FFA is "Offside" in Player Payment Proposal

Player payments have become the topic of discussion amongst Football fans this week. Phill Chadwick reports, the FFA proposal could do more harm than good for the A-League.

The Football Federation of Australia seems to be positioning itself as the be-all and end-all of the A-League. The most important components in the competition, the clubs, are becoming more and more peripheral to an all-powerful FFA. This trend must stop.

I was very disturbed to read last week that the Football Federation of Australia was “ready, willing and able” to enter into arrangements to pay half of some A-League players' wages. Specifically it seemed to be for repatriated Australian Internationals in the twilight of their careers.

The details were a little vague, but I was left with the impression that, if a club wanted to bring home an ageing former Australian International player, and couldn't afford international market rates for his wages, than the FFA would be willing to kick in with half of the cash.

Along similar lines, we heard from Miron Blieberg and Nick Theodorakopoulis that the FFA should set up an American MLS-style central contracting system, then dole out players to the clubs.

I am begging you, Messrs. Lowy, O'Neill and Co., do not do this. It would be deeply unfair, as well as potentially turning this competition into some kind of series of contrived exhibition matches.

A draft system to allocate players to clubs evenly would not work. A major attraction to elderly Aussie players returning is the chance to re-join family and friends in their home town. You can't then draft them to another city. Why would they accept such a restriction?

One of the strengths of the free market football transfer system is that it avoids the distortions of an AFL style draft. In that system, there is no choice. If you want to play in the AFL, you accept the draft lottery and take your chances. Many young players never settle at interstate clubs and fail to fulfil their potential.

What football in this country needs from its administrators is leadership, funding and good promotion.

Already the FFA has felt the need to take over Perth when Nick Tana withdrew. That was expedient, if regrettable. That club should be given every opportunity to survive. But that has now turned into a long term plan, for this season at least.

And the latest development reported is that the FFA's current Technical Manager Ron Smith may be appointed coach. They get deeper and deeper into the club. Where will it end?

The FFA should run the competition, not interfere in the running of the clubs.

What will the hard-nosed business men of the FFA do to secure their investment in Perth? Make no mistake, operators with the commercial instincts and lifetime habits of Frank Lowy and John O'Neill will not fail to protect their organisation's interests in all ways possible. To expect them to do otherwise would be naïve. But they are supposed to be running the competition as a whole.

Perth need to be represented in this competition, but at what cost?

Likewise, Sydney FC, part owned by Lowy family interests is another case in point. This country owes a huge debt of gratitude to Frank Lowy. No-one should underestimate his contribution to the A-League, as well as to our recent World Cup performances.

Frank clearly wants to own a football club and, Sydney FC is his choice. With his financial clout, who could resist? And with ownership comes control, or else what is the point?

I have absolutely no problem with Lowy, either personally, or through family members, owning and running a football club.

But not at the same time he is Chairman of the organisation that runs that club's competition.

Could the Chairman of the Reserve Bank also own 49% of Westpac?

The FFA still own 25% of Melbourne.

But this has all been covered before. And with the passage of time, people become used to this sort of thing. That does not make it right.

How much the other six clubs may suffer because of these arrangements can never be known, and even if there is no actual disadvantage, the suspicion of bias will be there. These arrangements are not right, they are not in the best interests of the A-League, and they undermine the integrity of the competition.

Some may argue that the ends may justify the means and transparency and integrity of the competition are not the most important factors.

I think they are.

But back to the player payments scheme.

How blatantly unfair can you get? Do the clubs that have already filled their squads get an equal amount?

Of the eight clubs, some will fill their squads using the funds and resources at their disposal. Some others will have a free slot, but not the money to attract a star. Here comes the FFA, pays for half of the cost and everybody is happy.

Well, I'm not happy. Why should some clubs receive this help while others, as a result of their own good management, good sponsorship, or generous owners, do not.

If the FFA has money to spare, spend it on promotion of the game, or spend it on setting up a youth league.

If it is really best spent attracting quality players to this league, then all clubs should be allocated exactly the same amount of money to be spent as they see fit. It would then be up to the club to recruit the player.

Personally, I think all available spare funds should be used by the FFA in promotion of the competition. Attracting youngsters to the games, generating media interest, and promoting the matches, the personalities and the skills of the players would be far more beneficial in the long run. A short term surge of interest in some elderly player past his prime would be a poor return.

I have a real problem with any system that gives the FFA any say or influence in determining the playing staff of a club.

Only the club and its management will be judged by these decisions. And only they should be involved.

So let's see the FFA get back to its job, and leave the running of the clubs alone.

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