On this show we catch up a long term friend of Not The Footy Show, David Mitchell who is an expert in leadership. He was recently looking at the changes at the top in F1 – a sport he knows well having been involved for a number of years, – and wondered if he could give us an insight into the key components to good leadership within sport.How many times does a change in Leadership slow down the sport achieving the goals it set out to achieve, and result in a culture shift. Does Long term sustainable success only come when the leader is given time?

David also talks about F1 and teh impact that this change of leadership has had in this space. If you are after more information from David visit his website at the Brand Rover.

John’s topic of interest is the news that in the AFL one of their Insurance companies is no longer going to cover players who suffer concussion. What are the potential ramifications of this decision. Will all players at all levels soon have to sign a waiver stating that they understand teh risks involve din playing that sport.

With the announcement by CONMEBOL that as a Confederation they plan to endores FIFA President Gianni Infantino for another term at the top of the sport Ashley asks does this show how the Confederations are out of touch with the people, Do the various sports still require the Confederations as a level of management of the sport, are they still relevant? Is it time to stop the gravy train, and would many sports be better off taking away this level of management? Is it time to go back to sport being governed from the bottom up rather than the top down?

If you don’t want to miss a post or a podcast subscribe to Not The Footy Show on our home page. Almost 2000 people have. All you need do is insert your email address and then you will receive an email update whenever a new post or podcast is posted. Rest assured we will not pass on your information! Also please feel free to share your thoughts and the Podcast.

Remember you can email us with suggestions for topics to be discussed. If there is a topic or a guest that you would like us to feature, please contact us.

Find all our podcasts on iTunes

The post NTFS #143 – Finding the Right Leaders, Insurance Changing Sport, and The Future of the Confederation. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Sometimes these events threw up some very odd match-ups. For example in 1796 in the parish of Bury Common in Suffolk in the East of England a team of married women – yes women were playing cricket as far back as then – played the ‘maidens’ for a wager and beat them. As unpolitically correct as this may sound today, a maiden in the 1700’s was “a young, unmarried woman, frequently emphasizing her status as a virgin or a person of innocence.”

Following that victory the married women apparently threw down a challenge to play any village side in Suffolk for any stakes; but no team took up their challenge.

In the same year 11 Greenwich pensioners, each with only one leg played a two-day match against an 11 who each only had one arm. A thousand guineas is said to have rested on the result. Trying to establish the worth of this today we were stymied slightly as apparently it depends on which economic metric you use, however we have been advised that it would be a sum between £197,000 and £2.1 million!

Believe it or not the game attracted so much attention that not all of the spectators could gain access to the Walworth ground where it was played.

For the record, the one-legged men won by 111 runs, and so the report claims there were five broken legs, all wooden ones!

In the early 20th century in the United Kingdom betting on football matches began to gain popularity among fans. Informal betting on football matches was common there as it was in Australia, with people placing wagers among friends or through local bookmakers operating outside the law.

In the 1920’s in the UK they introduced the Football Pools to try and contain betting on games.

In 1960, the British government took the significant step by legalising betting shops. This was done through the Betting and Gaming Act of 1960. This transformed the betting industry and brought it into a legal and regulated framework.

Since then thanks to modern technology the whole betting landscape has evolved. Now the ease with which people can place bets and the range of bets available has made this a very profitable outlet for millions of people around the world.

Today betting has become far more sophisticated, and as we have seen those running the books for bets have been known to influence the participants of games at all levels. Not The Footy Show has broached this subject many times over the past twenty years, as our concerns on the impact it has started to have on what are supposed to be genuine contests has led to many questioning the outcomes of games, in addition to the number of children who know the odds rather than the players playing. (Rolling the Dice, and from 2016 A Change of Tack Needed – You Can Bet On It)

It was therefore refreshing, irrespective of which party it was making the announcement, that the Australian Government is finally taking a stance on betting. Many feared that this would never happen. Why? Simply due to the revenue generated for the State and Federal Governments in gambling taxes, with wagering (betting on racing and sports) contributing significantly along with electronic gaming machines (pokies) and lotteries. The Australian state and territory governments collect over $9 billion annually from these taxes! The total gambling taxes for state governments reached approximately $9.4 billion in 2023/24.

From a state perspective the New South Wales government received $343 million from wagering in 2023/24, while Queensland received $299.5 million. So these are huge sums of money. It is not just the betting companies who are reaping the benefits of a culture that has a hold on many.

In 2023–24 there was a decline in overall wagering revenue in Australia as the total figure dropped to $22.3 billion.

Clearly the Government is looking to protect the next generation from the perils of gambling, as much of what was announced was targeted at the youth. This includes capping television gambling adverts to three per hour between 6am and 8.30pm, and a total ban on radio advertising during school pick-up and drop-off times.

In addition Gambling advertisements would also be banned on social media and streaming platforms unless the users are logged in, over 18, and have the option to opt out. While using celebrities or athletes to advertise, odds-style advertisements targeting sports fans, and advertisements inside sports venues or on players’ uniforms are to be outlawed.

The big question being asked is have these measures gone far enough? Will it simply mean that the advertisements will pop up elsewhere and there will be more of them?

The reforms, announced come more than three years after the landmark Murphy review into gambling advertising was handed down. The “You Win Some, You Lose More” report from a parliamentary inquiry into the harm online gambling can cause was led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy. That inquiry made 31 recommendations, including a phased total ban on online gambling advertising as well as TV, radio and in stadia and on sports team shirts.

There were other recommendations such as creating a new independent online gambling ombudsman, as well as introducing a harm-reduction levy on betting companies which would fund research, education and support services.

Understandably the betting companies are upset. So too are many politicians who feel that the measures announced do not go far enough.

One area that many at the coalface in sport would like to see policed is the live-streaming market. So many organisations have entered this space but are in fact a front for betting organisations obtaining data which enables them to work out odds on semi-professional and even amateur sports.

Most sports administrators lack any knowledge in this space, so simply look at what they believe is the best deal for their sport. Few take the time to delve into who is behind offering them such a deal. One recent example was a sport stating that they had been offered AI cameras “at an incredible rate” and that the company supplying them advised that there would be staff in the Phillipines collating statistical data on these games for them. The obvious question is why would someone in the Phillipines be doing this, why would they be offering such a service? The only reason this data is being collected is for betting purposes!

Another example was a sport that signed up to such a service only to find out that there was a clause in the contract which stated that all of that data did not belong to them, but to their service provider.

This is an area that needs to be monitored very closely, as now these AI cameras are showing junior matches as well as adult games and it has been alleged that in some sports bets can be placed on these junior matches. Have these parents given permission for their children to be filmed and that data to be used for betting purposes? How easy would it be to influence a child to let in a goal? The risks far outweigh the benefits.

Sometimes it is not just the companies themselves who are linked to the betting companies. Sometimes the company staff are in fact sending data to them while employed to cover matches. Which highlights that just like in tennis the levels below the professional ranks have already been infiltrated by the betting companies, and it is going to be very hard to reverse that trend.

Then there is the matter of players involved at this level of the sport actually betting on the competitions that they are playing in. While almost every competition makes this illegal and threatens severe penalties, why is it still happening? Often players are quite brazen about their bets. Team mates know about these goings on, even clubs, so how come those in charge don’t appear to, or choose to turn a blind eye?

If the Government and the other political parties are serious about getting on top of this problem they must pay closer attention to many of these companies and what they are doing with the data supplied by their cameras.

The sad truth is that those involved in this space are extremely clever, and far too cunning for many sports administrators.

An example of this is the company Dream11 who In 2018 announced partnerships with the International Cricket Council (ICC), the Pro Kabaddi League, the International Hockey Federation (FIH), the Women’s Big Bash League (WBBL) and the Big Bash League (BBL).

Dream11 is an Indian fantasy sports platform that allowed its users to play daily fantasy sports contests, primarily in cricket. The platform gave users the option to take part in paid and/or free contests by assembling a virtual team of real-life players, and then they scored points based on those players’ actual statistical performances during games. In 2025 it was reported that paid contests on its platform, accounted for over 90% of its revenue.

In 2018, through their newly signed partnerships, Dream11 introduced two new games on their platform kabaddi and hockey. In October 2019, New Zealand Cricket (NZC) announced Dream11 as the title sponsor for the Super Smash domestic Twenty20 competition. In January 2021, the partnership was extended for another six years.

In April 2019, Dream11 became the first Indian fantasy sport company startup company valued at over US$1 billion. It is privately owned and not listed on a share market. In November 2021, Dream11 was valued at USD$8 billion, and claimed to have over 200 million users.

Again these are astronomical numbers, so how much were the sports benefitting from their association?

On 30 June 2023, Dream11 acquired the sponsorship rights of the Indian National Cricket Team for a reported INR358 crore; over USD 2billion.

Dream11 discontinued its paid contests option in August 2025 after the Parliament of India passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. Since then there have been a number of court cases trying to ascertain if this company is a gambling platform. Dream11 has claimed that it is “a game of skill” while legal experts believe it is in fact operating in a regulatory “grey area.”

Despite the implications that this has been viewed as a gambling platform how many of the aforementioned sporting organisations have come out with a statement or even distanced themselves from the company? Could it be that their silence has been bought?

As some cynics of the company in India have pointed out, if profits are truly as high as those that have appeared in the media, could players in this competition be open to bribes to affect the outcomes of teams online? With so much geared around T20 Cricket competitions, a format of the game rife with allegations of max-fixing one would think that this would certainly need closer attention. Should players be permitted to be ambassadors for such an organisation?

Depending on your answer, the follow up question may well be, should sporting associations and competitions really be partnering such a company?

Certainly there can be no doubt that Dream11 saw an opportunity and grabbed it. However, did those who partnered them understand the true implications of such a marriage when they signed up?

