As menioned previously Ron Anderson lost his sight in his early 30’s, but he did not let that hold him back. He has thrown his heart and soul into establishing many sports programs over the years. IN Part Two of this interview 85 year old Ron took the time to look back on his involvement with cycling and also golf for the blind.

John takes a look at the Enhanced Games and how they were received and the lack of records. The payments would no doubt have made it worthwhile. The one thing the Games showed was how much money there is in sport for the athletes to be paid what they were paid, so why are the IOC so averse to paying Olympians?

In our topics under conversation Ashley looks at the IOC President saying that the Olympic Games will be cutting back on sports when the Olympics come to Brisbane in 2032. This is something that we feel had to come to make hosting easier for prospective Olympic host cities. Which sports will be culled when Brisbane comes around? How importnat are historical links to the Olympic Games going to be in this process?

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 Podcast #145 – Part 2 of Our Interview with Ron Anderson, A Look at The Enhanced Games, and the Reduction of Events at the Brisbane Olympic Games in 2032. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Ron Anderson lost his sight in his early 30’s, and as a result he lost a great deal more as well. Working at the Braille Society as a recreation officer proved to be his calling as he threw his heart and soul into the role establishing many sports programs over the years. Now aged 85 Ron took the time to look back on some of his achievements with Ashley. In this first part of a two-part interview Ron talks about his adjusting to his blindness and his running in the Sydney City to Surf (Part Two of this interview will be in our next podcast).

In our topics under conversation Ashley looks at why sports are playing under 17 or under 18 World Cups. There is a huge cost to the participating nations in not only sending teams to these tournaments but also in developing the players. If you are going to invest in such a program surely you would want to see a large number of the players progress to play at full international level, but the statistics show that very few of this cohort actually make it to that level. So why are International Federations and National Associations signing up for such events?

John looks at a famous quote from German philosopher Karl Marx and asks if today he would say that Sport rather than religion is the opium of the people. They way it is discussed, the way politicians have attached themselves to sport to try and form a link with their constituents. It is not just the betting companies who have hijacked sport, everyone is trying to get the attention of sports fans.

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 #144 – Part 1 of an Interview With a Pioneer Of Sport for the Blind, Ron Anderson, The Point of Under Age World Cups, and Is Sport now the Opium of the People. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Two decades later and it is hard to be optimistic.

Less than a month ago it was reported that Football Australia, the body that now runs the sport in Australia was lobbying the Federal Government for “$50 million to establish a National Football Headquarters, including a world-class High-Performance Centre, a Football Museum, and facilities to host international teams.”

This was not the only project that they were asking for funding for under their “Securing our Football Future policy.”

Some of the other funding requests were as follows:

$1.56 billion from the next Federal Government, to establish a ten-year infrastructure program for community sport to deliver equitable and inclusive changerooms across the country, particularly to meet the rapid growth in women’s football.
$851 million from all State and Territory Governments, to establish a ten-year infrastructure program for community sport to address the lighting facilities gap to increase access and playing hours.
$391 million, over five years, to address pitch drainage and weather resilience in the face of climate change.Investment in State Homes of Football, including expansion of existing Homes of Football, as well as the establishment of the Tasmanian Home of Football, Capital Home of Football and the Home of Football Mid North Coast.
Calling on Federal and State Governments to establish a formal process to expedite and streamline bidding opportunities for major international football tournaments.

That was not all. They were also “seeking support to advance Australia’s global leadership in football through:

$1 million in seed funding to launch the Australian Championship—a new National Second Tier that strengthens the pathway between grassroots and professional football.
Support for a streamlined bidding process to attract future major international tournaments.
Investment in a 17,000-seat boutique stadium at Perry Park, Brisbane, as a flagship football venue for the 2032 Olympics.
Enhanced backing for sports diplomacy initiatives across Asia and the Pacific, leveraging football’s reach to build stronger regional ties.”

There were many who came out in support of the home of football and were extremely vocal as to why the Federal Government should make this a priority.

First of all it is worth acknowledging that the Federal Government has in the past 20 years given football more funding than any other sport, including supporting a failed World Cup bid, a successful Women’s World Cup bid and two Asian Cup hosting bids.

