
- Start date
- Tagged users None
while those stats are good, keep in mind the level of immigration to Australia is so high that the majority of that growth is from people who weren't born in Australia and thus have no interest in AFL. Population growth amongst Australian born people is basically static.
These are fair enough questions, even if the delivery is somewhat unorthodox.
My football memory goes back some 35 years, when each VFL club played out of its own crappy little ground that would become mud heaps in the middle of Winter (in the days when it used to rain).
In those days, it was not unusual to have a crowd of around 11,000 at the Western Oval, especially if it was wet or windy, or more usually, both.
I attended a game at Waverley in 1976 that only attracted 7,000 patrons.
Footscray would have memberships in those days floating around the 5,000 mark (although they did lead the league in memberships back in 1955, the year after they won their one and only premiership).
North's last game at Arden Street attracted 4,000.
Then you look at the soon to be $1 billion TV deal, and you'd have to conclude that the VFL of the 70s and the AFL of today are chalk and cheese.
Growth into Sydney and Brisbane? Rugby League has been strong in one tiny corner of England for 100 years plus, has never extended to any part of the UK in all that time.
The message? It's very, very hard to break into new territories that have an established footballing presence of one type or another.
It's difficult to knock what the AFL has achieved to date.
My football memory goes back some 35 years, when each VFL club played out of its own crappy little ground that would become mud heaps in the middle of Winter (in the days when it used to rain).
In those days, it was not unusual to have a crowd of around 11,000 at the Western Oval, especially if it was wet or windy, or more usually, both.
I attended a game at Waverley in 1976 that only attracted 7,000 patrons.
Footscray would have memberships in those days floating around the 5,000 mark (although they did lead the league in memberships back in 1955, the year after they won their one and only premiership).
North's last game at Arden Street attracted 4,000.
Then you look at the soon to be $1 billion TV deal, and you'd have to conclude that the VFL of the 70s and the AFL of today are chalk and cheese.
Growth into Sydney and Brisbane? Rugby League has been strong in one tiny corner of England for 100 years plus, has never extended to any part of the UK in all that time.
The message? It's very, very hard to break into new territories that have an established footballing presence of one type or another.
It's difficult to knock what the AFL has achieved to date.
That 1999 crowd figure only works when you include the two home finals we played. Which we obviously didn't play in 2009.
http://www.stats.rleague.com/afl/teams/swans/allgames.html
One question, why havent the other(state) leauges kept their crowd totals up to what they were 20 odd yr ago? same with local footy. Still seems like something funny is going on there. Or is this all part of making the AFL 'bigger' by taking it from everywhere else?
- Mar 23, 2007
- 34,932
- 23,542
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man U, Canucks and 49ers
Surely Sydney's statistical position should be compared with that of the other states/markets teams.
On its own, it means nothing.
Does anyone think Port might not be around in this league in five years time?
On its own, it means nothing.
Does anyone think Port might not be around in this league in five years time?
The failure is getting kids playing - simple. Leagues and teams have shut all over, the game is not played in schools anymore - this is the long term problem.
I think a second Sydney team is great. Games each week, local rivalry will help the sport. But it will all be for nothing if we fail to get the kids playing.
Where Bollox has a point (I cant believe I said that) is that the selected stats, spin, high value tv deals and marketing BS are hiding the drop off in participation. The lack of participation leaves gaps other sports will fill.
I think a second Sydney team is great. Games each week, local rivalry will help the sport. But it will all be for nothing if we fail to get the kids playing.
Where Bollox has a point (I cant believe I said that) is that the selected stats, spin, high value tv deals and marketing BS are hiding the drop off in participation. The lack of participation leaves gaps other sports will fill.
There's no doubt that participation rates in Juniour Footy are a bit down. When I was a lad (previous Millenium) you played Footy or you didn't play. Now there's soccer, basketball (huge in juniors), plus a whole raft of other minor sports easily availabe.
But is that a bad thing? Surely it is better to have kids having more options to play sport than just 'footy or nothing'. I wonder how many kids are playing basketball now who wouldn't be playing footy because their parents don't want to stand out in the rain on a freezing winter's morning, but are quite happy to turn up to a heated indoor stadium for an hour or two.
Ok, so we lose a couple of top athletes to other sports. So what. AFL football will still represent the best Aussie Rules competition on the planet - we'll still go and watch. We don't have Usain Bolt, LeBron James or Lionel Messi playing AFL now.