How many of these sporting organisations actually have written into their constitutions that their member associations and teams should have absolutely no links to betting companies? So why is no one questioning their involvement? Why are revenues from these arrangements not publicly available? Surely these should be out in the open for all to see, and there should be no hiding behind commercial confidences. To do so just raises even more suspicion.

Governments can step in as we saw in India and here in Australia, even if they have been slow to react. However, there needs to be far greater transparency when it comes to the revenues earned from companies associated with or totally involved in wagering and betting. What has been put at risk by those national and international bodies signing such agreements is not only the integrity of the sport, but more importantly the integrity of the various competitions.

Can we truly trust the outcomes of the games we are watching today?

Without that integrity competitive sport as we know it will die.

The post New Measures Only Scratching The Surface first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

It is interesting to note that the Australian-based VFL/AFL resisted the idea of substitutes even for an injury when it was suggested at the turn of the last century. The reason was they did not trust players to not fake injury so a fresh play could come on. They waited until 1930 to allow a replacement player onto the field of play.

Cricket, despite having a twelfth man, who could come on and field, but was not allowed to bat or bowl took even longer to allow a substitute. In 2017 a specialist wicket-keeper was allowed to come on if the first choice player was injured, rather than one of the outfield players taking the gloves. Then in July 2019, the International Cricket Council agreed to allow the use of concussion replacements in all international cricket matches from 1 August 2019, with the substitute having to be a “like-for-like replacement.”

Other than these two changes they have stood firm on allowing replacement players to come on if a player is injured during the match and allow them to bat or bowl. Of course over the history of the game there have been accusations levelled at opposing teams for bringing on ‘a specialist fielder.’

A recent example was when in the 2005 Ashes Series England used Gary Pratt as a specialist substitute fielder. He then ran-out the Australian captain Ricky Ponting, which caused friction between the teams and highlighted this tactic. A similar accusation was levelled at England in the 1985 Ashes series at Trent Bridge when Nottinghamshire’s specialist short-leg, Kenyan-born Basharat Hassan came on and fielded in that specific position.

Clearly both of these examples were aimed to benefit the fielding side.

There have also been some notorious incidents which have not been genuine to try and alter the course of a game or get a substitute on.

In 2009 in rugby union, Harlequins player Tom Williams used a fake blood capsule to simulate a facial injury. This allowed the team to bring a specialist kicker back onto the field. Harlequins were caught, and received significant fines and suspensions.

In 2024 Netball changed it’s rules to allow for “tactical changes” after goals, this was explicitly aimed at eliminating faked injuries which were being used to enable substitutions.

In football people have found references to substitutes in rmatch reports in the 19th century. However, it is believed that these were often stand-ins for players who were late turning up, and who were replaced when the late player finally arrived.

Substitutes were first allowed in the qualifying tournament for the 1954 World Cup. The first ever substitution being when Richard Gottinger replaced Horst Eckel in West Germany’s match against the Saarland. Despite this, substitutions were not permitted in the World Cup Finals until 1970.

The Football League in England only decided to allow substitutes from the start of the 1965-66 season, although they were only to be used to replace an injured player.

On the 21st of August 1965 Charlton’s Keith Peacock became enshrined in football history by becoming the first substitute when he came on for injured goalkeeper Mike Rose at Bolton.

In that very first season there were suspicions that some players were feigning injuries to allow their team to make a tactical substitution. In 1967, the rule was changed to allow substitutions for any reason.

Of course once that rule came in there was pressure to allow teams two substitutes. There was also a push to allow teams to have a reserve goalkeeper who could come on if the chosen goalkeeper was injured or sent off. A stand-in goalkeeper, one of the outfield players putting on what used to be the green jersey was always entertaining. Some did exceptionally well, as Lucas Radebe did for Leeds United. However, it did disadvantage teams.

In 1987 the rules were changed to allow a second substitute. Since then there have been regular rule changes, starting with allowing two outfield substitutes plus a goalkeeper, up to the current position of allowing up to five of nine nominated substitutes to be used in the Premier and Football League. It was three from seven for a while.

In 1973 Field Hockey introduced a rule whereby teams were allowed two substitutes per game. That increased to three in 1989, and then in 1992 rolling substitutes became the norm. Now in a 60 minute match some players will only be on the field for a third of that time.

Rugby Union has also seen a rise in the number of substitutes allowed. In 1968 the laws of the game stated that: “in matches in which a national representative team is playing, when replacements are allowed subject to the following conditions –

(i) not more than two players in each team may be replaced.
(iii) a player may be replaced only when, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, the player is so injured that he should not continue playing in the match,
(iii) a player who has been replaced must not resume playing in the match.”

One early example of a substitute making an impact occurred that same year at the Sydney Cricket Ground. New Zealand flanker, Ian Kirkpatrick, came onto the field in the 22nd minute as a substitute for the All Black captain, Brian Lochore, he then remarkably scored three tries which helped the All Blacks to a 27-11 victory over the Wallabies in the first test.

Now up to eight tactical substitutions can be made per match. The one requirement is that teams must have enough specialised front-row players to ensure contested scrums. If a team cannot provide a trained replacement for an injured prop or hooker, scrums must become uncontested. Proof that the front row is indeed a dark place for specialists!

Historically, the front row forwards were often the ones who would fatigue the most in a game as they were not renowned for their running. Now it is a regular occurrence to see all three front row forwards replaced, and fresh legs come on.

In football the nine substitutes on the bench has resulted in cynics claiming that this has only come about as a way of managing the egos of the highly paid players in the Premiership. The extended numbers on the bench enable the big clubs to keep more of their highly-paid talent that they have stockpiled in their squads happy, as by being one of the nine it increases their chance of an occasional first team run. Thereby limiting the discontent in the squad. Of course it has far less relevance in the lower divisions, where clubs often do not have such a wealth of talent.

The big question across all the sports now is are so many substitutes ruining the games, and also affecting the outcome of games?

These changes have effectively turned what was a team game into a squad game. The success of each team is now solely dependent on the depth of their squad. This is so apparent at international level across a myriad of sports.

Whereas before a good team may well be able to match a superior team in terms of match preparation, tactics, and fitness, and one or possibly two substitutions would not alter things too much now the substitutions and a larger number of fresh players can make a vast difference. This is why so rarely today do we see the upsets that we saw in the past. Upsets that made sport so intriguing and exciting. Upsets that also allowed supporters of lesser teams to dream of what might happen. Is that not one of the joys of supporting a team dreaming and hoping that they can upset a richer, more renowned side?

Today second tier international sides can often hold a top nation for a period of time, but as fatigue starts to become a part of the game the changes the teams are able to make become more and more evident of the real gulf between the two sides.

That fatigue issue, be it physical or mental is now no longer a key component in the outcome; or very rarely is.

Is that why modern-day sport has become so predictable? Is it why so many contests are in fact quite dull?

Gone are the days when a coach/manager pinned up the team sheet on a match day and then worried that they had made the right selections. Today if his club or national team has the resources to fill their bench with quality players on par with those starting the game, if one player is having a bad day they can immediately make a change. That change limiting their risk of defeat.

There are a generation who remember the days before substitutions were so plentiful. They are a generation who arguably enjoyed sporting contests at their best. If some sports want to start trying to level the playing field and make the contest truly about who was the best on the day, rather than about who has the most money behind them as a club or an international program, maybe they will have the courage to revisit the whole matter of how many substitutions are allowed in a game.

For example, in sports where there is interchange it has been suggested that once a player comes off in the last period of play, they cannot come back on. In other sports it has been put forward that a restriction be imposed where no substitutions are allowed in the last 20 minutes. Would this create more excitement, and make the contest more even?

Clearly substitutions have taken away the level playing field amongst competing teams and nations. It is a topic that will continue to cause great debate as long as the big name teams and the nations with the biggest investment in their programs continue to benefit.

However, one feels that if the various sports are looking at the bigger picture and looking to restore a more balanced competition between teams a revision of the current rules in many sports would be hugely beneficial to the majority of clubs, national teams, and the sport itself.

The post Are Too Many Substitutions Killing Sporting Contests? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

On this show we catch up with Pierre-Emmanuel Luneau-Daurignac who after working as an investigative journalist and as editor-in-chief of a French-American press agency, he became an independent filmmaker in 2015. He has recently made a documentary that is garnering a great deal of attention Worldwide called “BROKEN KIDS, The Untold Story of Young Athletes.”

As a result of the film he has now set up an NGO to try and protect children from coaches, their parents and sports that push their bodies physically and mentally and cause them long term damage. Children’s Rights International Sports Observatory is now finding that many individuals who have witnessed or suffered such damage around the world are contacting CRISO to share their stories and offer their assistance. If you are keen to assist in protecting Children’s rights or from behaviours that hurt them, they would love to hear from you via their website (criso.org )

If you can make sure you watch the documentary and visit their website as for Children the focus should be fun and enjoyment when playing sport. We should be protecting their rights. The systems should not be breaking them physically and mentally.

In our topics under discussion, Ashley looks at the decline in quality from sporting Media managers. While acknowledging that the role has changed, surely they are beholden to understand the rules of the competitions that their teams are competing in? Many are getting these wrong, so should International or National Federations and Associations be pulling them up? Is this decline due to these organisations looking for cheap options, and not being prepared to pay for experienced staff?

John then picks at the scab that was the Ashes series in Australia. Who is to blame for England’s poor showing? Was the preparation as adequate as some have tried to claim? Ashley does not hold back labelling it England’s most embarrassing tour to Australia in his lifetime.