Fans were told how hugely successful these events were, along with the benefits of the national men’s and women’s teams regularly qualifying for World Cup finals, so why is the sport still unable to sustain itself?

In 2024 Football Australia announced a loss of $8.5million. A year later that loss has risen to $15.34million.

As a tax payer and a lover of the game it is hard to justify the Government handing over yet more money at this point in time.

Football Australia’s relatively new CEO Martin Kugeler stated this past week that FA has “to introduce strong cost discipline within the organisation, and we have to live within our means.” This made many ask why was this not the case already?

He went on to add “we have to make decisions ground on evidence, research and data.” Implying once again that this has not been happening in recent times.

There can be no doubt that many who have been employed by the sport in the last 20 years jumped onboard because football was seen as being “cashed-up,” and it would enhance their resumes. Many within the sport asked for more “Football people” to be employed, without explaining exactly what that meant. To many it meant employing people with experience of success in the sport in administrative roles, not just former players. Under Kugeler’s predecessor James Johnson, there appeared to be a great deal of cronyism in terms of the appointments that were made, and some were shown the exit as soon as Johnson left.

It is one thing to employ ex-players but they must have experience, qualifications or the skillset required for the role that they have been appointed to. After checking the qualifications of one individual who gained a senior role there was absolutely nothing in their past employment history to show that they had the knowledge or skills to even be offered the role. This is why and how football’s administration ran itself into the ground in the past. To many the current situation is simply history repeating.

Which reminds us of the words of the philosopher George Santayana who wrote, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This was a big mistake made by the Football Federation of Australia in the early part of the past twenty years, they claimed that this was “new football” and refused to talk or even acknowledge the game existed before they took over. This was foolish in the extreme as these were the foundations on which the sport was built in Australia.

With no foundations to rely on the house was bound to fall.

As Martin Kugeler has implied the rebirth of the game with Government support and Frank Lowy as Chairman had some believing that Football was now sitting at the top table alongside AFL and Cricket. Yet there was still a very long way to go before the sport could claim that, despite the participation numbers outstripping the other two.

Staffing levels were too high for a sport looking to establish itself as a top sport. Salaries were too high for some staff who were not the best in their role in the marketplace. The sport was living beyond its means.

Never was that more so than with the A-League. There are many who will say off the record, but few will say it publicly that the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) have a lot to answer for in terms of where the league sits financially. They did their job and they did it well by pushing up the wages of the players in the A-League, but at what cost?

The average salary in Australia’s A-League Men’s competition is currently approximately $135,000 to $150,000 per year. Of course this is an average driven up by experienced, marquee, and international players. The minimum wage is around $70,000, with youth scholarship players earning between $45,000 and $60,000.

Teams play a total of 26 games – excluding FA Cup Matches – in the regular season. By comparison to overseas leagues these wages are on par with lower divisions in Europe, but the question is can the Franchise owners afford such wages over so few games? Can they afford them when unlike clubs in Europe they have to rent the stadia in which they play?

All of the A-League clubs operate within a hard salary cap of $3 million. They have a minimum spend of $2.25 million. Clubs are allowed one marquee player whose salary sits outside of the salary cap limit.

It is now over two decades since the A-League started, should a minimum spend be locked in but the maximum spend be removed, so that clubs can pay what they can afford? So that the League is more fiscally responsible?

Despite the A-League being separated from Football Australia it was revealed that the A Leagues owed the Governing body unpaid monies. The FA was quick to say that it had not written off money owed by the league to them. Will these monies be paid and if so when?

To add to everyone’s woes the the Socceroos and Matildas 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement brokered by the PFA has resulted in both Matildas and Socceroos players being paid under a tiered system, with the top players receiving up to $200,000 per year outside the World Cup cycle. Players at the bottom of the tier system are believed to be paid approximately $120,000.

With match fees ranging from $7500 to $10,000 per international, the cost to the FA is in the region of $250,000 just to pick a squad for an international match. Once again can the sport really afford such costs? Especially when they too have to hire the stadium to host the match?

The other question being asked is how can this possibly work effectively. Surely a national team and squad is picked on form and which players gel with others, why are these players tied to a long term contract? Surely it should be based solely on a match or tournament fee?

