Tarnish Appearing on the Shiny New A-League

The Lowy family and the FFA has its fingers in too many A-League pies, and must get back to independence says Phill Chadwick.

In the long, dull break between A-League seasons, and before the World Cup grabs our undivided attention, all should be sweet in the fan's minds.

The clubs are recruiting Marquee players, topping up and fine-tuning their squads and getting down to a solid pre-season training regime.

But, tarnishing the otherwise shiny new A-League are a few worrying signs.

Just to list them off, FFA owns a large part of Melbourne Victory; FFA owns all of Perth Glory; Frank Lowy, via the "Lowy Family" owns a large stake in Sydney FC and wants to own a controlling stake.

Then there is the fixture list, just released. You probably won't hear club officials complaining much, they know which side their bread is buttered, but fans of some clubs would be angered by some of the scheduling decisions.

One Hundred and Twenty Million Dollars certainly buys a lot of influence, and any notion of fairness to the teams, or more pointedly, to their supporters seems to have gone forever.

Much has been written before regarding a conflict of interest between the FFA's ownership stake in Melbourne Victory. We hear only of their concern to protect that investment by board representation. What we should be hearing is their strenuous efforts to divest themselves of these shares. The FFA has no business owning shares in one of its member clubs.

But, wait a minute, they now have 100% of Perth Glory as well. An emergency measure this may be, to prop up the franchise while investors are found. If that is so, then let's get new owners in place with all possible speed. Behind the scenes deals may be going on, but it is the opposite of healthy for this arrangement to exist any longer than absolutely necessary.

At least that ownership hasn't translated into a favourable draw for the Perth side, but more of that later.

Frank Lowy should be given immense kudos for his work in the establishment of the A-League. Without his leadership, commitment and passion, we wouldn't have this competition at all. Arguably, we wouldn't have the Guus Hiddink-driven World Cup qualification, either. So, all credit to him on those counts.

But he is Chairman of the FFA. How much more grave a conflict of interest could there be than the conflict between Chairing the body charged with the fair running of the competition, and having a controlling share in one of its clubs? Technically, Frank Lowy may not personally own those shares, but a man of his business acumen does not have to own them himself to exercise significant control.

I can't believe he sees huge profits in this enterprise. In any case, he could never in his lifetime spend more than a fraction of his immense wealth. So why would he wish to do this?

To "rescue" a dying club? Maybe. Does it need rescuing? Maybe. But other clubs also made losses last season. Why not tip money into all of them?

Sydney FC now starts to look like a rich man's plaything. The money involved may be small change to LaPaglia and Lowy and their ilk. A bit of fun to be involved.

Now, Frank Lowy is perfectly entitled to own any amount of shares in any club, but not before he resigns as Chairman of the FFA.

Fairness is largely subjective, it is a perception, rather than an objective fact. The A-League, like any other sporting competition needs to be perceived as fair. If Lowy goes ahead with his plan, the inevitable perception will be that Sydney FC is the favorite toy of the FFA's venerable Chairman.

Other clubs and their supporters would be justified in feeling lower in the pecking order. And that is not healthy.

The 2006-07 season programme was released recently, and it makes for interesting reading. Foxtel, having paid a large sum for the broadcast rights may have dictated the schedule. Some would say that that would be reasonable, considering their investment. But the principle of fairness should out-rank any need to pander to television.

Perhaps I am being harsh, but analyse the schedule from the point of view of, for example, Perth Glory, and some worrying patterns emerge.

Their home/away ratio is 21 rounds, 10 home, 11 away, That may be reasonable, but look at the sequence:

A HH A H A HH AAAA HH AAA HHH A

Perth, being the world's most isolated capital city, is a long way from the east coast. Travel is a major issue for players, and having a period with four away games in a row and then another three away games in a row will put enormous physical strain on the players.

The consequence of a string of four consecutive away matches on the Perth squad will be much higher than that on, say, the Central Coast squad simply due to the fact that Central Coast have to travel a few kilometres up or down the highway for many of its away matches. The longest away sequence Central Coast have is three, with a local derby against Newcastle as the middle game.

Central Coast supporters are in the luxurious position of having short road trips to two local rivals. Most other clubs' supporters have overnight bus trips, or expensive air travel to all away matches.

From my brief look at the fixtures, Perth seem to be the worst off. What is the logic in such a schedule? There is none. Any schedule in which fairness was a factor would have as close to a home/away/home/away sequence as possible.

The quickest way to upset and annoy the supporters is to give them a sense of injustice. But maybe justice or fairness doesn't count any more. Maybe the new football scene doesn't see the need for fairness.

What's more the A-League has an avowed policy of building up the league by increasing match attendances. That goal has had no impact on the schedule that I can see.

Pity the poor Perth Glory fan, with no home match for more than a month, mid-season. Is there a better way to lose momentum? Or is it a ploy to make them so starved for football that they rush out and subscribe to Foxtel in desperation?

Also tucked away in the match schedule announcement was the news that Asian Champions League entry will be open for the Premiers and Champions (or Champion runner-up) of this coming season. With the Grand Final slated for 18 February, there will be an interesting conflict looming with the Asian Football Confederation.

Previous Champions League competitions required National Federations to nominate participants in late December. Maybe that has changed, and all that is required is a confirmation that a country will nominate clubs in due course. But that is only the first deadline.

From the Asian Champions League official web site:

"PRELIMINARY REGISTRATION
Teams must lodge a Preliminary Squad List of 30 players with the AFC by February 10. Once the squad list has been received by the AFC, no player may be replaced or substituted.

Of the 30 players registered, three (3) may be non-citizens or foreign players."

So, participating clubs, with an A-League maximum 20-man squad, are required to nominate 30-man squads for the ACL by 10 February 2007. We will have a Premier, but we won't have a Champion by then. In view of the fact that earlier this year, four clubs were excluded from the current ACL competition for missing the registration deadline, I don't think they will look too kindly on the FFA's plans.

And how do all four of the potential Grand Finalists go about recruiting the additional 10 men before they even know whether or not they will qualify?

If fairness or justice count for anything, the current Premiers (Adelaide) and Champions (Sydney) should be Australia's representatives.

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