If you don’t want to miss a post or a podcast subscribe to Not The Footy Show on our home page. Almost 2000 people have. All you need do is insert your email address and then you will receive an email update whenever a new post or podcast is posted. Rest assured we will not pass on your information! Also please feel free to share your thoughts and the Podcast.

Remember you can email us with suggestions for topics to be discussed. If there is a topic or a guest that you would like us to feature, please contact us.

Find all our podcasts on iTunes

The post NTFS #142 – What Is Sport About? Why Are Children Suffering By Being Involved in Sport? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

While the supporters of one or the other of the teams in an intense rivalry are only focussed on victory, and often revel in the demise of that rival, they soon realise how important they are to each other. It is nice to beat an old rival easily now and again, but the edge goes off the game when they are comfortably beaten in every match. This is when supporters realise that they actually need their arch-rival to be competitive. There is no great enjoyment beating a weakened side every time you meet; although there will always be some enjoyment.

In International sport one of the greatest rivalries would have to be in cricket whenever England and Australia meet. Next year they will celebrate the 150th anniversary of that first meeting.

While Australian’s may see their arch-rival in rugby Union being the All Blacks from New Zealand, the New Zealanders see South Africa as their main rival. Both teams having been so dominant in the sport for long periods of time, and the Springboks going 50 years (1906-1956) without losing a Test series added to that rivalry before they were suspended due to apartheid.

In football there are many great rivalries, Brazil v Uruguay stems back to the 1950 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, which the hosts Brazil were convinced they were going to win. Uruguay had other ideas, and a mistake by goalkeeper Moacir Barbosa saw Uruguay lift the Jules Rimet Trophy. Barbosa, was known for the rest of his life as “the man who made a nation cry.”

Scotland love nothing more than to beat the English, while the Dutch revel in victory over Germany. There are stories behind nearly all of these rivalries, they do not always come down to just geography.

When it comes to Field Hockey there is probably no greater rivalry than that of India and Pakistan.

Before the two became seperate nations in 1947 at the Olympic Games India had won every Hockey gold medal since they first entered the Olympic Games in 1928. In that first Games appearance they scored 29 goals and did not concede any. Four years later they scored 35 and conceded two. In 1936 it was more of the same as they scored 38 goals and conceded just one, in the final.

After the second World War and also after the partition of India and Pakistan, India would claim another three consecutive Olympic Gold medals.

There were many in the newly formed Pakistan who felt that it was players from their nation who had aided India to achieve success in those earlier victories. So they had a point to prove.

In their first Olympic Games in 1948 only a year after becoming an independent nation, Pakistan missed out on a medal after drawing with the Netherlands 1-1 after extra time in the Bronze medal match, and then losing the replay the following day 1-4. They were fourth again in 1952 losing to Great Britain 1-2.

In 1956 in Melbourne they finally made the gold medal match, but went down 0-1 to India.

Four years later they would be the first team to stop India’s run at the Olympic Games at six consecutive gold medals. After a period of 32 years there was a new Olympic Champion in Pakistan.

India would win their last Olympic gold medal in 1980 while Pakistan would win their last gold medal in 1984.

When it comes to Olympic gold medals India has eight. Pakistan sit second with the Netherlands, Great Britain and Germany with three. In terms of overall Olympic medals won in men’s hockey they sit fourth behind India (13) Netherlands (10) and Great Britain (9) with eight medals.

Since Pakistan’s victory in 1984 they won bronze in 1992, while India had to wait until 2020 and 2024 to claim two bronze medals.

The Hockey World Cup has been recognised as being first conceived by Pakistan’s Air Marshal Nur Khan. He proposed his idea to the FIH through Patrick Rowley the editor of the World Hockey magazine. The first event took place in 1971 in Barcelona, and Pakistan won.

India would win their sole Hockey World Cup in 1975. Pakistan would claim three more victories in 1978, 1982 and 1994. Pakistan’s four victories make them the most successful World Cup side.

Since that time neither side has contested the final or the bronze medal match.

The demise of Indian and Pakistan hockey has been debated long and hard over the years, there can be no denying that the advent of artificial turf, and the cost of installing such pitches in their homelands played a huge part. Also, to some extent the rules of the game, or rather the interpretation of the rules, played their part as the physicality within the sport that was now being allowed worked against the Asian nations.

Unfortunately we could not access the World Rankings at that time but going back to 2003 which was the furthest back we could locate, there were four Asian teams in the top 10 in the world. Today there is only one. In 2006 there were five Asian teams in the top 15, today there are three.

India has qualified for every World Cup competition, but failed to qualify for the 2008 Olympic Games. Pakistan has failed to qualify for the last three Olympic Games. They have in recent times failed to qualify for the World Cup in 2014 and 2023 but happily have just qualified for the 2026 World Cup.

To have these two nations not playing at the most important tournaments that the sport holds is like South Africa and New Zealand not playing in a Rugby World Cup, or Brazil not being in the football World Cup.

When India failed to qualify for the Beijing Olympics there were ramifications. No one was interested in purchasing the Hockey coverage at the Olympic Games. The IOC would lose money without that revenue. It became clear how important India were to the sport. The International Hockey Federation were quick to react. However, Hockey was at risk. The IOC was reviewing its 26 core sports and were planning to drop one to make room for a new entry. The sports under threat were Wrestling, Taekwondo, Canoeing and Field Hockey.

During the voting process, hockey was at significant risk, and only after surviving a tie-break round against Taekwondo and Canoeing remained in the Olympic Games. Wrestling lost their place, but were later reinstated.

International Hockey President at the time Leandro Negre was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as describing the vote to be a “rude shock” and a “wake-up call.” He noted that some IOC members viewed the sport as too focused on Commonwealth nations despite its global reach.

Hence why some are concerned now that the Commonwealth Games has dropped Hockey, where will that leave it after the Los Angeles Olympic Games?

Els van Breda Vriesman was was President of the FIH when it was clear that India was not going to qualify for the Olympic Games in 2008. She was the first and only female President of the FIH.

Ms Breda Vriesman and her board at the time recognised that India and Pakistan were falling away from the standards they had once set. Not only that, they were aware that at the time both organisations were being poorly run, they had weak national competitions and lacked leadership to lift them out of the doldrums.

A Strategic Plan was put in place to help restore the two nations to the levels they and the world expected. Europe needed Asian teams to be competitive. The sport as a whole desperately needed, and still needs Asian teams to be strong.

Leandro Negre replaced Ms Breda Vriesman as President of the FIH in 2008 and it was under his leadership that the Executive Board implemented the strategic plan.

The goals of the Strategic Plan were as follows:

• Establish a strong and professional association
• To find a Good leader
• To award the organisation Hockey Competitions
• To allow participation at the Champions Trophy
• To help find good coaches for their National teams.

Former President Leandro Negre who succeeded Ms Breda Vriesman recalled that the FIH “wished to help both nations, but assistance was limited when it came to Pakistan due to national instability and fears of terrorism. Many countries at that time were not allowed by their own Government’s to travel to Pakistan and compete.” So assistance was limited, however they tried to assist in terms of finding quality coaches.. They also offered Pakistan wild card entry to the Champions Trophy.

India was however a completely different situation.

One of the things that they did was to recognise a new National Association, Hockey India instead of the Indian Hockey Federation, (IHF) and this was made easier as the IHF would not accept a merge between the men’s and women’s game.

Narinder Batra would head up Hockey India. This was similar to many political leaders across the world who historically, were supported or given power by European nations to maintain stability or counter opposing ideologies. Mr Batra was seen as being a key person to solve the legal challenges that would ensue from the IHF and it’s President KPS Gill no longer being the official National Association. It is fait to say that he navigated these troubled waters superbly and made Hockey India what it is today.

It is worth noting that the FIH had a little legal juggling of their own to navigate as their own statutes state, “In accordance with the Olympic Charter, membership of the FIH is open to one National Association (or “NA”) for each Country.” Section 2.4. Applications for membership and transfers of membership in the statutes covers what is and isn’t allowed and who has the power to make such a call. At the FIH Congress held in Los Angeles in 2008, the IHF was suspended and the Hockey India was approved as a new member

The FIH also awarded New Delhi the hosting rights for 2010 Hockey World Cup to India. The event however was fully organised by the FIH, as according to Mr Negre “Hockey India at that time did not have the expertise on its staff to be able to run such an event.”

The Hockey India League was also created, and this was to some extent a gamechanger. The FIH were fully supportive of the league, and initially it was a great success as it attracted the best players in the World who were paid a decent wage. Unfortunately, a lack of promotion saw the viewing figures drop and after five years it ceased, only to be regenerated two years ago. (No HIL Equals Hockey in Limbo)

The final part of the plan was to assist India in finding World Class coaches who would build on the work done by the coaches in the HIL and help lift the National team back to where it was. Jose Brasa was the first, and was followed by the likes of Ric Charlesworth, Michael Nobbs, Terry Walsh and Paul van Ass. All were paid by the Sports Authority of India.

The Board of the FIH and its President Els van Breda Vriesman at that time did a wonderful job putting in place a plan that would not only help India, but the game itself. The work of Narinder Batra at this time should also be acknowledged as he was the driving force in India.

It has been claimed that the introduction of quarter finals at the Olympic Games were introduced to assist India in once again making it to the podium at the Olympic Games. Whether it was or it wasn’t, they have achieved that goal with India winning bronze medals in both Tokyo and Paris. This achievement was clearly linked to the work that was done during this time. The test will be in the coming Olympic Games to see if the continuity is there and the foundations that were laid have been underpinned.

Sadly a similar plan was not implemented in Pakistan for the reasons mentioned. Unfortunately their hockey has lurched from one crisis to another.

