Our guest on this show is a man who has worked in sports for over 47 years and has lectured on many aspects of sport at the US Sports University – formerly the United States Sports Academy – including the area of Sports Finance. T.J. Rosandich looks at this aspect of sport and how in fact many major events end up costing money rather than making money. We are sure that you will find what he has to say extremely interesting.

John has us turn our attention to the recent FIFA World Cup that has just concluded, and Ashley looks briefly at the change in goalkeeper techniques and teh number if Africans gracing the tournament playing for other nations. John then raises the issue of the conspiracy theories that ran throughout the tournament and the “hatred of the VAR.”

After our conversation with TJ, John and Ashley discuss some of the issues raised and how Western Australian Tourism figures leaked were claiming that for every dollar spent on bringing events, including sporting events to the state, these events would return $2.80. Hopefully after listening to this interview someone asks the Government to show how they came to that figure.

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#146 – Are There Really Profits to be Made From Hosting Sporting Events? Also a Look Back at the FIFA World Cup, and a Question for State Politicians. first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

No matter what area of life you look at there will always be talented people. Some look to use that talent, others choose not to, while some simply lack the courage to use it. Then there are those who will say they were never given the opportunity to use it.

Then there are those who choose not to select talented players. It was the great Australian cricketer Keith Miller who said of Laurie Nash “the greatest waste of talent in Australian cricket history.” Nash was an uncompromising fast bowler who loved to dig the ball in short. In 1932 playing for Tasmania against the touring South Africans in Hobart Nash was on a hat-trick. Everyone was trying to think what he would bowl, a yorker being the expected delivery. Nash bowled a bouncer, and broke Eric Dalton’s jaw!

In the 1936/37 Ashes series, – the first after Bodyline when the selectors were not game to pick Nash, – he was selected for the final test despite England captain Gubby Allen trying to stop his selection. He would only play two Tests in his career and took ten wickets at an average of 12.8. It is believed Bradman wanted him on the 1938 tour of England but the selectors would not pick him.

Apart from being an outstanding cricketer and Aussie Rules player Nash knew he was good, as was reflected when he was asked who was the best player he had seen in that sport, he replied, “I see him every morning when I look in the mirror.”

So many talented players have a belief that others lack. That belief in themselves has proven troublesome to selectors and managers over time, but it is important that they learn to manage these players and not ignore them or try and suppress their ability.

So, to say that someone has wasted talent can be a harsh criticism to make, especially in today’s world where natural talent in many sports is seen as being ‘an individual,’ and these natural attributes are coached out of individuals; hence the enjoyment for many gifted players diminishes. They either are discarded branded “not a team plauyer,” walk away or simply fail to perform to their capabilities.

Whenever you hear of coaches trying to suppress natural talent you hope that parents or others around that individual will remind them of the words of Benjamin Franklin who said “Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What’s a sundial in the shade?” Of course many today woul;d have no idea what a sundial is, let alone what it was used for!

Even if you have talent for something it will only carry you so far. It was the former president of the United States of America Calvin Coolidge who said that “nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not. Nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.” He went on to say “persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”

This has been proven time and time again, especially in sport where players who may not have been as talented as others through hard work, persistence and determination have ended up achieving far more.

That having been said it is terribly sad when you see young players with ability and promise not fulfil that promise, and frequently through no fault of their own.

Ten years ago there were two young footballers who clearly had talent and ability. Both should have gone on to play at a higher level. Both had the passion and commitment, but both were told that they were not strong enough for the step up. Sadly, what the coaches who made that assessment failed to explain was how they could become stronger when in possession of the ball. Both players, who were in their late teens, one may have been 20, failed to ask how they should gain strength. Instead they simply went to a gym and told the trainer they wanted to get stronger. The trainer it has been claimed did not ask why they wanted to get stronger, and simply gave them a program that saw both bulk up their upper body and thighs in terms of muscle. Yet that bulking up took away from one a quick turn of pace, and the other also lost a yard or two of pace that used to see them glide past players. Suddenly two of the attributes that had made them the players they were had gone. They were now never going to make it to the next level and make a career in the sport.

In May 2013 nineteen year old Sam Chalmers the son of former Scottish international rugby union fly half Craig, tested positive to anabolic steroids when on Scotland Under-20s duty. He was suspended for two years after pleading guilty.

On his return to rugby after serving his suspension Sam Chalmers told the Guardian ““I have been stupid, naive and impressionable and would urge other young players not to give in to the constant pressure to be bigger in the manner that I did,”

Chalmers was in the gym trying to bulk up when he was offered supplements by others at the gym, and foolishly took them without checking what they contained. The supplement market has become a huge market for budding sports stars. At the time of his suspension Chalmers said in a statement “After my experience, I would certainly encourage young players to seek out the correct advice from the right places before taking any kind of supplement or product.”

Chalmers is not alone in trying to take a short cut, in South Africa where a professional rugby contract is seen as life-changing, and a chance to earn a fantastic wage as well as give a player an opportunity overseas, many are taking supplements, but worse some are taking steroids while at school and there have even been stories of parents injecting their own children with them.

A week ago this writer witnessed a similar sitiuation to the two footballers with another player who had excelled at under 21 level. They had been recognised as a talent and were put into a State Institute of Sport program. Here they were given a training program that changed their natural body shape. They too built up muscle, they became physically solid and strong. Yet again while developing their body strength they too had lost the turn of pace that took them away from a player. Yes, once they got going they still were quick, but they were no longer able to pull away from the opposition in the first two metres.

After watching the game and being saddened by what I had witnessed this writer went away and looked at who was in charge of the strength and conditioning program that had allowed this to happen. Incredibly the person in this role had obatined auch a position straight out of University with only three roles assisting top flights sports while at University. What practical knowledge did they have to land such an important role? These are the athletes of the future, they deserve the very best in terms of supprt for these young players to fulfil their potential. Did they land this role because the salary was too low to attract the best and most experienced people to help these athletes achieve?

It is extremely troubling to know that someone with so little experience has such an important role. Yet this is commonplace in sport today where inexperienced individuals are given roles that they simply should not have. However, this one has the potential to shatter dreams and careers. The mental fall out does not even bear thinking about.