So we don't get quite the same crowd numbers or TV rights . so what. It means Jonathon Brown will only be paid $500K instead of $600K per annum.
So the product will get worse because we don't have the best possible athletes playing - so what. According to most pundits, footballers these days are far more skilled, fitter, stronger and faster than 30 years ago - yet most say the game in the 70s was better to watch. We still go along and watch.
Sometimes the hysteria over 'We're the biggest game!'. 'We must maintain the growth' etc is a bit puzzling. It's only a piece of entertainment after all.
But is that a bad thing? Surely it is better to have kids having more options to play sport than just 'footy or nothing'. I wonder how many kids are playing basketball now who wouldn't be playing footy because their parents don't want to stand out in the rain on a freezing winter's morning, but are quite happy to turn up to a heated indoor stadium for an hour or two.
Ok, so we lose a couple of top athletes to other sports. So what. AFL football will still represent the best Aussie Rules competition on the planet - we'll still go and watch. We don't have Usain Bolt, LeBron James or Lionel Messi playing AFL now.
So we don't get quite the same crowd numbers or TV rights . so what. It means Jonathon Brown will only be paid $500K instead of $600K per annum.
So the product will get worse because we don't have the best possible athletes playing - so what. According to most pundits, footballers these days are far more skilled, fitter, stronger and faster than 30 years ago - yet most say the game in the 70s was better to watch. We still go along and watch.
Sometimes the hysteria over 'We're the biggest game!'. 'We must maintain the growth' etc is a bit puzzling. It's only a piece of entertainment after all.
Wallaby, very complacent.
Its not about taking choices away from kids by stopping them playing other sports. I played soccer, footy, Union, tennis, cricket and basketball at different times as a kid. I believe that kids are not playing footy anything even close to when I was young, in many schools it not available and it is not taught and there is inadiquate promotion.
There is no better way to get people interested in a sport than getting them to play it.
This is even more true than normal in West Sydney and the Gold Coast.
Its not about taking choices away from kids by stopping them playing other sports. I played soccer, footy, Union, tennis, cricket and basketball at different times as a kid. I believe that kids are not playing footy anything even close to when I was young, in many schools it not available and it is not taught and there is inadiquate promotion.
There is no better way to get people interested in a sport than getting them to play it.
This is even more true than normal in West Sydney and the Gold Coast.
- Thread starter
- #59
Finally some good discussion from some smarter types.
I didnt sit down to write an essay then edit it, polish it and present it. its a net forum so i assume i can just prattle on as it comes into my thick head and just type...and u can get the gist of it. If i wasnt specific or repetitive its just time constraints. Shoulda realised i needed to present it like an essay to keep the trolls happy.
Its the genuine growth of the sport i'm trying to get at obviously ...AFL isnt the only governing body selective quoting stats of course, when u strip away naturally increasing revenue numbers how healthy is the grass roots of our game ? Is the game actually growing in real terms or is it just the revenue that is ?
The AFL is also charged with expanding the sport...whilst two new teams are about to go in what is the REAL state of the sport in QLD and NSW ?...are the Swans and Brissy doing any better than they were 5-10 yrs ago ?...has this administraion concentrated on revenue so much that we havent actually noticed the game is going nowhere and possibly backwards in some cases ?
Afterall the AFl is also charged with expanding the game...but what has been the result of this administration till now ? Surely NOW is the time to judge their performance before the two new teams come in and we get fed all sorts of rubbery and suitable new club stats.
I didnt sit down to write an essay then edit it, polish it and present it. its a net forum so i assume i can just prattle on as it comes into my thick head and just type...and u can get the gist of it. If i wasnt specific or repetitive its just time constraints. Shoulda realised i needed to present it like an essay to keep the trolls happy.
Its the genuine growth of the sport i'm trying to get at obviously ...AFL isnt the only governing body selective quoting stats of course, when u strip away naturally increasing revenue numbers how healthy is the grass roots of our game ? Is the game actually growing in real terms or is it just the revenue that is ?
The AFL is also charged with expanding the sport...whilst two new teams are about to go in what is the REAL state of the sport in QLD and NSW ?...are the Swans and Brissy doing any better than they were 5-10 yrs ago ?...has this administraion concentrated on revenue so much that we havent actually noticed the game is going nowhere and possibly backwards in some cases ?
Afterall the AFl is also charged with expanding the game...but what has been the result of this administration till now ? Surely NOW is the time to judge their performance before the two new teams come in and we get fed all sorts of rubbery and suitable new club stats.