They were accepted into the FIH’s ambitious global league, the FIH Pro League. Where the money was going to come from no one knew. Whether a proper evaluation was done on the viability of their inclusion is questionable. The feeling was very much that the Pro League needed them, and their rivalry with India and that was why they were chosen. It was announced that they would play their games in Scotland, but when the deadline for this agreement passed warning bells sounded and Pakistan withdrew once the League had started, and without playing a game.

The contracts signed by the participating nations in the FIH Pro League stated that withdrawal would result in a two-year suspension from International Hockey. Pakistan did not suffer such a penalty. Instead the Pakistan Hockey Federation received an undisclosed fine of which half was “to be invested by PHF in youth development and/or grassroots development activities in Pakistan within the next two years; these development funds will be monitored by the Asian Hockey Federation (AHF) and reported to FIH with documentary evidence,” (Is The Pro League Heading in The Right Direction?)

“The other half shall be paid to FIH in three installments until July 2020; in case the first installment is not paid until 19 August 2019, Pakistan may not enter the FIH Olympic qualifiers for the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020,” the statement from the FIH advised. Presumably all of these conditions were complied with, although there was no public confirmation from the AHF or the FIH.

With the Champions Trophy being brought to an end in 2018, and Pro League sides not permitted to play against each other outside of the league, teams like Pakistan had limited opportunities to play against the top tier sides. When the new World ranking system came in the top sides were even less willing to play teams like Pakistan for fear that they could lose World Ranking points. The gulf widened between those in the top eight and those outside of that select group.

Since the start of the Pro League Pakistan has not qualified for a World Cup Finals or the Olympic Games until the past week. Realistically, even though the players and coaching staff have shown remarkable determination, passion and resolve to qualify for the World Cup, most will know that they are still a long way off being a challenger to win the World Cup for a fifth time.

There has frequently been unwanted publicity surrounding Pakistan player payments, and in 2024 three players from the national hockey team and their physiotherapist, who had travelled to Poland with the team, did not return to Pakistan. It was reported that these individuals had applied for political asylum abroad. They were banned from playing for Pakistan for life.

Next year they will be eligible to play for Poland as the FIH rules on a player changing nationality state that they are eligible to play “three years from the date he last represented the original country and without the prior written approval of the Executive Board.”

There was more unwanted publicity for the Pakistan team in Australia as the accommodation had allegedly not been pre-paid and the players and coaches had no where to stay. It was also reported that when they did find somewhere they had to cook their own meals and wash the dishes and slept three to a room.

Not surprisingly no one from Pakistan Hockey will comment on this situation at this point in time. As harmful as it is to Pakistan this type of medai coverage is also harmful to the sport as a whole.

One thing that is clear is that Pakistan Hockey needs help. Does the Pakistan Hockey Federation need to be overhauled like the Indian Hockey Federation and a new national body created with a fresh approach and ideally a visionary at the helm?

Els van Breda Vriesman as President of the FIH recognised that things had to change if India, the most successful team in the game’s history was to once again be amongst the best. Credit must also be given to Narinder Batra for his time at the helm of Hockey India as he navigated legal issues and laid the foundations for a more efficient national association.

Leandro Negre took over as President from Els van Breda Vriesman and within days of his being elected travelled to Lahore to meet with the President of the Pakistan Hockey Federation and their Sports Authorities. He also met the President of the Pakistan Republic.

“Members of my Executive Board and FIH staff tried to convince me to change my travel plans, arguing that it was very dangerous for me, but I travelled,” He said. “I was fully protected by special army commandos and used an armoured car. My trip was welcomed by them, and it was importnat because the FIH could start to have an understanding of the challenges and make a commitment to help.”

According to sources within Pakistan Hockey the FIH has been helping the team with their second involvement in the FIH Pro League in 2025/26. When pressed as to what that commitment looked like we were advised that they could not comment. When we emailed the Director General of the FIH, Mike Joyce, we had received no reply at the time of publication despite waiting two weeks.

After publication a response was received, but it was not specific, simply stating that Pakistan had received “many many hours of on-going support across all areas from the FIH team.” (11/03/26)

Most in the sport want to see Pakistan back to where they were, like India. Even many in India want to see their arch-rivals competitive again, and matches between the two closer affairs. So why the secrecy?

Once again when Leandro Negre was President of the FIH he travelled to Bangladesh – formerly East Pakistan. He was the first FIH President to travel there. He went with the CEO of STI – Sports, now Polytan and both witnessed how important hockey was within the country. They were taken to the main stadium in Dacca, which has a capacity of 40,000, and watched a match arranged for them. They also visited schools and watched boys and girls playing hockey.

Both saw the potential in Bangladesh. Polytan signed a contract at what was believed to be a heavily reduced rate to lay a new water-based artifical turf at the stadium, and also dontated some sand hockey pitches to the local schools. Since that time Bangladesh Hockey has improved, and so too have their results.

Pakistan needs similar help. No one can deny that, but will they receive it?

Understandably some countries still advise people not to travel to Pakistan, so arranging matches there is a problem. Even though some cricket teams have returned to play in Pakistan, would hockey teams?

As many sports lovers will be aware when Pakistan Cricket was unable to play matches at home, Sharjah in the UAE became their base. Could Pakistan Hockey play their “home” games in another country? Malaysia, for example may be a good option if the Malaysian Hockey Confederation was open to such an arrangement. Many of the Pakistan players play for teams in the Malaysian Hockey League so this would reduce the cost of flying them to another country to play.

With 63% of Malaysia being Muslim it would be a country in which Pakistan players should feel welcome and at ease.

With Malaysia’s form also having dropped off in recent times it may be the perfect marriage to see both nations rise again and reclaim their places amongst the top nations. Not only do noth countries need this, but so too does Asian Hockey.

What is vital is that International tournaments are held that they can attend if they qualify. Qualifying and then withdrawing as has been witnessed in the past is extremely damaging to any recovery Pakistan hope to make. The Executive Board are beholden to ensure that this does not happen. The Member nations of the FIH should en masse be demanding that this is the case.

Many, who are concerned about the state of Pakistan Hockey believe that other nations such as Korea, silver medallists at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000 will soon be another Asian country in need of help. Others feel that it is only a matter of time before the cost of participation in the Pro League becomes clear to some of the top nations. The current costs are unsustainable, and money is being taken from other areas to pay prop up participation costs.

If action is not taken soon not only is Olympic Participation once again under threat post 2032, but the game as a whole is facing a very tough future. At a time when World leadership is arguably at its lowest, hockey needs strong and visionary leadership to save the game from itself.

Actions speak louder than words. Els van Breda Vriesman, Leandro Negre and their Executive Board members saw what lay ahead and had a plan to make changes that would benefit the sport and Indian hockey. A similar approach is needed now for Pakistan. The warning signs are there that other nations too could soon need similar help.

The post Is It Time To Step In and Help? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Only very few set out to break records. That is why the line, ‘medals are for life, records are just on loan’ is so pertinent. Being the best you can be is the goal.

Of course sometimes teams and players are on the wrong side of records. They are part of a game ,or a season that no doubt they wish they weren’t, and often their fans feel the same way.

As a fan of Swindon Town Football Club this writer was more than pleased when in the 2023/24 English Premier League season Sheffield United, the oldest independent club still playing football in the world, conceded 104 goals in an English Premier League season. Why? The answer is simple, because since the 1993/94 season Swindon had not only been the only team in history to concede 100 goals in a Premier League season, but had done so in their only season at that level. Now they were no longer alone. Now there was a team that had let in more goals. In fact they had let in 104 in 38 games, Swindon had let in 100 in 42 games. They had only managed three wins and seven draws, Swindon had won five games and drawn 15. An unwelcome record was no longer ours.

Former Australian Cricket captain Greg Chappell who was one of the finest batsman the country has produced knows all about a bad run. After scoring a regal 201 against Pakistan at The Gabba, Greg Chappell scored four ducks in a row. This included two consecutive golden ducks. He scored three more ducks that season, extending his tally to seven. Many remember those ducks ahead of the fact that he scored 24 Test hundreds and three in One Day Internationals. It is a record he would not want to be remembered for.

Earlier this week the Australian women’s hockey team managed to avoid a record that none of the players would have wanted to be a part of when they drew with Spain in the FIH Pro League in Hobart. This was a game that they were winning 2-0, but were pegged back by Spain who scored in the penultimate minute to draw 2-2, and then as is usually the norm for the team equalising, Spain went on to claim a bonus point by winning the shoot-out. (The Price of Conceding Late).

Had the Hockeyroos lost that game they would have lost their fifth consecutive game.

This is something that is virtually unheard of from Australia’s Women’s hockey team, who until recent times were arguably the nations most successful women’s sporting team; some would argue with three Olympic gold medals, two World Cup wins and six Champion’s Trophies they still are.

You have to go back to the very start of this national team to find a run where the team has faced so many consecutive defeats. Making their International debut in August 1914 the Australians lost to England 11-3. Their next game would be in 1927 also against England, which was also lost. In fact they lost their first eight international matches. The first win coming against Rhodesia in Gwalo in 1930.

The team then went on another run of five defeats before they managed a draw against South Africa.

Since that time the closest the team has come to matching five or eight consecutive defeats was 77 years later in January 2007 when the team also lost four in a row.

What is a major concern to many is that following another loss to China the team has failed to win a game now in their past nine games. They have played nine matches drawn three and lost six. It is important to point out that despite what some newspapers have reported, and despite Hockey Australia stating “Later on, the Hockeyroos claimed a thrilling shootout victory over Ireland” and then adding “With no separation on the scoreboard, the result was decided in a shootout,” this was not a victory.

