Strange Bedfellows: Melbourne Victory and FFA

Phill Chadwick reports the FFA are seeking a position on the Melbourne Victory board, however could this be detrimental for Football?

The latest news on the sorry state of the Melbourne Victory A-League franchise sounds some alarm bells to me. And I'm not talking about their Sack the Coach" campaign.

It seems that the FFA, which is holding a 25% stake in the club, now also wants a seat on its Board. For the FFA to prop up the club during its initial start-up struggles is understandable, if a little odd. But this should only ever have been a temporary situation. To also sit on its Board is dangerous.

In my view there is no place for the governing body of the sport to be part-owners of any club. There are serious conflict of interest questions here, as well as questions as to the fairness of the arrangement in regard to the rest of the A-League teams.

In the first place, the mere fact that Melbourne couldn't get a club together without generous concessions from the FFA, puts the self-styled "Sporting Capital of Australia" tag to rest once and for all. Lets be honest, Melbourne is so enslaved by AFL football that all other sports are only minor irritants.

Now, after investing in the Melbourne club, the businessman in Frank Lowy and his FFA are naturally looking to protect their investment. But what are the implications?

A 25% shareholding is a significant stake in any business. Prudent investors would naturally want to protect that sort of investment and the best way to do that is to have Board representation. That is fair enough under normal circumstances.

These are not normal circumstances and the FFA is not a normal investor.

I realise that an A-League without a Melbourne team would be unthinkable and most football fans would see the logic in the FFA being an investor of last resort to secure the establishment of the club. What they must not do is turn this into a long term situation.

You might say, what is the big deal? Why shoudn't the FFA own part of a club?

Well, think about how would you feel if the Referee appointed to the A-League Grand Final owned 25% of one of the Clubs playing? That would never be allowed, and for good reason. That is exactly why the FFA should get out of this arrangement as soon as possible.

How can the FFA administer the competition fairly while owning a stake in one of the clubs? Even worse, how can it even think of appointing someone to that club's Board, to be privy to all of its financial, strategic and management decisions. And vice-versa, why should Melbourne Victory be privy to FFA plans?

In well-managed businesses, conflicts of interest at Board level are handled by the conflicted Board member sitting out of the discussion and voting process. These situations are very carefully documented so that conflicts can be seen to be avoided.

If Melbourne Victory did that, the FFA member would be absent most of the time. Clearly that would be absurd. The FFA appointee would want to be an active member of the Board, or why bother at all?

Lowy, through his family already has a stake in Sydney FC. It could be argued that even this puts that club too close to the FFA organisation. The Melbourne situation is much, much worse.

The FFA should get out of this crazy situation by selling off its stake in Melbourne and getting on with running the competition. That is where their energy should be directed so that debacles, like not having the Premiership Plate ready to present to Adelaide United at its last home game, do not happen again.

That may be only a minor issue to fans of the other seven clubs, but let me say, as an Adelaide United follower, that it was very disappointing. What sort of organisation is so concerned with its investment in one of its member clubs that it can't get the trophy made on time?

•  Have a view on this story? Send us your feedback!