Is the AFL Commission's Charter to grow the game? Says who?
What is the ultimate aim of the AFL Commission? Who is it running the competition for? If it trying to maximise revenue, who gets that revenue?
Remember there are over 500,000 paid up members of AFL Football clubs, plus a few AFL members. When were they last asked about whether they wanted to see expansion? Maybe they do - let's ask them.
When the AFL tried to push North out of Melbourne to the Gold Coast (after playing in Melbourne for 80 years) whose decision was that?
This article is more than 6 months old, but is still pretty relevant.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/05/for-the-afl-profit-will-always-be-the-best-fit/
What is the ultimate aim of the AFL Commission? Who is it running the competition for? If it trying to maximise revenue, who gets that revenue?
Remember there are over 500,000 paid up members of AFL Football clubs, plus a few AFL members. When were they last asked about whether they wanted to see expansion? Maybe they do - let's ask them.
When the AFL tried to push North out of Melbourne to the Gold Coast (after playing in Melbourne for 80 years) whose decision was that?
This article is more than 6 months old, but is still pretty relevant.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/05/for-the-afl-profit-will-always-be-the-best-fit/
Any true supporter of Australian Football would want to see the game grow. If something isn't growing its dying.
What do you want Wallaby? A thriving nationwide competition that is undeniably Australia's foremost, or a competition stuck on the Southern coasts?
Shows the fickle nature of the non-traditional markets. I reckon cost will be no obstacle to making GWS successful on the field.
finders
Norm Smith Medallist
I tell you what if the AFL and Australian Football in general is going backwards then where does that leave 50 overs International cricket ,the A League and basketball that are all going backwards at a much more rapid rate including TV ratings.
Nonsense. The VFL didn't grow for 60 years from 1925-1987. It was fine. At that point (well, it really started mid-late 70s), some smart heads realised that there was a lot more money to be made out of football by presenting it as an entertainment product as well as a football competition. Just like Kerry Packer did with cricket.
Thus the defining characteristic for a club's survival became not how successful it was, but how much revenue it could generate. As many point out, since 1980 Fitzroy has appeared in more finals series than Richmond - but which one folded?
The competition is aimed at the casual theatre-goer. Die-hard fans will always turn up - no need to try to appeal to them. So stadiums, TV deals, fixtures etc are designed to appeal to people who cant decide between going to the footy, the art gallery, or a bushwalk. They are the cream (and potentially a lot of cream) on the financial pie. The pie will always be there.
Hey, it's not just the AFL. The EPL is far worse, most euro soccer leagues suffer club implosions and failures on a regular basis. In the US, they sell the franchise to the next billionaire and relocate.
Football nowadays is faster, more skilled, better to watch, than it was 30 years ago. But I don't think the atmosphere of the competition is as good.
Yes and the VFL operated in a sporting vaccum for many years with no competition from other codes. In the 1925 - 1987 period, South Melbourne went broke and was relocated to Sydney.
Part of the reason for expansion is to grow the talent pool as other codes will inevitably pick away at Vic, SA and WA.
Soccer are putting two teams into Melbourne, RL has one, rugby union soon to be one. They will be targetting as much local talent as they can get, providing an aspirational local team as the bait.
Many bemoan the motivation of a bigger TV deal but forget that the AFL remains a non profit organisation whose sole goal is to grow Australian football. Those dollars end up back in the game and are often used to prop up struggling Melb clubs.
Just in the last 15 years, Footscray, North Melbourne, Melbourne and Hawthorn have been on death row. Geelong, Richmond and Carlton have been in serious financial trouble.
We dont have to agree with every decision but surely you accept they are trying to grow and protect the game in the long term.
So far the clubs of the old VFL have been lucky, yes two have relocated but still exist, there are several old NSWRL clubs that are gone forever, many that have merged and other new franchises that didn't last (some due to Superleague but others just didnt get a foothold).
I take your points mate - but its simply a fantasy world to imagine things can go on as they always were. As Redb points out - its a much more competitive marketplace out there - now with 4 fully professional Soccer/Rugby teams in Melbourne alone!
Personally, I can't see all of these 4, and the 10 AFL Victorian clubs all surviving medium-term (15-25 years in this context).
I don't know which one will fold/relocate/merge, but I have a feeling it may be 1 of the AFL teams and 1 of the others - and this is absent a large global financial event (which would favour the AFL most likely).