The Rules of the FIH Pro League state, as they have since the start of the competition back in 2019 in section 4.2 Competition Plan and Ranking in the League in subsection c The following points will be awarded for each Match :

i three (3) points to the winner in normal time;
ii one (1) pointto the winner of a shootout following a draw plus one (1) bonus point, making a total of two (2) points.
iii one (1) point to the loser of the shootout, in the event of a draw;
iv no points to the loser of a match in normal time.

Nowhere does it state that by winning the shoot out does a team win the match! Unlike in a knockout competition where a shoot out is used to determine a winner. In the FIH Pro League and a few other competitions both teams in a draw receive one point, but the winner of the shoot out gains a bonus point. It is not as many report, and incredibly many of the National Associations claim, a victory!

It would appear that the FIH itself also does very little to ensure that their member nations playing in their competition get this right.

What is a real concern for Australia is in the past nine matches this team has only managed to score seven goals and has conceded 21.

Following the Oceania Cup Katrina Powell was sacked as coach, and South African Rhett Halkett, the first non-Australian coach of the team took over. In the Oceania Cup against New Zealand the games saw both teams win 1-0 and the deciding match end 1-1, with New Zealand winning a shoot out and booking a place at the World Cup.

In the three shoot outs that have taken place in the three drawn games of this run of nine games without a victory Australia has won one, against Ireland.

Sacking the new coach is not the answer, but what these results have done is highlight that there is a very big problem with the women’s side of the game. Why has a team that was so dominant for so long fallen so far?

As one former player from the era that saw Australia win back-to-back gold medals at the Olympic games stated, “What do you expect if you keep on trying to do things the same way?”

There has to be an in depth review of the whole program from talent identification along with the development programs themselves. Is the program picking athletes and trying to make them hockey players, rather than trying to improve the athletic ability of natural players? Several years ago at the national trials one player who admittedly lacked pace, was a standout. They had learned to compensate for that lack of pace and read the game superbly. They were not selected for the national squad. The reason given was their performance on the beep test! Was this the right decision?

What has also been a concern is how many players have come into the side and in their first 20 games have been scoring at better than a goal a game. By the time they have reached 50 or more games they are scoring at less than a goal every two games. Why? Is it the team playing a certain way, and not to their strengths? Is it the opposition have worked them out? Or is it that no one has taken the time to help them adjust their game when being restricted by defenders who have done their homework? So many questions, but are they being asked, and answers found?

In the recent games in Hobart people will say that key players were rested because Australia have the World Cup Qualifiers coming up. The first question is who agreed to play Pro League matches so close to these qualifiers? Who scheduled these games? Hockey Australia probably never questioned the timing of the fixtures as they arrogantly thought that they would beat New Zealand, so it would never have crossed their mind the selection problems it could cause.

Even if you pull key players out this was still an Australian team taking the field. Those players have international caps for playing. There can be no excuses. The job of the coach and the High performance unit is to make sure that these players are ready to make that step up. The Oceania qualifiers were in September, so they have had almost five months to prepare.

One feels for the players. Sadly it would appear that standards within the sport have clearly dropped to unprecedented levels, and not just on the pitch. Hockey Australia always had a reputation for having the most up to date website in terms of games played, caps and results. You go to their website today and the games record has not been updated since the 21st of June 2025. When this writer previously questioned this they were told that it was “too time consuming.”

As a national sporting body, just like a club in any league, a press release after a game is a tool to advise the media outlets, – who these days rarely attend games in person, – to the fact that there was a game, and importantly the result and the goal scorers. Most media outlets do not require a wonderfully crafted match report, they just want the facts. However, they want the facts in a timely fashion. Receiving the match report the morning the day after the game has been played is not going to garner coverage. As they say in the trade no one is going to run with yesterday’s news!

As one hockey-lover quipped ‘maybe they are delaying the reports so that they don’t get coverage, while the team is in such a slump.’

It would be interesting to know is whether Hockey Australia have a media plan should the Hockeyroos current run continue at the World Cup Qualifiers in Santiago, Chile. The Australia’s women’s hockey team has played in every women’s hockey World Cup that has taken place since 1981; they did not play in the first three editions. In the 12 editions that they have participated in only twice has the team finished outside the top four! They are in fact the third most successful nation at this event, so it would be unprecedented if they failed to qualify.

Australia should make it out of their pool, which would see them progress to the semi-finals. The top three teams in each of the two Women’s qualifying tournaments will qualify for the World Cup. If they happened to lose their semi-final and also the play off for third and fourth they could well still qualify as the highest ranked team to finish fourth in the two qualifying events. At present only England, who are ranked seventh to Australia’s eighth, are above them in the world rankings of teams yet to qualify.

The run of form heading into these games has to be a very real concern, the second worst run of results in 100 years. The first time the team has gone nine games without a win. A great deal of work will need to be done before the team most likely meets Japan, Ireland or Canada in the semi finals. These will be extremely tough matches, as none will fear the Australian team as they may have previously. Ireland already beat Australia in the Pro League, so they have shown that this side can be beaten.

Hopefully the players and all involved have been stung by the recent run of results, and being part of an unwanted record in Hockeyroos history, and they can unite and rise once again as one.

Even if they do, lessons have to be learnt. Clearly there are still problems within the women’s game in Australia in terms of the development of players. (Paying the Price for the Past?)

One feels that it is indeed a time to change the way things are being done. This was evident when former Dutch captain Eva Drummond (formerly de Goede) played for the Perth Thundersticks in the 2024 Hockey One League. Drummond had retired from International hockey in April that year after 266 games for the Dutch, and numerous gold medals. Drummond showed that she was still head and shoulders the best player in the competition, and while many celebrated what a coup it was having her grace the competition, only a few wise heads pointed out how her performances had shown where the Australian game was at.

If you only see what you want to see, how can you ever change? The Women’s program has been crying out for change for a long time, hopefully this run of results has not been in vain, that it is the catalyst to serious change.

”

The post An Unwanted Record, But Will It Lead to Much-Needed Change? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

By the 27th of May 1992 all 22 clubs from what was then the First Division resigned en masse from the Football League to join the new competition. No doubt all believed that they would benefit from the money that would flow directly to them rather than to the Football League. This was because the Founder Members Agreement created before the League was announced, was based on the new league establishing the principles for it’s commercial independence. No doubt all believed that they would be better off, none considering that they could be one of the team’s relegated.

it would also appear that none of the clubs considered the long term impact this could have on the club of which they were custodians if they were relegated.

No doubt when the new League was backed by a landmark five-year, £304 million television deal with Sky and the BBC they were all rubbing their hands with glee. Many started spending money like drunken sailors.

Since the start of the English Premier League 32 clubs who have played at that level have subsequently gone into administration. That is 32 clubs out of the 51 who have played in the Premier League since 1992 at the start of the 2025/26 season. That means that 62% of all clubs who have graced the Premier League have since gone into administration.

For those unfamiliar with the term ‘going into administration,’ it means an insolvent, or in some cases nearly insolvent company is placed under the control of an independent, licensed professional called an administrator. The aim of appointing an administrator is to provide the club or business with “breathing space” from legal action by creditors. This breathing space gives the experts time to determine if the business can be saved, restructured, or sold to achieve a better result than the club closing it’s doors.

One of the interesting facts when looking at the English Premier League is that only six clubs have played in every single season since the EPL started in 1992: These six clubs are: Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Chelsea were not part of the 1990 meeting with the then Managing Director of London Weekend Television Greg Dyke with representatives of the other five clubs to discuss a breakaway League. David Dein of Arsenal, Philip Carter of Everton, Noel White of Liverpool, Martin Edwards of Manchester United and Irving Scholar of Tottenham Hotspur were the men who attended that meeting.

Not only did the men around this table know that as the big five they were likely to make their positions stronger, but as shareholders in each club they knew that they individually would reap the benefits personally, and most definitely have.

There were many who warned that this was a league built on greed and that English football would pay a heavy price in the long term. The fabric of English football and the Football Leagues has paid a massive price as more and more clubs overspend to try and compete.

One of the great earners for lower league clubs was always a good cup run and a home game against a big club. An away game was okay ,and the hope of forcing a replay at home, but in 2024/25 the FA stopped replays. This was said to have been at the request of the Premier League clubs who claimed that there were already too many games. With gate receipts shared with 45% going to each team and 10% to the FA this is a potentially big blow for those outside the Premier League.

Manchester City has joined the “Big Five” in recent times and Chelsea, despite being in the EPL since 1992, is on the outer. While the broadcasting rights was a key revenue raiser at the start of the EPL, it reamins so today, but no longer with teh rights in the UK. When teh rights were renegotiated for the period from 2019-2022 the value of the overseas broadcasting rights rose 35% to £4.35 billion. This meant that now 46% of the league’s broadcasting revenue comes from overseas.

Previously, every club in the Premier League received an equal share of the overseas revenue, but in 2019 it was revealed that the Big Six would receive up to an alleged £80 million more than the league’s bottom sides during the three-year cycle.

Is there no end to the greed? What will be a huge concern is the news that EPL viewing figures are dropping due to the predictable and dull fare being served up by teams, and coaches looking to avoid defeat as opposed to trying to win.

Unfortunately, the EPL has had an impact well beyond the British Isles. Other leagues had to match the salaries on offer to keep star players and attract their share of the best, to make their competitions attractive.

For decades in many leagues around the world there were clubs who had a reputation for developing young players. They knew that they were unlikely to keep those players but the transfer fees often kept that club afloat financially. Fans hated to see these players leave but took pride in the fact that they had started their career at their club, and that link would always be there.

Before the 1980’s and early 1990’s there were very few top clubs who invested in youth. They had youth teams but there were no academies like we have today. These were the result of a 1997 report by Howard Wilkinson. Once the report was completed and digested the FA introduced the official Academy system. This led to the creation of the Premier Academy League in 1998, which featured Under-19 and Under-17 sections.