It begs the question what has happened to Australian sport? A question that many were asking and predicting ten years ago when they started to witness the off field expertise heading overseas.

Are these situations arising now because the sports themselves can no longer pay the top dollar that those with the expertise are worth? Is that why we are seeing lesser qualified individuals taking up important roles across so many sports? Roles that are often above their level of competence.

Gone are the days where the AIS (Australian Institute of Sport) or their State counterparts have the best specialists in the key support fields. Sadly twenty years ago we saw the individual sports wanting to have their own experts, rather than relying on the institute staff, then they wanted an expert for each team. Not surprisingly the quality became diluted and performances suffered.

Then there is the role of the High Performance Director it has been assumed is one in which the skills are transferrable. That may be the case at a certain level of competition but at the very highest level it is very clear that it is not. How can such individuals who have worked for ten years or more with athletes competing in individual events have the knowledge required for a different sport and a team-based one?

The same question has been asked of some strength and conditioning coaches.

This puts those who do the hiring of these experts under the microscope, the board and often the CEO. How much knowledge and experience do they have today to make the right decisions, and is it comparable to those who came before them?

There are many who talk about keeping the love of playing alive. The fearlessness of youth, and the bravado with which each game is approached in a life that is measured in seasons not matches, and the belief that next season will always be better. At the highest level is not life now measured on a game to game basis?

It was interesting to read recently how in England where the next generation of talent coming through is so often the focus, especially in football, it was claimed that the sport has in fact marginalised the youth. The claim was that in the 1990’s more than a quarter of those going to watch football in the four professional leagues were younger than 25. The dawn and cost of all seater stadia saw the prices rise across the country, and by 2009 the average age of fans was now 41. Now the youth simply cannot afford to go.

There would be many who grew up in England who will remember areas set aside for kids, The Boy’s section. Even in the National Soccer League in Australia, Perth Glory had a section in front of the shed for children, and father’s would drop off their children in that area and go and join the throng in the shed. Incredibly some clubs today have no reduced prices for children. Parents must buy a family pass.

It would appear gone are the days when twelve year old boys or girls would go to the game on their own with pocket money given by their parents for their entry, some snack and the bus fare home. The youth are virtually forgotten today at live games. So where will they get their inspiration?

To be a mascot was a huge thing back in the day as there was only ever one per game. After Euro 2000 suddenly every player from each side had a mascot that they walked onto the field of play with.

Once again it was disheartening to hear that today there are often conditions attached to such opportunities. Some clubs insist that for a child to be chosen they must be a fully paid up member of the club’s official supporters club. English Premier League Clubs it has been reported now charge around UKL300 for the honour, and one club offered a discount price of UKL150, but it did not include a ticket to the game!

Needless to say that these prices exclude many from ever having that opportunity, Instead of using this opportunity to inspire, and go to schools and offer the privilege for free, clubs have turned it into revenue raising.

The world has clearly changed, and those at both ends of the sporing spectrum it is fair to say are often struggling to find common ground. While yesteryear attention was focussed on skill and technique where learning and standards were passed down to each generation, today the focus is more on fitness, athleticism and formations.

The FIFA World Cup that has just finished was not a great advertisement when it comes to standards of behaviour. This is because those at the top failt to adhere to their own rules, and the laws of the game that exist are not applied. The recent FIFA World Cup was a glowing example of this.

While many of the older generation view the players as having ‘gone soft’ they fail to understand that rightly or wrongly the ‘character-building’ methods and communication of the past is seen as bullying today. As has been witnessed with legal cases being mounted by some parents on behalf of their children against professional clubs coaching staff.

There are plenty who are not fans of the academy systems cropping up in all sports around the world. Ordinary community clubs give young players the opportunity, and as soon as they show a modicum of talent they are snatched away by a professional club.

In 2012 as a result of the belief that there had been a drop in standards by the England National football team, along with a declining number of homegrown players getting valuable match time in the English Premier League The Premier Leagues Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP) was created. This saw 13,000 talented youngsters aged from 9-18 placed into four groups. From age 11-16 there is full time education for these children and from 16-18 further education to give these young people skills and qualifications away from football.

The clubs are now spending between UKL2-5M a year on these academies and these young players. The plus, as England’s recent World Cup performance will show is that the standards have improved, and in 2024 English players had more game time in the Premier league than they had had for 17 years!

The downside that is common with all of these type of ventures in sport is that people see opportunities to benefit themselves. It has been reported that there are now three times as many coaches in the EPPP as there were when it was set up, which now has people asking is it sustainable. Not only that, but whether all of these coaches are in fact benefitting those they are there to help improve. Are they qualified for that role?

Coaching too has shifted to a worldwide trend of telling players to limit their guile and skill rather than teaching a young player when to use it to maximum effect. The edict is not to make mistakes. A player following their natural instincts is seen to be risky. They must conform to these wishes or they are branded ‘trouble makers’ and will be dropped for someone who will conform.

Australia, which used to lead the world in so many sports has fallen into this same trap. Here is a country that has historically stuck two fingers up at conformity but it is now trying to enforce such behaviour.

This conformity comes not only in behaviour and playing habits, but also physical attributes, hence the pressure on players to become “stronger.” Size has also become a big factor, although one wonders why? Just think of Messi and Maradona, neither tall men but huge in stature within the game in terms of ability. It is interesting to note that both Harry Kane and Declan Rice who starred for England at the recent World Cup were dropped from the academy system for being too small! Clearly they both proved those decision-makers wrong.

There are still question marks over the academy system in terms of them actually producing talent, but Australia in some sports has blindly followed suit. If there are not academies there are Development Squads. Why is Australia suddenly following where it used to lead? Is this purely because they acknowledge the possible revenue that can be generated?

As has been quoted many times on this site, in his book “No Hunger in Paradise” Michael Calvin wrote that 98 percent of players within the academy system at 16 were not playing in the top five leagues in England by the time they were 18. One statistic revealed that 70% of former top tier academy players was not given a professional contract in the English Premier League, or with an English Football League club. So why stick with such a system if the returns are not there? Why follow a system that is not giving you the results you need?