There would be few who would argue that they would love to see the players paid to the same level as the historically established football nations, but Australia is not yet at that level. It is unsustainable.

The financial reports of the past two years have shown that the sport is spending money it simply does not have. For example it has been reported that FA wages and salaries last year totalled $53.25 million, almost $11 million more than in 2024. The footballing public one feels has a right to know where that $11million was spent. As this is no small pay rise!

The biggest issue that has held football back is the same one that led to the game being shut down for 18 months before being rebuilt, poor governance and structure.

The Crawford Report was supposed to result in a restructuring of the governance of the National and State Associations. It was supposed to result in a more democratic approach, and the enfranchisement of groups that had previously not been represented e.g. referees, women’s players, etc.

This was to happen through the Standing Committees and the Zone Reps. Yet this structure has only been paid lip service. In fact one former State CEO openly stated that it was “not in their interest for this to work.”

The Zone Reps were supposed to represent clubs in a decreed area. Some do not even know the names of the clubs that they are representing, the clubs themselves often don’t know who their Zone Rep is. There is no communication between the Zone Reps and the clubs alerting them of developments or issues, or asking their views on candidates for various roles and how they would like them to vote. They are representatives of these clubs, they are not independent individuals with a vote. For the system to work it is vital that they are held accountable.

In many cases the Standing Committees too have been stymied from being truly representative and driving the game forward, as with representatives from the State Association sitting in on meetings many feel that they are unable to speak candidly or openly. Some have openly stated that they fear the consequences for their club if they speak up.

In Western Australia the National Premier Leagues commenced in 2014. This replaced the former State League, which is now the remaining two divisions in the semi-professional leagues. Despite two legal changes to the Football West Constitution in 2017 and 2023, there is still no NPL Standing Committee listed in section 3.6 Standing Committees. This is in spite of section b) stating: “In addition to the Standing Committees referred to in article 3.6(a), the Directors may, with the consent of FFA, establish any other Standing Committee they think fit;”

So the clubs at the highest level in this state have no legal voice. The clubs from which players are likely to be picked up by the A-League clubs have no place in the legal running of the game in that state.

It is easy to argue that the clubs have themselves to blame. Yet since the dawn of the NPL more and more responsibilities have been thrust upon these clubs and their volunteers, and many struggle to keep all the balls they are juggling in the air.

Surely, however there should be some checks and balances being done by the umbrella organisation Football Australia to ensure that every state has these committees set up properly with members voted on and off, and minutes recorded as this will ultimately enhance the game and issues will be heard rather than buried?

If Martin Kugeler is genuinely serious about better governance he needs to appoint or have the Australian Sports Commission appoint independent ombudsmen in each state to oversee the Governance from State Board level down to the various standing committees and Zone Reps. All of these elected representatives of everyone in the game need to be made aware of their responsibilities once elected and held accountable from then on.

Talking of responsibilities one question that does not appear to have been asked since the announcment of the two consecutive financial losses by Football Australia in the past two years, is how many of the losses are due to decisions made by the Board Members?

One of the key responsibilities of a Board Member is to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence, and bring informed judgment to financial matters.

While board members are generally shielded from an organisation’s liabilities, it is importnat to remember that they can be held personally liable for breaches of their duties. If they have been found to have failed in their financial responsibilities the consequences of their decisions can include civil penalties, fines, or personal liability for debts incurred if they breach anti-insolvency trading laws.

Football Australia is not currently insolvent despite the huge losses. This is because of its broadcast deals, and commercial agreements. While the governing body is going through a very tough time, its core operations remain viable thanks to the huge grassroots registration numbers and it is hoped its predicted cost-cutting measures.

Even so one feels that a closer investigation into how certain decisions were reached at board level that may have cost the game vast sums of money need to be shared with the stakeholders, the members in each state. Which are the Zone Reps and Standing Committee Representatives.

There are plenty who are questioning how a board member can be contracted to offer services to the sport while still on the board and receive payments of $180,000 last year and $810,000 this year. Interestingly the individual resigned from the Board in May 2025 after the PlayFootball registration platform they had been consulting on was launched in December 2024.