Finally in your last 2 paragraphs though you begin to make sense and recognise that this is not the AFL's doing - it is going on around the world. The truth is, in a competitive marketplace, if you're not prepared to get down and dirty and fight like everyone else eventually you will be marginalised out of existence - and who really wants that?
But what are we fighting for? Is it to watch interstate teams play out of the Gold Coast on telly? Am I fighting for my team to travel out of town 5-6 times a year, so I can't watch them live? Is it to ensure that all the best athletes play Aussie Rules?
Or is it to ensure that a competition that has existed for over 100 years, based on suburban rivalries, maintains its traditions, history and substance, without throwing too much of it out the window chasing the corporate dollar?
I have no problem with expansion of the competition - I just think it should be a lower priority than preserving the basic fabric and history of the competition.
Here's some more population figures.
1981 population of Australia - ~14.9 million
2010 population of Australia - ~20.9 million
Total attendance of VFL in 1981 - ~3.3 million
SANFL ~ 1million
WAFL ~ 800,000
That includes finals.
(Give or take a few thousand here and there)
In those three states the total of crowds to football in only 3 states was about 5.1 million.
These days it is about 7.5 million for the AFL with games in every state.
In 1981 all games were played at 2pm Saturday.
Collingwood vs Carlton would be at Victoria Park max 37,000 for instance.
There has been a drought in Melbourne for years. Not many games where its seriously weather affected which means lower crowds.
Where is the growth?
There aren't necessarily more people interested in the game. I think the spread of games from Thursday to Monday, the shifting of games to bigger stadiums and the weather proof stadium (Etihad), has simply meant that its easier for football fans to get to games and be there with more comfort. If that was possible in 1981 for instance I imagine the attendance for the VFL would be much greater than 3.3 million.
That also doesn't include attendance to VFA games or attendance to local football.
VFA no longer exists. There was about 21,000 to a VFA division 2 grand final in 1973.
1981 population of Australia - ~14.9 million
2010 population of Australia - ~20.9 million
Total attendance of VFL in 1981 - ~3.3 million
SANFL ~ 1million
WAFL ~ 800,000
That includes finals.
(Give or take a few thousand here and there)
In those three states the total of crowds to football in only 3 states was about 5.1 million.
These days it is about 7.5 million for the AFL with games in every state.
In 1981 all games were played at 2pm Saturday.
Collingwood vs Carlton would be at Victoria Park max 37,000 for instance.
There has been a drought in Melbourne for years. Not many games where its seriously weather affected which means lower crowds.
Where is the growth?
There aren't necessarily more people interested in the game. I think the spread of games from Thursday to Monday, the shifting of games to bigger stadiums and the weather proof stadium (Etihad), has simply meant that its easier for football fans to get to games and be there with more comfort. If that was possible in 1981 for instance I imagine the attendance for the VFL would be much greater than 3.3 million.
That also doesn't include attendance to VFA games or attendance to local football.
VFA no longer exists. There was about 21,000 to a VFA division 2 grand final in 1973.
Good comments.
Nothing is perfect, whether it's evolution or revolution, change is inevitable.
For a long time the VFL did not want to expand the game, they let parts of QLD fall off the vine as other sports moved in or gained ascendancy, same with PNG and the ACT.
So you either move forward and grow the pie or watch it shrink.
Rugby league had a real crack at a national competition with Superleague in the mid 1990's the fans hated it because they made a lot of mistakes with the history and tradition of Sydney clubs by trying to take over the landscape in one hit.
The AFL has made mistakes with the Swans and Lions, but at least with GC and GWS there is a plan, 3 year lead in,etc.
The last expansion of the AFL was in 1996/7 by the time GC hits the comp it will be 15 years.
The A League in 5 years has gone from 8 new teams in each of the main capital cities, added 2 QLD teams in holes in the landscape, and plans to have 2 teams in each of the biggest cities by next year.
If the AFL had no regard for the traditions of the game, there would be about 4 Melb clubs in the national comp.
It's a juggling act that will never please all the people all of the time. Strategicially though it makes sense.
Wallaby
no huge problems with what you have posted, but to say that the VFL didn't grow between 1925 and 1987 and "it was fine" is gilding the lily a bit.
By the early 80s, the VFL (and most of the clubs) were in dire straits - it's from this position that all the changes were made to see the AFL that we have today - but if things had stayed the same back as they were in the early 80s - today we would be a semi-professional comp with about 8 Melbourne clubs, up against stronger national RL and soccer comps.