This proves again that being chosen at such a young age is no guarantee of success at the highest level. Some will tell you that who the coach is will play a huge part in how far you go. With so many coaches involved, including strength and conditioning coaches this can now become a minefield to navigate for a young talented individual who just wants to play.

When they become a part of an academy, an Institute of Sport or a High Performance Program these young players understandably believe that they are now being helped by the best there is. Sadly that is not always the case.

Not surprisingly with so many players being released before they have come close to their dream the focus in England shifted to look at how these players were treated when they were let go. In a few words, ‘they were on their own.’ They were left to sort it out on their own. Football has been heavily criticised over this issue.

The same again is happening in Australia. In Football, players join A-League clubs NPL sides because they are sold a dream, that if they want to play in the A-League they must be a part of that youth system. Very few come through that system and make it to establish a regular place in the A-League. What care is given to those discarded?

The same is true of players selected in development squads in other sports, or who have played at under 21 level internationally, but cannot break into a senior squad. When a team has a centralised program with a contracted squad, it becomes incredibly hard for these players despite their form to break into the national team. I

s it any wonder so many become demoralised? Also does such a system guarantee that the best players are being picked at the time, or the most in form? Restricting selection to one group over a long period of time, may well be another reason why results for some teams who have adopted such a system have dropped off.

As one sports psychologist revealed for those dropped at this stage in their sporting career or left out “many suffer high levels of Psychological distress which can last a long time.”

So how many sports have open dialogue with these players as to where they are in their career, what they ned to work on. Even that they are at risk of being dropped from the program before it happens. Communication is so important, yet so many coaches put the onus back on the player and claim it us up to them to ask what they need to do. Yet this generation is not one that is comfortable asking such questions.

There has been a great deal of criticism levelled at the lack of a duty of care by the English Football clubs with these adolescent players, which appears to be justified. The argument that you have to be mentally tough to make it to the top does not carry much weight today. Yes, you do, but surely you also have a responsibility to nurture and educate those who may not have the skills or initially that mental toughness to get to that level?

In Australia across many sports there are players with bucketloads of ability, who do have the mental toughness, but what they won’t do is suppress their natural talent, for there is no enjoyment and no challenge in doing that. Like Laurie Nash they simply want to play, compete and win.

Most of us like a challenge as it helps build our own belief and self esteem. Most coaches will tell you that they see their role as a challenge trying to win key tournaments, so why are they so myopic when it comes to seeing what players with natural ability and vision need to help bring about that success? Trying to turn an athlete into a quality player in a sport is proving to be misguided, how about trying to make the talented players better athletes?

Is this the preferred option because it guarantees job security and there will be less friction? No sports fan wants to believe that.

However, it is clear that Australia needs to have a shift in the way it develops its top sportspeople. It needs to abandon the desire to create obedient, reliable, automatons and welcome back those who reflect the Australian psyche. Who will stand up when needed for their team mates, and will do what is required in that moment; often thumbing their nose at the powers that be.

The post Talent Management first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Over the years in many sports fans have witnessed the attributes that have been instilled in many by their parents and grandparents benefiting Australian national teams. Attributes, such as skill, tenacity, physicality, work ethic, self belief, and one that has been used for decades a never-say-die attitude.

Some will tell you that at the time of the First world War the Australian troops were some of the most resourceful, loyal, and bravest men they came across. They would always be there for their mate. The one other characteristic that was there as well was a lack of respect for authority. Australians enjoy nothing more than proving people in authority wrong.

As one former Test cricketer wrote in his autobiography when doing his national service he discovered what bad losers Australians could be. How once knocked out of a tournament they expected to win, they simply packed up and left. Others have shared similar tales.

Is this the result of arrogance or self belief? To many across the world it is perceived as being the former, when the truth is that it is far more likely to be the latter, for Australians rarely fear anyone when it comes to competing in sport, and their success across a great many sports for a relatively small population is something to be proud of.

Yet is modern day Australia losing many of the attributes that enabled them to achieve such results?

The Socceroos have always been a team that has reflected what can be achieved when individuals from different cultural backgrounds with different attributes come together with a common cause.

While many are handing out plaudits to the modern generation of players serious thought should be given to the team that qualified for the 1974 edition of the FIFA World Cup. This edition of the World Cup Finals saw only 16 of the best teams in the world compete. So for Australia to be there amongst the best in the world was a huge achievement, and they proved many who thought they would be whipping boys wrong.

They may have lost their opening game to East Gemany 2-0 but this was far from a disgrace. In their second game they took on the host nation and eventual winners West Germany and lost 3-0, but they frustrated their opponents so much that the crowd not only booed the hosts, but the great Franz Beckenbauer bared his backside at the home fans at the end of the game to let them know how he felt!

In their final game they drew 0-0 with Chile.

There were no World Rankings in FIFA back in 1974 so it is hard to compare how far down the rankings Australia were at that time, but Haiti, Zaire and the Socceroos were the least respected of the other nations competing.

It took Australia until 2006 to qualify for a second World Cup Finals, again in Germany; now a unified country. This time around there were 32 teams competing.

Since 2006 Australia has qualified for every World Cup Finals that has been held, including this year in the USA when the tournament expanded to 48 teams. Some have questioned whether this team would have made it to the USA had it still been just 32 teams, that we will never know.

What has been interesting to watch is the evolution of the Socceroos over the past 25 years.

When football was shut down and rebooted there was clearly a new energy surrounding the game. The A-League was being supported by a marketing campaign that instilled excitement. There was ambition too with the appointment of respected Dutch coach Guus Hiddink to the Socceroos.

The game had the chance to ride the wave of enthusiasm that swept Australia as it qualified for its first World Cup Finals in 32 years. Sadly though there was little or no forward planning, just as there had been none in 1974. The sport failed to capitalise on the success of the “Golden generation” who progressed to the round of 16.

To make matters worse for the sport the money generated by their success was not re-invested into the game, it was blown on bonuses to players and coaching staff, as well as paying Qantas for the lease of an aircraft to fly the team to and from Uruguay.

Football Australia boasted about how much money the FIFA Women’s World Cup generated in 2023, but again the sport has seen little evidence of that money being reinvested into the game to help bring the next generation through.