This is not the first time that a board member has received payment for offering Consulting services. If offeriong such services should they step aside? It is not a good look for the game them consulting when holding such a role.

Sadly, it would appear that the die was cast early in the rebirth of football.

Frank Lowy returned to the game and was hailed as the messiah. He was the first Chairman of the Football Federation of Australia as it was then, and held that position from 2003 to 2015.

When the A-League was established under his leadership in 2005, Lowy via his family trust, became a key investor in Sydney FC. The FFA at that time oversaw the running of the A-League. As FFA chairman, many felt strongly that this was a conflict of interest. Mr Lowy defended the concerns about a conflict-of-interest by stating that his primary goal was to safeguard the club’s financial viability during its formative years.

After huge financial losses in the club’s first year he became the major shareholder. In 2008 he sold that majority share of 70%. He did not sell his final shares believed to have been 10% until September 5, 2019, ending the Lowy family connection with the club.

Lowy’s argument about safeguarding the club may carry some weight as his company Westfield stepped in and sponsored the W League and the Matildas. The value of these sponsorships was never disclosed. As a Board Member should there not have been transparency on such issues?

Needless to say the media have poured over the recent financial report in the past week and ESPN’s Samantha Lewis wrote when looking at debts not paid by the Australian Professional Leagues (APL) that “additionally, Football Australia is entitled to 10% of both international player transfers and club expansion fees which, according to public reports, could total almost $9 million since 2023.”

This is a real red flag.

This issue raised its head over five years ago and according to FIFA ” a football association can receive a percentage of a transfer fee under strictly defined conditions, typically limited to the mandatory Solidarity Contribution and specific Association/League Levies.”

There are currently no transfer fees between clubs in the A League. So the fee would only apply to overseas transfers. The FIFA regulations are that when a player under contract is transferred to a new club in a different jurisdiction, 5% of the total transfer fee must be withheld and distributed to the clubs that helped train the player between their 12th and 23rd birthdays.

The role of the National Association is to act as the intermediary. To collect and distribute these funds to those clubs If a club entitled to a percentage (e.g., a defunct youth club) cannot be found, those specific funds are forwarded to the National Association (such as Football Australia) to be strictly used for national youth development programs.

So where is the 10% coming from? Also they are only supposed to be an intermediary in relation to that money.

When a National Association takes a percentage of transfer fees, it will directly impact a club’s finances and operational resources. These consequences will have a huge impact on the economic landscape of the sport. If the FA are indeed doing this why? Especially if it is going to going to impact the sport as a whole?

If a National Association takes a percentage of a transfer fee, it generally violates FIFA Statutes, which prohibit third-party influence and restricts transfer compensation to clubs, players, and licensed agents.

The consequences do not bear thinking about. First up the transfer can be deemed invalid and the International Transfer Certificate withheld.

The National Association could face a fine or loss of FIFA funding. It is also likely to be told to repay the illegally deducted funds.

Then there is the risk of sanctions: Such a move can result in the potential suspension of the association from international competitions or result in an administrative takeover by FIFA

This is just another issue that the newly appointed board will need to get on top off and quickly as the last thing they need is an international suspension, which would cause more untold damage to their financial situation.

The one thing that is clear over the past week is that there has to be a change. There has to be better Governance and those at the top would be wise to turn back the clock and ensure that the systems that were advocated as a result of the Crawford Report are implemented and are working. As mentioned an independent observer in each state would be a wise appointment for the next few years to ensure that all is running as intended.

The Crawford Report came about because of conflicts of interest and mismanagement at the Board level at Soccer Australia. It would appear that two decades later nothing miuch has changed in football, just the names.

Will it ever fulfil its potential? Or is it doomed to be continually railroaded by self-serving individuals?

The post Are the answers Football Australia is looking for in the Crawford Report? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Almost any sports fan or past player will have heard the famous line by the American sportswriter Grantland Rice, who famously wrote that “it matters not who won or lost, but how you played the game.”

The sentiment behind his words were that the focus is not on winning as the final outcome, but what is more important and what should be focussed upon is your integrity and effort. Sadly, in the current era of sport it would appear that this is rarely the case, and Rice’s words are outdated.