Regarding participation, the world has changed since the 70s, yes, 99.9% of all boys from the Southern states do not now play aussie rules as a matter of course - even in the heartland, the AFL has to work just to ensure that at least a majority of kids have a go at least once during their childhood years.
no huge problems with what you have posted, but to say that the VFL didn't grow between 1925 and 1987 and "it was fine" is gilding the lily a bit.
By the early 80s, the VFL (and most of the clubs) were in dire straits - it's from this position that all the changes were made to see the AFL that we have today - but if things had stayed the same back as they were in the early 80s - today we would be a semi-professional comp with about 8 Melbourne clubs, up against stronger national RL and soccer comps.
Regarding participation, the world has changed since the 70s, yes, 99.9% of all boys from the Southern states do not now play aussie rules as a matter of course - even in the heartland, the AFL has to work just to ensure that at least a majority of kids have a go at least once during their childhood years.
The AFL competition is not 100 years old. The fact that so many of the old VFL teams are allowed to continue to clutter up what is supposed to be a national competition is proof the AFL is still Vic centric. Thats its biggest problem & weakness. I hate the AFL for what its done to damage Tasmanian football. They dont care about anyone elses team history, so why should anyone care if a few bankrupt suburban Melbourne teams go back to the VFL, or just die out.
The AFL competition is 100 years old.
The idiosyncracies of the competition only serve to make it better, as well. Everyone knows that the 'perfect' competition would have only have 4 teams in Melbourne, and a more even spread around the rest of the country. But it wouldn't be the same. You would lose rivalries, history, a connection to 100 years of tradition.
The expansion franchises add to this. Already, they are forging their own histories, developing their own links. But even they benefit from the idiosyncracies of the competition.
How much better do West Coast look, having come fresh into the competition and out-muscled the established players? How good are those premierships in the 90's when they were travelling 10 times as often as their opponents, and playing every final interstate? The same goes for Adelaide and Port. Brisbane and Sydney have their own tortured pasts, based around suburban Melbourne relocation. Freo are carving out their own story the tough way too. But those stories serve only to complement the existing ones.
The threat is that with expansion you lose the organic process of growth. Who wants to watch an AFL-run, AFL-backed Gold Coast team made up of draft and salary cap concessions dominate in the short term? Who will that satisfy? Certainly not St Kilda supporters who have waited 45 years to get to the top of the ladder. Better to expand slowly - if the Gold Coast struggle for 5-6 years, who cares? The fans will jump on in a big way when success does come.
Well, I am a St. Kilda supporter and I'm not the least bit worried about the Gold Coast.
The amount of hyperbole written about the draft concessions is staggering. This team will not win a Grand Final certainly in its first 4-5 years, it won't even be close!
After 5 years though, the natural maturing of the list should lead it to be contending for Top 4 and Top 6 - but we're talking 2016 onwards really - same for West Sydney.
A team like Melbourne is likely to be up the top of the ladder by then, perhaps winning a Premiership. As for the Saints, if we can't break our Premiership drought this year or next - its got nothing to do with either Gold Coast or West Sydney.
That is really a terrible excuse. Same for the Bulldogs for that matter.
I share those sentiments as a bullies fan.
Woodson
Former AE commish
- Mar 20, 2001
- 30,752
- 11,763
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Steelers, NY Mets, Villa and SUFC
Well said... if the whole GWS project falls on it's arse like I expect it , then the AFL have Tassie waiting to save it as a relocation option. No biggie. As for the AFL wanting to expand...the GF needs to go to a twilight timeslot and bring in REAL ENTERTAINMENT.. very embarrassing that the biggest league down under is still piss-farting around with a laughing stock set up..
Better to watch?? with less experienced players playing more non-contact possession football?? I don't think so... the beauty of the faster game is that the results can flip-flop in 5 minutes without dragging but really, each game has to be taken on it's own merits. A close game at the death will be 'classed as a good game' because of the fightback to make it exciting.. otherwise, the game hasn't become better to watch... the AFL have been screwing around with dogdey/ inconsistent interpretations that drive the REAL Passionate fans wild.. I just learned not to take much notice/ too seriously anymore as it just isn't worth blowing your mind over... health >>>>>> family >>>>> light years >>>>> music >>>>> sport. Period. Sounds like my passion is winding down...ok... maybe it has.. I've decided it's time to move on with my life.