Australia’s final ranking at the end of the 2026 FIFA World Cup is 22nd. Which means that the team received USD2.5M as “Preparation money’ to contribute toward training camps, travel, and logistics prior to the World Cup starting. They received a further USD10M for qualifying, and a further $12M for making it to the round of 32. So a total of USD22M from the tournament.

Having played four games at the World Cup the squad of 26 should have accounted for just over AUD2M in wages. With 32 support staff it would be good to know how many were contracted or salaried, and also whether there were any bonuses to be paid to them for the Socceroos getting out of the group stage, and if so how much.

With Football Australia announcing a loss of AUD15.3 M before the World Cup Finals it would appear that there is going to be very little left over to reinvest in the game.

There have been many who while proud of the national team and their endeavours have questioned whether the Socceroos have lost some of the qualities that were often taken for granted. This should not be a surprise as the modern day player in many sports players are coached to limit the attributes that they have and not maximise it. Which may work if you have a large talent pool of players or are a top nation in that sport, but is going to be detrimental to a team outside the top echelon. Certainly Cabo Verde never gave the impression that this was how they had been coached.

The opening game against Turkiye which the Socceroos won 2-0, thanks to two well taken goals and unbelievable backs-to the-wall defence, embodied the Socceroos of old. Every single player put their body on the line and battled to the end to ensure a victory. It was a performance that will live long in the memory.

Their second match against the host nation the USA could not have been more different as they went down 2-0. Coach Tony Popovic in his post match interview with SBS questioned whether the occasion was too much for some of his players playing against the host nation. He then went on to say “we had a lot of fatigued bodies in the first half. Physically and mentally it was tough.”

If an Australian team in the past had been overawed, you would never have known. They would never have let their opponent see that. They would have felt they deserved to be there and were as good if not better than their opponent. This was a game where many of the traits that have defined teh Socceroos went missing.

No one seems to have asked why were players fatigued as Popovic claimed. This is a World Cup, every team is playing games in quick succession. Of course it is going to be mentally tough as these are supposedly the best 48 teams in the world. As a coach you have to make sure that your players are prepared for such games.

It is hard to understand how they were physically fatigued after one game. Australia had six days between their first and second game, similar to any league competition in the world. Their first game was in Vancouver, Canada, their second in Seattle in the USA only a two and a half hour drive! So why were the players fatigued going into the game?

These are professional footballers, they should not be fatigued six days after a game. Clearly the support staff did not have the players ready, iso why not? As a coach if you knew the players were fatigued why did you select them?

Another question that has not been asked is did Popovic have adequate experience alongside him on the bench as his assistant coaches? He and Hayden Foxe have had great success at domestic level, but did Foxe have the knowledge required at a World Cup? As a player Foxe played for Australia at the 2001 Confederations Cup when the Socceros claimed 3rd place, and started in one game and came on as a substiute in another. He participated in two of the five games played in the biggest tournament of his international career

Popovic’s other assistant was Paul Okon the former captan of the Socceroos. Again his experience in coaching is limited, with a spell domestically with the Central Coast Mariners where he was sacked when they were bottom of the A-League, and before that he coached the Australian U20’s. Again despite playing at the highest level did he have the experience needed as a coach at a tournament such as this to help Popovic?

The game against the USA was not a good one for Australia, and it was so sad to see Australian players diving and falling over at the slightest touch. This is not the way Australia plays; or maybe it is the way we will see them play in the future?

Many in Australia have praised the Socceroos for their performances at the World Cup. There were without doubt moments when praise was warranted. Definitely key individuals deserved the plaudits they received. It was however clear that some selections back-fired.

Tony Popovic is an ambitious coach. He wants a job overseas, and why wouldn’t he? To improve you have to test yourself against the best. Here was his chance, but did he have his eye on what might come after rather than what was right in front of his face? One could not help feeling that the coach was trying to be too clever, too cute, with his selections and changes. Maybe hoping that they would show him to be tactically astute. Unfortunately it back-fired.

This was a disappointing campaign, although some will say it matched the team’s form in qualification. This was a team that struggled to get the win it needed to qualify against Japan’s second team, so maybe they actually did perform higher than expectations.

Which begs the question has Australian football fallen into the trap of expecting too much? Are fans seeing what they want to see?

It was certainly a strange move to bring into your World Cup squad a player who had rejected playing for Australia previously, and one who had never played a game at national level with the rest of the squad. One wonders how that was taken by the other players, even if they were unlikely to air their views.

At the end of the day one has to ask if the coaches knew what their best line-up was?

If we compare the performances of Australia in previous World Cup Finals where does this one really rate?

There can be no doubt that Rale Rasic’s team qualifying for a World Cup finals with only 16 teams, and making their opponents fight for a result is still up there. Guus Hiddink’s team were the first to win a game at a World Cup Finals and progress from their group in second place, only to be denied the chance to progress against eventual champions Italy on a decision that VAR may well have overturned today; but to be honest you never know with VAR!

Then there is Graham Arnold’s 2022 Socceroos who again achieved a second place finish in their group when only the top two progressed. They were also the first Australian side to win two games at a World Cup Finals. It is also worth noting that the only games they lost were to the two teams that contested the final, France in their pool, and Argentina in the round of 16.

Arnold had as his assistant Dutchman René Meulensteen who had experience coaching in other countries outside of the Netherlands, experience that would have brought an alternate perspective.

The flipside of that however is when Bert van Marwijk took over from Ange Postecoglou for the 2018 World Cup Finals he opted to bring in and pay his own backroom staff and assistant coaches. This was not a good campaign for Australia, and many have put that down to van Marwijk allegedly being forced to have Tim Cahill as part of his squad because the player was linked to a sponsorship campaign.

After the performance of Arnold’s Socceroos in 2022 is it therefore understandable that some feel that this campaign was underwhelming?

Let us look at Australia’s performances at the World Cup Finals.

Feisty former Socceroo Robbie Slater has come out blaming the coaching staff and those running the game. “The players were let down by the coaching staff and Football Australia. How are we still in the same position we were 20 years ago after we first reached the knockout stage in 2006? Someone needs to held accountable” he was quoted as saying by Code Sports.Does he have a point?

