Op-Ed: The league restructuring option the FFA haven’t considered, Option 4 -the Scozzie!

Expansion to 12 Clubs gives FFA fixture headache.

The new Football Federation of Australia board may have only been elected in November but already it finds itself snared on the horns of a dilemma. How long should the season be after the A-League is increased to 12 teams?

A short-list of six bids is due to be whittled down to two successful bids, likely to be from Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra, at a meeting on 12^th December. These two new clubs will operate from the 2019-2020 or 2020-21 season.

Currently, the 10 clubs play each other three times prior to the finals, giving a 27-game standard season. The top six then qualify for the finals series, a maximum of three more games. The winners of the 27 round season are crowned as Premiers, while the winners of the Grand Final win the more prestigious title of Champions.

But what to do when this is increased to 12 teams? This is the dilemma the new board must wrestle with and decide on at the 12^th December meeting.

The current options being considered are:

1. Play each other twice for a shorter season of 22 home and away rounds.
2. Play each other 3 times in a lop-sided home and away schedule of 33 rounds.
3. Keep a 27-game season comprised of 22 home and away rounds, with the extra 5 rounds being money spinning derby/rivalry fixtures.

The medium-term plan is to further expand to 14 teams a few years later giving a neat season of 26 rounds, but in the interim, with 12 clubs, all of the above options bring their own problems.

Pros and cons of Option 1:

Advantages: fairer than the current system where the extra home game is alternated each season. Two home games against rivals gives a significant advantage to title contenders each season while this format would lead to a fairer outcome.

Disadvantages: the Australian off-season is already 17-weeks, this initiative would increase that to almost half the year, causing acute round ball withdrawal syndrome. Players are not playing enough football to be competitive in the Asian Champions League.

Less games = less money.

Pros and cons of Option2:

Advantages: longer season would give players more football and make them more competitive with rival Asian clubs.

Disadvantages: Problems with broadcaster Foxtel who incur a cost of $80K per game covered live. They would abhor the longer season leading to a greater overlap with the better supported Australian winter codes like AFL (Australian Rules is popular in all the major states) and NRL (Rugby League with its fanatical following in Queensland and New South Wales).

More games can = less money. A plethora of meaningless fixtures with little interest to neutrals.

Pros and cons of Option 3:

Advantages: The broadcasters would love it. More big games with higher ratings. Minimal disruption to the length of the existing season. Similar to how it works in AFL, with the argument being that the finals series irons out any perceived unfairness attached to the lop-sided fixture list.

Disadvantages:

It is unfair! Extra games would undoubtedly comprise Melbourne and Sydney Derbies giving those clubs greater income and exposure to increase their fan base further, at the expense of the clubs outside the two Australian megacities. Many stakeholders feel that Australian soccer’s resistance to naked commercial pressures is a positive attribute distinguishing it from AFL. It may also attract more unwelcome attention from FIFA.

 

So with the disadvantages clearly outweighing the advantages in all three options currently under consideration, what can the FFA do?

This has resulted in some advocating an immediate expansion to 14 teams and the 26 round season https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/why-14-teams-is-the-best-option-for-the-a-league  Whilst this is the desired endgame, administrators are still smarting from the demise of previous expansion clubs North Queensland Fury and Gold Coast United who withered on the A-League vine after a few ignominious seasons, bedevilled by poor crowds, financial problems and egotistical owners.

I disagree. This approach of due diligence and gradual expansion is definitely the right one. But the 12 club league seems to pose intractable problems.

As a Scozzie, I can offer the FFA a 4^th option inspired by the Scottish Premiership.

The top Scottish tier has 12 teams, and a split between the top six and bottom six after 33 rounds. Each six then all play each other giving a total of 38 rounds. As the number 1 sport in Scotland the split after 33 rounds makes sense, but conditions peculiar to Australia would dictate a split after 22 rounds, avoiding excessive competition with the winter codes.

I hereby present to the FFA their salvation:

Option 4:

12 teams play 22 home and away rounds.

The top and bottom 6 then split to play a further 5 rounds giving a total of 27 rounds.

The top 4 then play the finals series. 1^st v. 4^th, 2^nd v. 3^rd in the semi-finals, the winners playing the Grand Final.

The bottom 2 of the bottom 6 fail to qualify for the following season’s FFA cup.

Advantages:

Minimal disruption to the broadcasters with an identical length standard season. Largely preserve the equality of home and away fixtures apart from in the 6-6 split series. Increase in amount of meaningful games for all clubs till the end of the season. Penalty for finishing in bottom two acts as a precursor to relegation when the 2^nd tier is eventually established. Preserves the Australian tradition of a finals series to decide the Champions.

Disadvantages:

May bring in less income in the short term than Option 3. Half the teams will have an extra home game after the 6-6 split.

So what about it FFA?

Why not choose the option which preserves the fairness and integrity of the competition, perhaps eschewing short term commercial gain, in favour of building the game’s reputation and popularity in the longer term.