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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find all our podcasts on iTunes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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