Looking at the table above credit must be given to Popovic and his team as Australia tightened up its defence in this World Cup. Only conceding three goals in four games, thanks in part to Patrick Beach. However, it was a far from memorable performance. It was one in which the team appeared to always be clinging on to games hoping to survive. A very different feeling to four years ago where under Graham Arnold you felt anything was possible.

Slater though does have a point when it comes to Football Australia. Why is it that Football Australia is still relying on the money from a World Cup Finals to bail them out financially?

Is there a goal as to where they want Australia to finish at a World Cup in 10 or 20 years time, like Japan? Or is it a case of hoping to get out of the group stage just to secure that extra money? What is interesting to note is when Hiddink and Arnold were in charge of the Socceroos at the World Cup there was a belief that they could progress. With this campaign that belief was missing and it was a hope that they could. How do you translate hope into belief?

One of the hard questions that has to be asked and listened to is does the sport have qualified individuals in the key positions to sign off on key issues or more importantly to say “no” when that is needed? Or is the sport still not able to attract the best people in key roles?

With consecutive financial losses it is definitely time for more transparency, especially if the game is as we are constantly told, a family. Where is money being lost? Expenditure needs to be looked at, and so too the capabilities and suitability of staff in key roles. Not just their salaries but their ability to deliver the sport what is required while in that role.

As covered before the governance structure needs to be adhered to so that every part of the game has a voice. (Are the Answers Football Australia is Looking for in the Crawford Report?)

Only then can we be sure of progressing on the international stage. As the old saying goes only a fool tries to build a house on sand.

As for on the field of play, Australia must emphasise the attributes players have, and use them to the team’s advantage. That has paid dividends in the past and it always will, within a structure there has to be some freedom, especially at this level and if technically you cannot match the top sides. Play to your strengths is an adage that has survived for a reason.

The post Goals and Strategy, Does Football Australia Have One With the Socceroos? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Of course when to go is according to those who have played at the highest level often a hard call to make. Yet, others have revealed it was one of the easiest decisions to make, as the drive or passion had gone. Which is understandable when you have worked so hard and often for so long to get to the top and then stay there.

Yet when that time comes the player concerned usually makes the announcement prior to a game or series, announcing that if picked this will be their last hoorah. Many wait until after they have played their last game, choosing to say nothing to avoid being in the spotlight and simply advise their team mates once the game is over and quietly walk away.

Rarely does a player announce their retirement during a game, which is what England cricket captain Ben Stokes did during the final and deciding test match of the three test series against New Zealand.

There was a great deal surrounding this announcement that was curious.

For starters the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) decided to film Stokes addressing his team mates and advising them that he was stepping down not only from the captaincy after this match, but away from Test Cricket. That in itself seemed a little strange, but even more bizarre was their decision to share his speech with the public.

Stokes will no doubt in years to come regret saying after letting his team know this was his last game, “the only thing I want is just for everyone to give it not only for me selfishly, but also for this team…”

Suddenly the words of the captain ceased to be about what was important to the team, and appeared to be more about the individual. IN fact the filming and release of that footage did exactly the same.

Maybe Stokes was forced to change what he would have liked to say to his team mates knowing this was being filmed, but surely as the captain he should have simply told everyone not directly involved in the game as a player or coach to leave, so that he could say what he wanted to say?

Former Black Cap New Zealander Kyle Mills likened Stokes saying to his team go out and play for me to when Australian skipper Michael Clarke announced hsi retirement on the eve of the 2015 Cricket World Cup; which Australia won. Suddenly the team was no longer the focus it became about the individual.

Kane Williamson who has been a wonderful cricketer too and a fantastic ambassador for New Zealand and cricket in general announced his retirement after the first Test of the series, but the contrast in how both went about it could not have been more different.

This writer has always believed that cameras should never be allowed in a dressing room in any sport and that landed him in hot water with one broadcaster he was working for passionately stating his case and why he held this opinion. Players need a place of sanctuary. Especially in today’s world where they are constantly under the microscope, and anyone can film them at any time. If they cannot be allowed to let their frustrations out in the dressing room where will they release those bottled up feelings?

There may be no validation of a claim made by one staffer in one of the football codes in Australia who blamed the increase in domestic violence issues among players in their sport to the fact that cameras have been allowed into the changing rooms. They were adamant that these cameras prevented players being able to be themselves post game, win or lose. No longer can they let their frustration out as there as a camera watching.They believed that those at home suffered more because of this.

The other issue that the ECB’s filming and then release of that footage raises is do they believe that Stokes’ brand is bigger than their own? Was this a calculated move to try and cash in on his popularity, some with expertise in this area have said that this would be a logical explanation for their actions.

As you would have expected the English media were stunned by the announcement and also the way it was done. They also could not believe that it happened during a game. Can you imagine a footballer or a rugby player deciding to announce their retirement at half time?

A week before this announcement the press were lambasting Stokes for staying out after a curfew that he it was claimed was involved in putting in place after England’s win in the first test, Suddenly all that was written was now positive hailing his feats as a player and a captain.

Although as is the norm these days not all of what was being said was factual. For example SKY Sports were hailing Stokes as England’s “greatest ever captain.” What was this based on?

If it was based on percentages of a captain’s results, Stokes record is an impressive 57.14, but it is not the best. In recent times Michael Vaughan’s record was 70.27 and Sir Andrew Strauss’s record was 68.57. The late Bob Willis’s record was 58.33, while Mike Brearley’s record was at 81.81% and Ray Illingworth 70.58%. Sir Len Hutton’s record was 73.33 and Peter May and Sir Colin Cowdrey both had a record of 66.66%.

You can go back even further and you will find WG Grace and Arthur Shrewsbury had higher percentages but like Bob Willis captained their country in less than 20 games.

Here is a comparison based on the games each captained. What is sad is how so many leading media personalities seem to know little about the game before 1990. They may be good analysts but clearly do not know the history of the game.

It is interesting to note that of the seven captains with a superior record to Stokes three were captains of Yorkshire, Hutton, Illingworth, and Vaughan. Although Michael Vaughan was born in Lancashire, but raised in Yorkshire.