However, his words may still apply to individual sports, where although you are competing against others there is also the inner battle where you are competing against yourself, striving to improve on previous performances and having the self belief and work ethic to do so.

While many football fans have shaken their heads in the past week as to how the referee in the crucial game between Motherwell and Celtic in the Scottish Premier League so rapidly changed his original decision when contacted by VAR, and awarded Celtic a penalty in the seventh minute of time added on, when in the eyes of nearly every fan the ball was clearly headed clear and not punched clear. To many the reputation of Scottish football has been tarnished by this decision, as VAR is there to get decisions right. Although many cynics believe now that it is there to alter decisions and influence outcomes.

Of course at the end of the day Celtic fans could not care less. That 3-2 win enabled them to claim another Scottish Premier League title on the last day of the season. Had that penalty not been given it would have been a much tougher game against Heart of Midlothian in which to claim the title, and in the eyes of many Hearts may well have been worthy Champions.

To the club and its fans a win is a win. In years to come the records will show Celtic as Champions. That is all the fans care about. It may also be all that the sponsors and others attached to the club care about.

Does integrity still exist in sport? One wonders what the Corinthians would have made of all this?

The Corinthians club was famed for its ethos of “sportsmanship, fair play, [and] playing for the love of the game.” Their attitude towards penalties was unique in their day, let alone today. Their view was a gentleman would never commit a deliberate foul on an opponent. Therefore, if a penalty was awarded against the Corinthians, their goalkeeper would remove himself from the goal and lean against the goalpost and watch the ball being passed into his goal. If at the other end of the field the Corinthians themselves won a penalty, their captain took the responsibility of missing the goal, either by firing over the crossbar or shooting wide. Imagine if Celtic had done that after Sam Nicholson’s alleged handball. Watching the footage it is interesting that no Celtic players appeared to call for a penalty. So imagine if they had deliberately missed the penalty how there would be a different view of Celtic at this time.

That aside people will tell you fans don’t care how they win as long as they do win. Fans don’t care how their team plays as long as they win.

Certainly this writer will admit that when the team they support plays in a local derby with the team down the A420, he really doesn’t care how we win as long as we do.

Yet many are saying that fans today do actually care how their teams play. That one of the reasons for dwindling viewing figures in the EPL is a result of many teams playing the same style of football. A style built on possession and defence rather than attacking. This comment is so true of so many team sports today. Play has become homogenised.

How many teams today are instantly recognisable by the style they play?

There is so much money involved today that very few coaches back their players to make the right decisions to win them the game. They are scared to lose, so the key becomes to keep possession of the ball, starve the opposition of the ball and wait until an opening comes. A weekend ago this was evident in a game where from a corner the attacking team played the ball all the way back to their goalkeeper through their midfield from an attacking corner!

That is not entertainment. That is not what people who pay a subscription to watch sport want to see. Neither is it what fans who have paid to come through the turnstiles want to see, they want to be entertained.

Sadly, in so many sports away from football the funding model is broken. This too is based on results and winning. Teams are expected to medal at the Olympic Games or they will lose funding. They must finish in the top four at a World Cup. Their World ranking must be in the top ten and the higher it is the more money they may receive. Is this really the best way of deciding funding support? The emphasis appears wrong and the model simplistic and lazy.

This is an area that administrators at the highest levels of sport fail to appreciate. How can every game played at international level warrant world ranking points? Yes, FIFA has a weighting system for those games outside of FIFA windows classed as “Friendlies,” but do some of these games warrant World ranking points?

With funding often riding on these games in sports that blindly follow “the FIFA model” when can a coach afford to lose a game? Leading into the World Cup teams will play “warm-up” games against each other. The coaches will be cagey as to the line-ups they use and the tactics that they engage. Of course they will want to win these games to “carry momentum” into the tournament itself, but should there be world ranking points for these games? When can a coach blood new players knowing that if they lose it will not affect their standing? Coaches need to be given the chance to try different tactics, formations, and players. Most fans understand that and accept that there may be the odd loss when this happens. Many other fans do not understand, and expect a win in every game, and they also have a reasonable expectation depending on how much they have had to pay to watch the game live or on a pay-per-view platform.