Many believed that this was a way for the clubs to avoid having to pay huge fees to sign players. If they could identify talent at a younger age, and have them in their academies they would save millions of pounds. Those who were not going to make it would simply be discarded or on some occasions were sold to lower division clubs. Suddenly some of the clubs in the lower divisions found themselves having to pay for players they previously would have developed, because the lure of a Premier League club saw young talent ignore them in search of that pot of gold.

To be fair to FIFA, despite all of the criticism that they receive, those at the helm at the time clearly saw what was likely to happen with the dawn of the Academy, and the poaching of players. So in September 2001 FIFA established the current regulatory system for compensating training clubs. The aim was to reward developing and “small” clubs for their investment in young talent.

This fell under two categories. The first was the Training Compensation (Article 20): This was intended to see money paid to the clubs that helped develop the player when they sign their first professional contract, or when a professional player is transferred internationally up until their 23rd birthday. The amount is calculated based on standardized training costs divided into four club categories.

The second category is the Solidarity Mechanism (Article 21): This applies to international transfers of professional players before the expiry of their contract. In this category 5% of any transfer fee is supposed to be redistributed to all clubs that contributed to the player’s training between the ages of 12 and 23.

Of course by having the professional clubs suddenly have academy sides in the lower age groups this meant that they minimised any payments that were required.

Equally, someone had to police this. In countries like Australia the clubs often do not want to prevent a player going on and playing at a higher level, and so when pressured have caved in and foregone their development fee. Others have simply never received what is owed. As was the case with one Australian International, who had a 14 year career overseas. His junior club never received a cent from the club he signed for in Europe, because no one asked.

The academy system has proven to not be all that it is made out to be. For a great insight into this system read Michael Calvin’s “No Hunger in Paradise.” Here it is revealed that despite the promises made to parents, “only 180 of the 1.5million boys who play organised youth football in England will become a Premier League pro. That’s a success rate of 0.012 per cent.

So what hope those in academies outside the top tier of football in countries around the world?

Once again many nations have simply tried to copy the English Premier League set up, without giving the whole development area of the game the thought and attention it deserves.

In Australia the National Premier Leagues brought in a points system for players based on age, experience, loyalty to the club etc. Coaches could only have so many points on the field at one time. What this did was change the highly competitive state league competitions into development leagues.

As many who had been around the game tried to point out, but those in the ivory towers chose not to listen, these leagues were already developing players. They had been supplying the national competition with players since the NSL commenced in 1977. Young players would be given an opportunity in their club side when they were good enough. Often it would be a tough learning curve. Some would prove they were up for it, others showed that they weren’t. This is the evolution of sport, finding your level. Not everyone is good enough to play internationally, yet some will be outstanding players at the level below.

Players were used to the hurly burly of a competitive league. Yes, they needed to improve in certain areas when they stepped up, but now the A-League clubs bemoan that fact that many are not ready. That it takes two years to prepare a player for the A-League.

There are many who have said that the academy system was another example of greed. This is debatable. However the A-League clubs having youth teams some would say it has been calamitous.

As now many young players are being signed up, and they are sold a dream, just like the academy players in England, that this is a guaranteed pathway to professional football. First of all there are no guarantees in sport, especially the higher you go. The word “pathway” is so overused in sport today. It is still a path if it leads somewhere, but “pathway” implies that all who take that chosen path will succeed. Of course they will not.

What is even more astonishing is that the parents of these young players are still having to pay fees for these players to play for these youth teams, even though they have been picked as those with the best potential to ‘make it!’ Talk about hedging your bets.

What we are in fact witnessing now is how the system can in fact now work against a player.

A-League clubs are signing up young players to play in the local competition, but wearing their colours and representing their club by name. These players are supposed to be the cream of the crop of youngsters and that is why they have been snapped up by the professional clubs; although not on professional contracts.

Many, in fact most, will never make it through to the professional ranks and a contract in the A-League. They are discarded along the way, for them there is a major roadblock on the pathway.

As they have been told how good they are and that they can make it into the professional ranks, some go away and work hard and earn themselves a second chance and trials with other clubs overseas.

Then, if they are fortunate to be offered a contract this is when the trouble starts. As there is the compensation that this club has to pay out to the developing clubs. The A-League clubs sit there with their hand out waiting for their financial windfall.

As one cynic explained, ‘maybe this is why they sign and discard so many players, to ensure that they will receive something if one of these players does make it!’

The pertinent question here is should a professional club be entitled to any training compensation fees or solidarity payments if they have had a player and then discarded them? Surely if they believed the player was good enough they would have kept them, and in time hoped to make money from a sale to another club. They have had the chance to assess the said player at close quarters and over a period of time and decided that they will not make it to the top. Surely by making the decision to let the player go they relinquish any hold on that player? By cutting the player surely that end’s their entitlement to a slice of the development pie?

It would certainly make the path easier for many of the players who have been passed over if this were the case, as the training compensation fees or solidarity payments have frequently been a stumbling block and have seen contract negotiations come to an end with the new club they are hoping to resurrect their career with.

The training compensation fees or solidarity payments were about protecting and helping to sustain the grassroots clubs who find the diamonds and start polishing them in readiness for a possible career in football. FIFA saw that these clubs were facing extinction unless there was a mechanism to reward them for their part in a player’s development. Sadly, so many clubs have missed out on money owed to them because they simply do not have the manpower to submit a claim.

Those administrating the game are ideally placed to assist the clubs and the game as a whole by submitting and pursuing these claims, simply do not appear to care. Yet their role is to protect and promote the best interests of the game. Now these clubs are seeing their potential windfall being cut as the A-League clubs steal players away with promises of a career, only to cut them two years later. The clubs then have to pick the pieces up and reaffirm the belief in that player’s ability. So they deserve every dollar that comes their way should that player carve out a career in the game.

Some have suggested that all of the training and Compensation fees should be waived when a player signs their first professional contract, but the player in question should have to disclose which club/coach had the biggest influence on them reaching this stage, and that all monies should go to that club. This would encourage club’s to do the right thing by players; however it could be open to a player being influenced in their choice.

Another view is that football adopts a similar model to the PGA golf where 2% of their earnings until they are 23 are held and then shared amongst the clubs they played for as they rose through the ranks. Would that include a professional club’s youth system? Many feel very strongly that it should not.

The truth is the time has come where FIFA must add a clause to Article 20 and 21 that says if a player has been released by a professional club’s youth system before signing their first professional contract, the professional club in question will NOT be entitled to any training compensation fees or solidarity payments?

This would ensure that the grassroots clubs do indeed receive what they deserve, although the mechanisms for claiming those entitlements has to be easier.

.

The post Diluting Development Fees. Is it Simply Greed? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

On this first show for 2026 we catch up with Bonita Mersiades who after years working in sports administration moved into the world of publishing. Bonita, set up FairPlay Publishing so that sportspeople and authors are able to share their stories and the history of Australian sport is being preserved. Check out the books on offer on their website and on the SHOP PAGE

Rather than having specifc topics in sport in recent times Ashley and John look back on the past month of sport since the last show. Under discussion are The Hockey India League where Ashley was commentating in January. Then it moves onto the FIFA World Cup in the USA, Canada and Mexico and whether the threat of a boycott is actually followed through by any nation. Even if it isn’t how many fans can afford the price of the tickets for games and will we see FIFA having to bus crowds in to fill the stadia in the USA?

John then picks at the scab that was the Ashes series in Australia. Who is to blame for England’s poor showing? Was the preparation as adequate as some have tried to claim? Ashley does not hold back labelling it England’s most embarrassing tour to Australia in his lifetime.

To round out the show John questions the options today of viewing sport such as the T20 World Cup and explains why he will not be watching, also the timing of Australia’s Pro League matches is questioned, while Ashley asks for the League to be brought to a prompt end for everyone’s sake.

If you don’t want to miss a post or a podcast subscribe to Not The Footy Show on our home page. Almost 2000 people have. All you need do is insert your email address and then you will receive an email update whenever a new post or podcast is posted. Rest assured we will not pass on your information! Also please feel free to share your thoughts and the Podcast.

Remember you can email us with suggestions for topics to be discussed. If there is a topic or a guest that you would like us to feature, please contact us.

Find all our podcasts on iTunes

The post NTFS #141 – Fair Play Publishing Preserving Australian Sporting History, Plus So Much More… first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

The last two decades have seen the whole sports environment turned on its head.

Broadcasters set up dedicated sports channels offering sport on your screens 24 hours a day. Some even offered channels dedicated to one sport alone.

In order to give the public such offerings the stations had to secure the rights to broadcast the top events so that they could attract the viewers, and in many cases entice these viewers to part with their hard-earned money to buy a subscription to be able to access these sporting events.

The sports that were seen as being a drawcard for the broadcasters rubbed their hands with glee. As suddenly they were now paying vast sums for those rights, but sometimes over the top amounts just to secure the rights as their station needed the sport needed the content in order to keep it’s subscription market.

The broadcasters needed content. This had a great deal to do with the proliferation of hybrid versions of many sports. Shorter bite-size events suddenly were everywhere. It was takeaway TV. It didn’t really matter if you missed it, but it satisfied a desire, a hunger, to have something available. Just like many of us do not need to snack on food that is in our refrigerators, but we do. The same was true with much of the sport that was being served up. So much of it was irrelevant. The truth was there were still only key leagues, tournaments and events that really mattered to most sports fans.

Many of those who missed out on being a part of the menu for the dedicated sports broadcasters sold their souls to make it appear that they were indeed matching the big sports.

Many sports produced their own content, some with limited know-how or expertise, and simply gave it to the broadcaster to air. The broadcaster of course reaped the benefit, as in some cases they gained more subscribers but ultimately, they had a free product that they could sell advertising around. So, generate income with no cost.