Stoke’s record reflects the gung ho approach of “Bazball” with 18 losses and only 2 draws during his reign. Those he is being compared clearly had the view that if you could not win, you made sure that you did not lose,. therefore giving the team teh chance to still win the series.

Worryingly, as has been pointed out, at the present time England has only won 2 of their last ten Test matches. That is not a good record for any captain.

The problem that England has now is finding a new captain, as it would appear that there is no obvious choice within the current squad. Harry Brook was vice captain, but it is not just the incident with a night club bouncer in New Zealand that would have hampered his claim, but more damaging was the stupidity of his dismissal in the second innings of the final test against New Zealand. That, throwing away of his wicket showed a lack of maturity and game awareness.

This lack of leadership shows just how much pressure was on the shoulders of Stokes, and maybe explains his sudden resignation,

In his book “Turning Over the Pebbles” Mike Brearley looks back on his time as captain and states, “Being captain was almost never boring. It could be frustrating, emotionally difficult and anxiety producing. But it has been unfailingly interesting to me. There is in the role always something that can be done better or worse, there are always choices to be made, usually without grounds for certainty. One has to combine intuition with disciplined knowledge.”

One wonders how much Stokes would concur with Brearley’s reflection. One feels that the isolation of the role and the constant scrutiny would understandably wear one down.

To many there was something strange about the whole scenario. Some have said that they feel that there is more to the timing of the announcement and that no doubt this will come to light in the future.

It appears that Stokes and coach Brendon McCullum, while still friends were at odds over the way the team was playing. Stokes is a fierce competitor, a man who hates losing, and has clearly taken pride in representing England. There can be no doubt that he will have been hurt and humiliated by his team’s capitulation in Australia. Having had time to reflect on that tour one wonders whether he feels let down by the coach, as he clearly put his faith in the preparation and believed they were ready for an Ashes series.

Since Stokes departure there have been calls that the England hierachy must change, and that the coach too must go. Maybe this is a calculated move by those at the top? With Stokes stepping aside it would validate them opting for a new coach.

There are some that feel Stokes was pushed into resigning and quitting. Others believe that he simply felt let down by the way he felt he was being treated and judged. Yes, he did wrong by staying out after the curfew, but there can be no doubt the one test suspension deeply hurt him.

There is no doubt that England are going to miss him as a player, as he is without doubt one of England’s greatest all rounders and possibly its greatest. He has frequently dragged his team to victory by his own herculean feats with bat and ball. That however takes its toll both physically and mentally that is without the added responsibility of the captaincy.

Stokes made his Test debut in Australia in December 2013, so has been playing at the highest level for 13 years, and has been captain for almost fifty percent of that time, having taken over the role in July 2020 against the West Indies.

As he said in one interview he had fallen out of love with the game at the highest level. On BBC Test match Special he said, “I absolutely love cricket. I love the sport and that’s something I need to make sure that I always feel like I’m doing and over the last six months, 12 months, however long it may be there’s been certain moments where I feel like I haven’t loved it. My time last week back with Durham there wasn’t a moment when I didn’t. And so being able to compare what it was like being back at my county where everything sort of started with me and people who I grew up with and then comparing it to here (Test Cricket), where I’ve always loved, to not feel that sense of love, and complete and utter enjoyment like I have done for pretty much the 100 and whatever Test matches before then, you just sort of know being able to compare what it was like last week playing for Durham and comparing it to all of the other things this week. Yeah it was tough to see me going on past this test match.”

This comment is a telling one. It also lends strength to the argument that County cricket not only serves a purpose in unearthing Test players of the future, but it also gives players who are playing at that pinnacle of the game the opportunity to offer them a release from the high pressure stakes. A time when a player can indeed go back and enjoy playing. Stokes comment exposes a very real flaw in the Centralised contract system, and also the England Cricket calendar which for years now has prevented these top players playing for their counties in front of those more localised fans.

England Cricket clearly has a lot to learn, and Ben Stokes’s career, if they choose to look at it will given them many indications as to what needs to be fixed or tweaked. Yet one feels that those at the top of the game are far too myopic to see what is right under their noses.

Stokes will be a big loss to English cricket, He has been fearless and unforgettable. Yet like so many outstanding sportspeople has also been flawed; many of the greats are wired differently to the rest of us, that is what makes them who they are.

Stokes loves a challenge, and in his career he has played in six Ashes series and only beaten Australia once in England in 2015. There are many who believe that after falling back in love with the game at Durham, Stokes will be mentally recharged to come out of retirement in 2027 and play a part in England’s campaign to reclaim the Ashes as his final swan song. Was this in fact the agreement made with the ECB? Take a break and come back in a year?

More importantly Is a comeback for the Ashes series really too unbelievable?

The post Is This Really The End? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

If they did they maybe would have thought a little harder about the final pool game between Austria and Algeria at the 2026 FIFA World Cup Finals.

Back in 1982 t6he Final Group games in teh various World Cup Pools were NOT played at the same time. This meant that teams knew what they had to do to progress in the tournament.

At this edition of the World Cup there were only 24 teams contesting the finals. These teams were placed into six pools of four teams The top two teams in each pool progressed, where they were then placed in a new pool of three teams. Once each team in these four pools had played each other the top teams progressed to the semi-finals.

In the initial Group Stage Algeria were in a group with Chile, West Germany and Austria. Algeria had played it’s last game a day earlier than when West Germanty met Austria, and had been unable to achieve the four-goal victory margin that would have seen them progress to the next round irrespective of the result in the final pool match.

Algeria had beaten two-time World Champions and the reigning European Champion West Germany 2–1 in the first round, then had lost to Austria 2–0, before beating Chile 3–2.

So heading into their final group match Austria and West Germany knew that a West German win by fewer than three goals would qualify both teams for the knockout stage, while any other result would see either Austria or West Germany eliminated.

West Germany took an early lead through Horst Hrubesch and it appeared to be a normal game up to half time and then both teams started to “defend” the 1–0 scoreline, ensuring that they both progressed in the tournament. The West German and Austrian teams were accused of manipulation and understandably Algeria who were eliminated lodged a formal complaint. FIFA ruled that neither team had broken any rules.