So winning does matter to them.

What winning at all costs has done is actually damage sport. Or rather the money linked to winning has damaged sport.

In the past month this writer has spoken to a number of sports people from several sports who were at one time all part of elite programs. Sports people who have walked away from those programs but are still playing the sport. All had no interest of being a part of that side of the game again. All stated that being a part of that system had killed their passion for the game that they loved. All said that at the current time they had not enjoyed playing so much since they were children. Why?

Again, in conversation it became clear that all of these players had innate abilities. Abilities that had brought them to the attention of those making selection choices, and their abilities had elevated them to that elite level in their chosen sports.

Yet once they reached this level all were told to stop doing what had led to them reaching this level. As one Super Rugby player revealed on Not The Footy Show, they were told that they could not back themselves in a game. They were not to take on their opposite man if there was a risk that they could lose possession. Keeping the ball was non-negotiable.

What was equally interesting was that all of these individuals said that they believed ‘the system’ no longer wanted talent. ‘The system’ according to them wanted athletes that they could turn into players. As all pointed out without fail – and maybe you would expect this – this will never work, as the athlete will never learn the subtleties of a game, the moments when they know they can change a game. In fact all made it very clear that many of these athletes lack that natural awareness to be able to play a pass when it is needed. Which is an interesting observation, that would again explain why some have publicly come out and said that the quality of the passing in leagues such as the EPL has declined in the past ten years. These same pundits have called out the lack of skill that is in the game today, and the lack of individual brilliance.

Ex England and Liverpool striker Michael Owen is one of those to speak out reportedly saying “There was more pure footballers back in the day. Now you have to be an athlete..” “You just have to be able to run, you have to be big, you have to be fast… you have to be covering X amount of kilometres now.” Along with “You don’t even have to be that good anymore. Back in the day you had to have real skill and attributes to be a top footballer.” Is he wrong? How many sports do his comments apply to?

Is this why fans are becoming frustrated. They are being asked to pay more for a lesser product irrespective of the results? Can winning really cover up a lack of quality?

Yes, fans want their team to win but it appears that many now want to see them win with a little bit of style. Saying that Arsenal fans will be happy just to have won the league this year irrespective of how their team has played in recent weeks.They just wanted to win something again.

So does how you win really matter? Or does how you play only matter when you are losing, and not when you are winning?

Someone once said “True achievement is measured not by applause, but by the impact left long after the stage is silent.” Winners will receive the applause, but how great an impact will their victory have? Today that is measured in dollars and cents, when one feels it should be measured in terms of those it inspires. That is why how you play the game is important, that you do not follow the masses, you plough your own furrow, that you are able to stand apart from the rest because of how you played, and the way you played will be remembered. This is why the greats in each sport are remembered for the way they played. It is why great teams are still talked about. Is that not the definition of true greatness?

Surely that is what it means to win? How many of today’s teams and players will be talked about in 10 let alone 20 years time, and will they have inspired the next generation?

The post The Cost of Winning first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

This took place after the 2021 Junior World Cups and has seen events held in 2023 and in 2025. The 2025 events also saw an increase in teams participating in the finals. The number rising from 16 to 24.

While this was promoted as being a positive step it can easily be argued that it in fact had the opposite effect on the game. Scores of 17-0, 13-0, 12-1 11-0 and 10-0 which were witnessed in the men’s event are never good to see. In fact in the men’s tournament ten of the 36 pool matches saw teams win by scores of 7-0 or more. One of the leading nations even pulled off their goalkeeper in search of more goals to improve their goal difference against a team that they were already assured of beating. They had a valid reason as it would impact whether they topped their pool or not.

In the women’s event 12 times was a team beaten by seven goals or more in the 36 pool games. That can never be good for a game or a sport,. In fact it made a mockery of the event being a World Cup Finals event where the best in the world are supposed to be competing.

If that was not bad enough we also witnessed the team that finished 17th receiving a trophy of their own. Each team at each event that finished 17th winning the the inaugural “Challenger Trophy,” a supposed incentive for the teams in the 17-24 place playoffs. At a prestigious World Cup event this is akin to giving every participant a medal, as we frequently see today in Junior sport. Is this really the direction the sport should be going?