There were others who opted to set up their own platform for their sport. Somehow someone convinced them that they could make money from such a venture. Once again the big sports can, simply because they have the fanbase to make such a venture viable. The trouble is the investment to make this work is huge. It is far bigger than many have been prepared to invest. That is why once they reach a certain level of viewers before it buffers or falls over.

Many who have gone down this path were also convinced that if they charged fans a subscription fee they would at least cover their costs. That was never going to be the case, and many soon found out that this was never going to happen.

The problem with many of these sports is going down this path is that they have in fact damaged their product beyond belief. For it has been lost from mainstream coverage, The awareness of the sport has diminished. Only those truly passionate fans with the disposable income to buy a subscription tune in. Some simply cannot justify the cost on top of the other channels they subscribe to.

Many when deciding whether the subscription is worth it, look at the quality of the coverage before deciding for or against subscribing.

Of course, also in the mix now is livestreaming. This is the ideal way to promote a sport if it is made available to all and for free, via platforms that are set up for such a service, such as YouTube.

In this space there is again the same question is there too much sport being streamed? Some sports believe that by offering more games they will increase participation, awareness, sponsorship and viewers. Sadly, that is not always the case. If it was that easy all of the sports would be thriving, and they are not.

The first question that has to be asked is why are you doing this? What is your motivation, and what are you hoping to gain from such a venture?

Then you have to look at how many games you want to stream, and what level of the sport are they. Is it justifiable to stream these games? Just as with some of the competitions receiving full-blown coverage on mainstream platforms one has to ask if the coverage is benefitting the sport. In many cases it is not. The quality of the games on show are simply not worth airing in full. They would be better off as a highlights package, but that too comes at a cost.

As each of these sports tries to achieve their goals of obtaining coverage, and growing the sport many are trying to do it on a budget. Which raises the question again as to whether it would not be better to cherry-pick the games or events that will attract the most interest or viewers, and produce a quality broadcast? With so much quality sport available now people expect a certain level of production even when sport is live-streamed.

Only truly dedicated parents will sit through a game with no commentary, with poor camerawork where the action is so far away it is hard to pick up. Yes, there are AI options now available but how many of them have been developed with each specific sport in mind? The algorithm has usually been developed for one sport, and that is why the camera often fails to follow the action. One famous example was when a pigeon landed on the stand in front of the camera. The motion-activated camera then spent the next five minutes fixated on the pigeon. As memorable as that was, is that really what viewers want to see?

Traditional television was slow to react to many of the advances in technology. While many of the top sports and broadcasters embraced it others found that they simply could not afford it, or were not prepared to pay for it. A prime example was the technology in the recent Ashes cricket series where the International Cricket Council was not prepared to pay for the highest level of technology to ensure that decisions were correct, so an inferior version was used that made what some would say were match-turning errors.

We have raised this before, unless you are going to pay for the best available should such technology still be used? As rather than making sure the crucial decisions are correct we are still witnessing baffling decisions being made, in part because the video official is not being given what they need to make the correct decision.

There have been a proliferation of production companies since the dawn of streaming and the Covid pandemic. Some are extremely professional, some are not. The worrying thing is that those employed by the sports to give a contract to a production house often themselves have absolutely no experience in this space, and are too proud to ask people who do. One story shared in recent weeks was truly terrifying how the person tasked with such a decision had never worked in any media space, and has in fact cost their organisation tens of thousands of dollars.

There is an old saying, “there is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper and people who consider price alone are his easy prey.”

Many sports now fall into that category.

Long before this writer became involved in commentary it was said that ‘a good commentator can lift a poor game, but a bad one will destroy a good match.’

Since the Covid pandemic a trend that was emerging has rampaged. Experienced commentators, camerapersons, directors and producers have been sidelined for cheaper less professional – in some cases – and less experienced operators. All of this is done, we are told to save money. The production companies claiming that the sports do not have the money to pay for a quality production.

So, in numerous aspects of the viewer experience they are ending up with a substandard product. An example is when a replay is being shown as an attack is happening. When we the viewer comes back to the live action we have missed that attack and suddenly one of the teams has a corner or a penalty, but we have no idea how that occurred.

Which takes us back to the point made earlier should these sports be trying to cover every event if they have limited budget? If you ask most fans they would prefer quality any day over quantity. Poor quality coverage and lots of it is never going to benefit a sport. In fact it will see viewership drop, which will impact sponsorship, and also any chance of selling future coverage to a broadcaster.

What is encouraging is that in some countries the broadcasters are beginning to wake up to the fact that poor quality coverage comes at a cost. That it does indeed impact viewing figures, and they are starting to reverse the trend and drop some of the inexperienced staff and go back to those with experience and who offer genuine quality. Those who have had the courage to do that have it is claimed seen an almost immediate impact.

Surely, just as the top class athletes deserve the best officials officiating their games they also deserve quality coverage? In some sports they remain ruthless when it comes to expert analysts, if you do not bring anything to the table you are cut. In recent times that has not been the case, with cricket’s coverage being a case in point. Ex-players are dropped into a role with zero experience and often no training, and expected to perform. Moving from playing to broadcasting is not a natural transition for most and it takes time to learn. This should be like your playing days where if you are not up to it someone else comes in.

Football has also fallen prey to “experts” who say nothing that viewere does not already know or can see, and interestingly in recent weeks there has been a backlash on this topic on social media.

What is also frustrating, and this can only be due to cutting corners financially, the sound levels on some matches have been dreadful. A game this writer watched at the weekend had the crowd sound so high that you could not hear what the commentator was actually saying; that could have been a blessing in disguise, but we will never know. If you are havig to adjust your volume from when those pitchside are talking to when the commentary starts you know that the sound levels have not been checked. How often does this happen these days?

While some people are unaware of the difference between equality and equal opportunity, (Equality or Equity, Which is Really Going to Carry Sport Forward?) it has been interesting to see how good the female cricket commentators are in comparison to their male counterparts. Alison Mitchell, Isa Guha and Isabelle Westbury being stand outs that offer a great deal more insight that many of their male counterparts. Proving that if given an opportunity the cream will rise to the surface, it is not about gender.

With sports fans today having to pay for so much of the coverage do they deserve better?

Do they deserve to know whether the commentator is actually at the game or whether they are commentating remotely? While it is often very easy to tell if they are actually at the venue, with the increase in the cost of paying to view surely the least the viewer can expect is that the commentators are actually there and are giving them up to the second information? Should broadcasters be forced to declare whether they are there or not?

Remote commentary was coming in prior to Covid and broadcasters were convinced that this was going to be the way of the future, however some glaring hiccups have seen this stall to some extent. Some sports have even wised up that the broadcasters are only going with this option to increase their profit margins on the broadcast. While savvy broadcasters have worked out that remote commentary works with some sports, but simply is not an option with others.

At the end of the end of the day the public, and the fans of each sport are the ones who will ultimately make their voice heard. The viewing figures will drop, and they will cease to pay to watch the sports they enjoy. With many sports this is already abundantly clear, although not to be shared with the public. Some sports are desperate to try and spin the statistics give truth to the famous quote “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” A phrase frequently used to illustrate the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

Often it comes doen to the actual product the sport itself and whether it is appealing. Is it exciting? The English Premier League is currently experiencing this awakening, but for very different reasons. The fans are bored with the style of football on show. It is no longer about beating the opposition, but more about not losing. As a result viewing figures are allegedly not just falling, but plummeting. Most viewers are only tuning into extended highlights.

Former international players have aired their views in recent months and many have received support for their opinions. Ex Liverpool and Newcastle United striker Michael Owen said, “Back in the day, there were loads of great players that were absolute ballers. Now if you can just run a bit further than everyone else & pass the ball from A to B, then you can have a decent career in the Premier League. You don’t even have to be that good anymore.” Despite many fans not liking Owen as a pundit, few disagreed with this view.

While back in the 1970’s former Celtic and Manchester United player Paddy Crerand prophetically said “If the tacticians ever reached perfection, the result would be a 0-0 draw, and there would be no one there to see it.” Are the tactics being employed killing the games?

Sport is supposed to be a release for all, whether playing it or watching it. It should bring joy when your team wins and varying degrees of disappointment when they lose. With the cost to attend live matches now often beyond the reach of many, especially if they wish to take their children, surely it is vital that sport is not behind a paywall, that it is accessible to those who want to watch it and that the product is of a certain standard. If it isn’t how are you going to grown participation and a fanbase?

Many years ago this writer recalls the head of one sport in a European country saying on “Not The Footy Show” that it was vital that they qualify for the Olympic Games, as that was the only time they received any coverage. Now, with a bloated Olympic Program even that is not guaranteed. To put a sport solely on a channel that fans have to subscribe to is taking it down a road to extinction. No wonder new sports are emerging and climbing up the rankings in terms of viewers and participants.

As for the national team, should they not always be free for everyone to watch?

Some sports are facing a very tough next four years, and the key to their survival is going to be promoting quality and not quantity. Employing people who understand this space or consulting with people who do, and ensuring that what they put in the shop window for their current fans is appealing, and of a standard and quality to attract new fans, players and sponsors. They need to be the ones driving what is being aired and ensuring that it reflects their sport in a professional manner to achieve those goals.

Lessons can be learned from other sports. In Europe in many countries the Olympic Sports and other tier two sports are suffocated by the mass exposure that football has. In the USA baseball has fallen behind Gridiron and Basketball, and many say it will never regain that ground.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s thanks to some extraordinary fighters boxing was probably at its peak in terms of interest and coverage for the masses. Interestingly there were only two world bodies at that time, the World Boxing Council and the World Boxing Association. There were only five or six weight divisions, so winning a title meant you really were the best. Then the best fought the best, and that is why these champions names have endured.