This match has been labeled many things, the “Disgrace of Gijón” is the most well known. The Algerians refer to it as the “Scandal of Gijón,” and in French as “The Shameful Match.”

However, after the tournament FIFA revised the group system for future competitions announcing that the final two games in each group would be played simultaneously. This was seen as the ideal way of preventing teams colluding and agreeing to an outcome that benefitted both teams, essentially, Match-fixing.

Interestingly Algeria have been embroiled in a whole new row with conspiracy theorists claiming that they conspired this time with Austria to play out a draw to ensure that both progress at the 2026 World Cup Finals and Iran be eliminated.

The game was tied at 2-2 in the closing minutes, and it certainly looked as if this could have been the case, as neither team was keen to go on the attack. Or was that because they did not want to expose themselves at the back?

Certainly Algeria looked as if they were content to run down the clock. Algeria were knocking the ball around at the back, and Austria were not applying any pressure, the crowd was booing, knowing only too well what was happening. It certainly looked like an agreement, albeit unspoken, had been made. One report claimed that Algeria had made 110 uncontested passes in time added on.

Then three minutes into stoppage time a ball was played in behnd the Austrian defence and Algeria’s captain Riyad Mahrez scored his second goal of the game with about a minute left. The Africans were through, and Austria were facing elimination. Could this be payback for “82? If there had been an agreement had Algeria deliberately broken it?

The conspiracy theorists have pointed to the celebrations after the goal for what happened next. It is true that Mahrez’s team mates were not quick to rush and join him in his celebrations. Surely they knew their history? Surely nothing could have been sweeter than to payback Austria? So where were they?

The four minutes of stoppage time had elapsed, yet play continued. Austria pushed forward and scored. They were now going through to the knockout stages and Iran were going home.

Again the conspiracy theorists have said that the Algerian urgency and commitment after their third goal was lacklustre to say the least. They put the lack of celebration and the lack of defending dowto the fact that had Algeria won that game they would have had to meet Spain in the round of 32. By drawing it they now face Switzerland, a team that they no doubt believe they have a better chance of beating.

Was there an agreement? Or was it simply Algeria looking to avoid meeting Spain?

Ironically these same two two teams who were involved in that shameful night in Gijón almost 44 years to the day have thrown up a new problem. It is very clear to fans across the world that this year’s expanded event, where the eight best third place teams obtain a place in the round 32 has seen a very unsatisfactory, and some would say is an unfair way of determining who progresses. After all as we hear at every tournament some groups are perceived to be easier than others in terms of opposition. So third place in “a group of death” would appear to be a reasonable achievemnet, however such a team could be eliminated due to goal difference.

Then there is teh question as t9o whether teams are manipulating outcomes in order to ensure progression or who they meet as they progress? It appears that this is very much the case.

So FIFA, who are intent on sticking with 48 teams at the World Cup Finals are going to have to sit around the table and work out a better way to trim 48 teams down to 32, while still protecting the integrity of the matches. For the expanded World Cup to have any credibility they must find a way in which games remain meaningful and are not manipulated to determine not only who progresses in the tournament, but who they play.

In 1982 teams progressed to another pool would this be a format worth revisiting? However, there is still the issue of trimming 48 teams down to 32; eliminating the bottom team would leave you with 36 teams.

There is an old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Maybe the 32 format really was the best option, and maybe FIFA would be better off returning to that model?

The post Back To The Drawing Board? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

Yet prior to the start of the 2026 FIFA World Cup friends and fans online appeared to be less enthusiastic than usual. One comment that resonated was by a fan who wrote, ” I wish I could recapture the feeling I had as an eleven year old waiting for the World Cup to start.” This was a comment that this writer could relate to, The first World Cup I have recollections of was 1970, but I think that was because we had just acquired a colour television rather than because of the football; Mexico 1970 was the first World Cup to be broadcast live across the World and also in colour. The first World Cup I appreciated for the football as a child was four years later.

So why were so many people not looking forward to this tournament with the same enthusiasm?

Was it because it was being hosted by three nations for the first time? Was it because of the political climate in the USA? Was it because there was so much written about the ticket prices, visas, accommodation costs, etcetera, that it felt like other issues were taking centre stage, and not the football? Or was it because the tournament has ballooned to 48 teams?

Certainly the last fact has impacted many true lovers of the game. Many of whom would religiously watch every single game at a FIFA World Cup have conceded that this is no longer possible. That they have been forced to pick key games, and then watch highlights of the other matches. So their quadrennial experience has changed. No doubt they were having to be selective before the tournament started to decide which games to watch in full, and which to only view the highlights.

There has been plenty of criticism that 48 teams are too many. Questions have also been asked as to why FIFA had to expand the tournament. Various reasons have been trotted out, but apart from the financial windfall for FIFA the main reason was clearly political. The more teams that are part of the “greatest show on earth,” the more who are likely to re-elect those at the top of the sport, from the FIFA President to the Confederation Presidents.

It is interesting to reflect that it was Michel Platini who was preparing to run for FIFA President who tabled the idea back in 2013 and then when he was prevented from running, his replacement, current FIFA President Gianni Infantino stuck with the idea, one that many credit with winning him the election.

The expansion by 16 teams is a huge one and many feared that it would affect the quality of the matches, but so far the “minnows’ have acquitted themselves well, and despite being outplayed, have as expected shown spirit and competitive resolve.

What will be interesting to watch is the impact the extra matches will have on the top teams. These teams tend to include players who have already gone through long seasons with their club sides playing in the Champions League, so will the extra games open the door for an outsider to crash the party?

To give this question some context the total number of matches played at the tournament has increased from 64 to 104, and the number of matches played by teams reaching the final four will increase from 7 to 8.

Of course another factor that will mean many nations will not speak out against the expansion will be the prize money on offer. By simply playing in the group stage and not progressing each nation receives USD$9million. Teams that exit in the round of 32 will receive USD$11million, while those whose tournament ends in the round of 16 will receive USD$15million. Losing quarter finalists receive USD$19million and fourth place USD$27million, third place USD$29million, the losing finalist USD$33million and the winner USD$50million.