The biennial Junior World Cup was panned by many in the game the minute it was announced, especially by development coaches as they warned that it would result in teams having little time to prepare and bring players through. It would appear that many of those who spoke out may well be vindicated five years on, although a major contributing factor is the lack of an international calendar to allow the coaches and the high performance programs to plan adequately for such an important tournament.

Whereas with a quadrennial tournament nations had three years to prepare and bring through players, now they essentially have a year. Obviously they need matches to prepare their players, but at under 21 level these are few and far between, unless you are in Europe where the distances are shorter. In Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania there is a huge cost to arrange u21 international games.

This is why events such as Malaysia’s long-running Sultan of Johor Cup are so important. They give under 21 teams the opportunity to gain tournament experience and play against varied opponents all at one time. Yet as we witnessed in 2025 New Zealan’d’s players had to fund their own way to not only the Sultan of Johor Cup but also the World Cup. So having an event every two years is going to place a huge financial demand on the parents of those aspiring players.

For over ten years the International Hockey Federation has said that they are going to put in place an International calendar. One that it was hoped would be created in conjunction with the various national associations and would result in the least disruption to their domestic competitions.

Certainly with World Cup Tournaments one would hope that the dates are locked in well in advance, but that does not appear to be the case.

Nations looking to compete in the next edition of the Junior World Cup in 2027 have no idea whether it is going to be held in July or December of 2027. If it is July that is only 13 months away! Of course efforts are being made to determine who will host the men’s and women’s events and where, but it is leaving it very late.

That of course creates problems when trying to plan ahead within their own programs, and also to some extent in their confederations.

To add to the frustration of many involved in bringing the next generation through via the Junior World Cup is the fact that following the 2025 event in India it is claimed that the various teams were asked to complete a questionnaire and provide feedback on the tournament. Many who took the time to give feedback have claimed that they have not received any response on that feedback from the FIH, not even a “thank you” for taking the time to complete the said questionnaire and provide feedback.

Could this be because from what NTFS has been advised many aired their view that holding the competition every two years was going to have a negative impact on the game, both in terms of funding the programs and developing players?

However, from what we have been able to gather there were some suggestions put forward that have merit, such as the top eight teams at the Junior World Cup winning the right to play in a Champions Trophy style competition every four years, in the second year between the four-yearly World Cups.

It is believed that many also felt that increasing the size of the junior World Cup to 24 teams was simply too much as the gulf between the top teams and the lowest ranked teams was simply too big, hence the high scoring encounters. The belief being that 20 teams should be the maximum, but that 16 at this age level was preferred, and that a seperate competition be arranged for the teams 17-24, with the winner possibly earning a place at the next World Cup. All appearing to be suggestions which make sense, but sadly appear to be opposed to what the decision-makers came up with.

The other problem with the Junior World Cup being held every two years is that the International Hockey Federation expect National Associations to bid to host the tournament, and also cover the cost of the broadcast of the games.

Regrettably, there is little return on such an investment. So the question is why would a nation bid to host the tournament? It is alleged that the FIH wanted the next event to be held in Europe, and approached three of the top national associations in Europe to host the event. All declined to host it independently due to the cost, but offered to be joint hosts. This it is claimed was rejected.

As was witnessed in India adding the cost of the broadcast to the host nations responsibilities is another expense that few can afford. So what happens? They find the cheapest option, simply to meet their obligations. As a result the coverage is not of a standard that Hockey fans expect, and viewing figures are low, which in turn makes it hard to attract sponsors the next time around.

When one takes into consideration that New Zealand were not the only team that saw its players have to pay their own way to a World Cup, is it really fair to ask them to be finding NZD13,000 or the equivalent every two years? If they do raise that money to attend then they deserve a top class event with a top class broadcast.

The problem with a lack of a Calendar at the highest level is it filters down and impacts all levels of the game.

The two dominant nations in Oceania are New Zealand and Australia. Despite not knowing when the Junior World Cup is going to be next year Oceania has to organise a time when the World Cup Qualifiers will be played. Not The Footy Show has been advised that both nations had told their Confederation that July would be the best month for them.