Today boxing is predominantly behind a paywall. There are now four recognised World bodies but there are 19 weight divisions, meaning that there can be 76 World Champions at one time. Is that appealing to fans? No. Once again it is quantity over quality.

Swimming at the Olympic Games has again devalued the worth of a gold medal. In 1964 in Tokyo there were only 18 gold medals up for grabs in the men’s and women’s events. In 2024 there were nearly double that with 35 pool gold medals available, and two marathon swimming golds. As one Olympic swimming medallist told this writer “when I retired I soon found out my medals meant nothing.” Was that because there were so many? That they ceased to be exclusive?

Too much of something ceases to make it special. To be able to call your self a World or Olympic Champion should mean something, it should be exclusive to a very small group of people, the best at that time. Quality over quantity in sport has always what has made its heroes stand out and live long in the memory. The same applies to the coverage of sport and it would appear that many fans are begining to say that same, they want quality over quantity.

It appears that if many sports continue with the current laissez-faire approach it will not be long before they reach the point of no return. For some it will take years to reclaim their market, for some they never will.

The post Quality Over Quantity? It Appears Fans are Beginning to Make it Clear What They Want. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

It is important to remember that it is an honour, one that only a very small percentage ever get to experience. It is equally important to never forget that word, ‘represent,” that you are representing not only your country by name, but also all those who share that nationality.

In today’s sporting world with centralised contracts at international level it is sometimes easy to forget who you are representing, and that it is in fact an honour, as it may feel more like an exclusive club. Certainly, in many cases this is how international representation is beginning to look.

Players publicly stating that they will decide when they call an end to their career rather than the axe falling on them when they cease to perform.

In cricket the centralised contract was put in place to ease the financial burden on the counties, provinces and states in various countries. In the days of years gone-by these sides paid the players wages. When they were selected to represent their country they were still paid and receive an additional fee for playing internationally. There was no compensation for the sides paying their wages who lost a key player which could impact a championship. They lost a drawcard player which could impact their gate on certain fixtures. Worst of all sometimes these players would be injured while on international duty and then their club sides were without them for a lengthy period, and were still paying them.

The centralised contracts were supposed to identify a pool of players that were in the mix to be selected for international duty and their wages were paid by the National body. Sadly, in some countries the gulf in wages between the two levels has blown out to such an extent that now the International bodies do not want these players dropping back down to play, because they could get injured.

Some players simply do not wish to go back and play at that level, and what is the incentive when you are receiving six figures sums just to be a part of this elite group?

The money on offer is another reason why we are seeing careers lasting longer. Players do not want to leave, and who can blame them?

While the centralised contracts made sense in the cricketing world with test matches lasting a maximum of five days and tours used to be three to four months, there is a very strong feeling that the current situation is no longer beneficial for the game. It benefits the players, but they are the only ones coming out ahead.

In Football in most countries the national coach knows the core players that he wants in his squad. There are in very few countries centralised contracts to play internationally as the players are often well remunerated at club level.

When it comes to national teams the coach selects players in form, or players who will fit into the style of football he or she wishes to play. If a striker is banging in goals every week a national coach would be foolish to ignore such a player whose confidence will be sky-high.

In Australia there used to be centralised contracts for the Socceroos and at the Matildas. This previous system of tiered annual contracts for International players has been replaced with a model that rewards match participation.

The new collective bargaining agreement which was announced in November 2023 now sees 70 per cent of player payments being derived from match fees, with another 30 per cent coming from a yearly commercial payment.

This deal is for both the men’s and women’s teams, and means that players can earn up to AUD$200,000 a year before any share of tournament prize money, if they play most of the matches.

Players are entitled to 40% of the prize money received upon qualifying for a FIFA World Cup, which rises to 50% if they reach the knockout stage of the competition.

This agreement makes the two Australia sides two of the highest paid in international football. It has been claimed that this agreement now costs Football Australia in the region of $250,000 every game that the Socceroos or Matildas play once all the players have been paid.

As many lower down the pyramid have been asking, can the sport really afford this money? Time will no doubt tell, as the World Cup bonuses after costs will leave little to reinvest in the game.

In many of the second tier sports they would love to have even half of the money that the first tier sports pay their international players. Many of these sports rely on government support. Much of that support being based on their performances. When they fail to perform at the benchmark tournaments funding is cut.

These organisations are then forced to apply for funding from government projects aimed to win votes and satisfy minority groups, and that is why we see matches being branded accordingly. Something that has been known to alienate the bulk of fans who often feel that they are being ignored for a small section of the sport’s fanbase.

Hockey is a prime example where funding has been cut. However, the individuals that are fortunate to be selected for the national High Performance squads are not contracted players. They are scholarship owners within the Australian Institute of sport. So they do not receive any superannuation or holiday pay throughout their careers.

In fact currently it is claimed that the Kookaburras receive $300 a week when they train and $75 per day when they play in a tournament such as the FIH Pro League. If they do not train one week due to work or studies they do not receive the $300.

So these players are truly passionate and committed, and clearly not playing for the money.

In 2012 FIFA and its various Confederations sat down to try and find a solution to prevent the major clubs losing their international players at key moment in a season. The result was the FIFA International Match Calendar which was introduced in 2014. This calendar sets out which dates can be used for “official” and “friendly” international matches. These dates are now referred to by all as “international breaks,” when the top league pause for a fortnight.

This came about as the players were frequently being asked to chose between their club and their country. Despite having in his contract with a European club that he would be released for international duty one former Socceroo was dropped after opting to play for Australia at the 1988 Olympics; before the age limit was introduced.

There were concerns in Hockey over 20 years ago when the first players headed to Europe to play and be paid to play. Now it would appear that this issue is likely to come to a head again.

As covered previously the domestic Hockey One League was supposed to generate income for the players, but hasn’t. The FIH promised that the PRO League was going to make all of the players full time professionals, that was seven years ago and they are probably further away from that than ever with the cost of participating in a global league. (All we Want For Hockey Is...)

Not surprisingly many of the top Australian players have taken up the opportunity to head over to Europe and where they are paid to play, while others were fortunate to be picked up to play in the Hockey India League.

In this year’s edition the issue of club versus country came to the surface once again and looks like it may well lead to the need for the players to sit down with Hockey Australia and nut out some understanding as to where they stand.

One player who was signed by his franchise for 28 lakhs (approx AUD 49,432), picked up a groin strain in the latter stages of the tournament.

The franchise which had onboard top sports support staff were keen for their import to play in their all important semi-final match. In fact the staff involved in monitoring and assessing the player have been a part of Olympic and World Cup medal winning hockey sides. It is understood that they even shared the scans with a top overseas doctor involved in hockey for their opinion.

These professionals had monitored the player over a number of days, and as mentioned consulted with a number of experts outside of those in their employ in order to have a balanced understanding of where the player was at.

Their staff felt that the best approach was to give the player in question limited minutes in one half of the semi-final game. They suggested four blocks of three minutes. They would then assess the player after that involvement as to whether they were up to playing in the final or the bronze medal match.

Hockey Australia staff who were back in Australia had told the player that he could play in one game or the other, but not both. They allegedly made this extremely clear to the player involved and advised that if they ignored this request their place in the Australian World Cup squad in August 2026 could be in jeopardy.

It was also made clear that if the player disobeyed the Kookaburras program would review whether it would be involved in the player’s rehabilitation process.

The player in question did not play the semi-final match, his team lost. They did play in the bronze medal match.

Should a player who is only on a scholarship with the national team, not employed, be put in such a position when they are under contract to a side who is paying them twice the annual value of that scholarship?

As it turns out the player in question, who is playing for a club in Europe is no longer on an AIS scholarship. So how can a National Association have such a hold on a player? Presumably they can only threaten players with non-selection.

The demands of the High Performance program put the contracted player in a very difficult position. Some would say a no-win situation. Their place in the national team was being placed on the line, possibly so too was their place with their employee in the Hockey India League.

Certainly when news of this situation became common-knowledge the general feeling was that the Australian hierarchy had been heavy-handed. There was talk that they had shown a lack of respect for the support staff being employed at the franchise.

Some even stated that if this was to be the attitude of Hockey Australia some franchises would think twice in the future about signing Australian players.

The Hockey India League was approved to be played in this window because there were no international matches. However, hot on the heels of the final matches are FIH Pro League matches. Understandably International teams do not want to lose their players for these games even though the league has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of things.

Sadly, Belgian and German players did pick up injuries that will see those players miss out on this round of Pro League matches. Will that mean that these National Associations will stop their players playing in the Hockey India League? Or will it be their clubs at home who stop them as they are contracted and paid by them?

The situation that arose this year should never have happened. There should be a clear understanding as to where the players stand in terms of to whom their loyalty lies first from a legal perspective. As they have signed a playing contract, but in Australia they have no doubt also signed a scholarship agreement.

Like Football, Hockey needs to have International breaks in which International matches are played. Domestic fixtures – if the international players are playing for club sides – should be suspended on those weekends. This would also allow those players team-mates to go and watch them in action in the national colours. The same should apply with Hockey One which has seen under 21 players no longer available due to Junior World Cup preparations and the Sultan of Johor Cup.

While an international calendar may take a bit of time to work out, it would benefit the game immensely in the long term. As for the players the reality is that some will at some point opt for loyalty to their clubs who pay them a wage over meaningless Pro League matches. The flipside of that is that the clubs themselves may start to seek compensation from national associations if they release a player who then gets injured while on international duty.

Whatever the outcome this situation is clearly coming to a head.

The post On A Collision Course first appeared on Not The Footy Show.