While the numbers look great, the question that few will ask of those eliminated in the first two stages is how much of that money will filter back into the game when they get home? Often this money is chewed up by the cost to attend the World Cup, wages and bonuses to players and coaches. Then one must not forget the support staff that each nation takes sometimes including chefs. For example the Australian team at this World Cup has 32 support staff for a squad of 26; this 32 does include the coaching staff. Sadly, in many nations this money will not be seen at all by the local game. The benefits remain with those at the top.

With the tournament underway concerns about the stadia being empty have evaporated. While Scotland and Norway fans have stolen the limelight with their antics, and have shown that the World Cup is a festival to be enjoyed. ‘

One thing that has been under fire is the coverage of the games. Understandably the “Hydration breaks’ in every game – even those played in air-conditioned stadia – have really irritated many. These do appear to be no more than an advertiaing opportunity for the broadcasters. One fears for what lies in store come the final…

Many high profile individuals managers and ex players alike have spoken out against the four quarters which the game has become. What these additional breaks in play have shown is that these three minute breaks give coaches an extra opportunity to get their players around them and make tactical changes that can have an immediate impact the game. Often a team that has been on top leading up to the hydration break finds that they have lost that momentum when the game restarts.

Some may argue that this is a good thying, as it has evened up the contest, however if it was the underdog that had the momentum and an upset may have been on the cards, those three minutes could change the match. Maybe if the hyrdration breaks are to continue the players must stay on the pitch and the drinks are taken to them and the coach is not allowed to talk to his players?

The VAR has also been extremely questionable, appearing to look at some games and incidents with a Nelsonian eye. If figures are to be believed, that allegedly these officials average around USD$75,000 for the tournament plus bonuses the further into the tournament they go, one has to say that this definitely needs to be reviewed based on their current performance.

Another part of this world cup that has appeared to get under the skin of many is the coverage. Obviously the games are being produced by an American broadcaster. This would explain why they constantly pan on the VIP area. However, it would appear that many across the world do not have a clue who these American celebrities are. It would be helpful if they put names underneath for the global audience, – so they can google who they are and what they do – or maybe simply only pan on individuals who are actually global superstars. One individual stated the other day that “we seem to spend more time on these so called stars than the players.” A slight exaggeration, but you get the point.

Another factor that seems to be upsetting many judging by social media and conversations with fans, is the commentary. While it is comforting to hear the voices of many of the football commentators we are familiar with and trust, some of the new breed need to listen and learn from them.

The commentators are there to build excitement but some seem to just want to spew out fact after fact, rather than focus on the game and what is happening on the pitch. Scotland fans would no doubt have been sick of constantly hearing throughout their opening game with Haiti the commentator continually inform viewers that it was 28 years since their last World Cup appearance! As one fan stated, “I wish we had had a sweepstake on how many times he mentioned it.”

The “experts” have often been incredibly bland, many offering no insight into the game whatsoever. However it must be hard tyrying to feed of someone who is only spouting facts rather than commentating on the action. They expert is there to share wisdom with us viewers, be it tactical or from personal experience. Sadly what we are being served up is banal.

There has also been criticism of former USA players having such roles. This could be viewed as football snobbery. Many other english speaking football nations fans failing to take the USA’s former players seriously, as America as a football nation still struggles to be taken seriously, despite the success of the MLS and the dominance of the US Women’s national team.

One feels for the former players as America has produced some World class players who have played for some of the big clubs or in the biggest leagues in the world. The criticism that they are receiving may not be all their fault, as it could well be simply down to the way the game is covered in the US, and how their role is perceived compared to other countries where the sport is played.

One thing that is clear is that football and FIFA have fallen into the same trap as the International Olympic Committee and many other sports, who believe bigger is always better. That more teams means more money. More teams means more games, and more games means more TV coverage, which it turn means more revenue. Yet more games can also dilute you audience especially if there is a lack of quality on the pitch and off of it.

The problem is for the vast majority who are sat at home and want to watch these events is that they have now become too big to be able to watch all of them, You have to be selective as a viewer.

Whether you like it or not if you increase the number of teams participating you dilute the value of the event. The uniqueness and how special it is to qualify is diminished. From 1954 to 1978 only 16 teams qualified for the FIFA World Cup Finals. So those who did qualify were held in high esteem and rightly so. It is interesting that to many true fans of football, those who respect the history of the game, this is a golden era in World Cup history in terms of the calibre of the teams and the players who graced the tournament.

For only four tournaments (82- 94) did the tournament host 24 teams. From 1998 until this year’s event 32 teams at the World Cup FInals became the norm. With 48 teams one feels that there will be very hard for the tournament to have a sole host; time will tell with 2034! One feels that it will continue to have multiple hosts to cope with the number of games, and as we have seen with this event that raises logistical and political issues. In 2030 it will again be three countries hosting in Portugal, Spain and Morrocco, this too will bring challenges. Following this event Saudi Arabia is set to be the sole host in 2034. Hopefully common sense will prevail by then and we will see the number of finalists reduced.

What is interesting to note is that there are 211 nations listed as members of FIFA, more than the United Nations who only recognise 193. So having 48 nations compete at the World Cup Finals we are witnessing less than the top 25% of all of those football nations vying for the title of World Champion, Based on those numbers should 48 become the new normal number for a World Cup Finals?

While not exclusive, as qualification games give all nations the opportunity to qualify, the World Cup Finals should always be about the best competing to be crowned World Champion. The big question is how many of the best teams should compete at the final tournament? In the USA we have the best 48 teams, should that number remain or should it be reduced? It would appear that a large number of fans would like to see it reduced.

Whatever the decision will that magic feeling return? That feeling that so many were saying that they were lacking as this tournament approcahed. There can be no denying that the scandal surrounding the hosting of the 2018 and 2022 in Russia and Qatar has left a big scar on the game, and that may well have played a part in why so many lost that loving feeling. Or was it the joint hosting, the number of teams participating, or the appearance that greed and money were the focus rather than football?

Maybe FIFA would be wise to recall the view of Plato who attended the ancient Olympic Games and shared his observations which revealed that of those attending he ranked spectators at the top of his hierarchy, athletes came second and vendors at the bottom.It would appear that the Football World has turned this upside down.

The post Have You Lost That Loving Feeling? first appeared on Not The Footy Show.

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.