Oceania has since advised that the games will be played from the 10th-13th of December 2026 in Queensland! Allegedly this is because this is the only time that the venue they are looking to use is available. Then surely if the venue is not available during the best times for the member nations of the Confederation, you have to change the venue? After all the Confederations are there to serve its member nations, this is not good customer service!

As a result of this obstinacy and all-powerful attitude it has been claimed that New Zealand has said they will not be playing, as the dates clash with their National competition. They are to be applauded for taking such a stance. It is a shame that Australia has not stood next to them and also said that the timing does not work for them. Sadly the New Zealanders may feel a pattern is developing with both teams allegedly agreeing to withdraw from the Pro League together, but Australia then doing a backflip.

Sadly the ones who lose the most are the young aspiring players.

When one hears of these types of situation brought about by a clear lack of planning in terms of calendars internationally, regionally and domestically, one can understand why some players in this cohort have said they are “burned out,” “there is too much hockey,” or they are “no longer enjoying playing.”

While there has always been a belief that to make it to the top you need to have passion and drive along with a desire to play, you also need a break. One player who played at the Junior World Cup in December last year had just three days off after returning home before they were back training with their club side! They are still playing, and have been playing the one sport for over 12 months.

In Australia if you are in this under 21 group and have aspirations to play for Australia you know that you have to be playing to be seen. Yet these players play for their clubs, they then leave the club to go and play in the National Under 21 Championships mid season, they return to their clubs and play through to the end of that season. Before that ends they are training with their Hockey One side, and when the club season ends the Hockey One season starts. Some may be fortunate to attend an Under 21 invitational event in Europe or Asia as well and also attend a national training camp. They may also be asked to play for their state in a meaningless under 21 or under 23 foray into Asia. These are games that they could easily miss, and one suspects that the National coaches are telling the players that, as they have seen what they need to see from them. However, the State bodies tell the players that they need to play if they want to play in the Hockey One league, which they have been told is where the national selectors are watching to select the national team squads for the next year. So they agree to go for fear of not being in the shop window for national selection. Understandably this current set-up is draining some, and clearly killing the drive in others.

Having spoken to some players in this group it has been interesting to hear that many have said if they were allowed to skip one event it would be Hockey One. The main reason being that it comes at the wrong time being contested, at the end of the Club season, when players want to have a break or go and play another sport without the same pressure or expectation; and being under 21 it would be in their interests to do so. Being so young many are at University or part of an apprenticeship and many have said tutors and employers are sick of having to keep giving time off for hockey. One player revealing that his lecturer said that they may want to decide what their priority was in life, they degree or sport. (All We Want For Hockey Is...)

There are many who have been around the game for a very long time who have stated since the creation of Hockey One that the scheduling of the competition comes at the wrong time. Why could it not be spread throughout the Club season? This would probably boost crowds as many are then in Hockey-mode.

One of the reasons given to Not The Footy Show was ‘this window is the best because Hockey does not have to go up against AFL or NRL. This is truly a laughable reason. With all due respect the sport is no where near competing with those two dominant sports. There is no reason to worry about them. Hockey has a loyal following of its own, the key is trying to grow that. Focus on what you are doing and do it well. Currently the timing of the competition impacts those who watch it as the regular season is over and many are taking a break or have moved on to another sport.

Like so many things in sport it all comes down to communication. Sitting down and talking through the various calendars with the stakeholders, the National associations, the state bodies and the clubs. The dictatorial approach and a belief that because you are the governing body and you know best just does not work, and it never has. With a little effort and some give-and-take all of these events can be staged, but all within a timeframes that protects the athletes and benefits the sport as a whole. .

Also moving forward the sport has to look at who should pay for tournaments such as these. Should the onus really fall on the National Associations to bear the costs of hosting such tournaments? Or should this be a joint effort? After all how much benefit is there to a National Association to act as host? With very little mainstream coverage they are certainly not going to benefit from television exposure. If no one is prepared to put their hand up and cover these costs what is the future of these tournaments? It is time to be realistic, park egos at the door, and work together for the good of the game globally.

The post Timing Really Is Everything. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

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.