The future of our national league?

BY SAM BUCKLE

By my estimation fewer than 300 people were at Newtown Park yesterday watching Team Wellington guts out a 2-1 win over Waikato FC. Unfortunately, I’m accustomed to that sort of disappointing turnout (mind you, from what I could see, there weren’t many more at the Basin Reserve watching the apparently sponsorless domestic one-day cricket competition).

It frustrates me. I’m a romantic and an optimistic like many others. I have expectation and ambition for the game like many others. I’d love to see 3000-5000 fans at national league fixtures up and down the country each weekend. I’d love for the national league to evoke local passion and fervent provincial rivalries. I’d love it to be a vehicle for embedding football in our popular culture, just as the NPC does for rugby. But is that realistic, is that what matters, and even if it is, how on earth do we get there? It seems very distant right now.

It’s as good a time as any to ask these questions because, right now, the board of New Zealand Football is considering a report on the future of football “competitions”, including our national league, the NZFC.

For the past 20 years, as far as my knowledge stretches (yes, I can hear it already, the 1970s were the glory days of the national league, it was on a par with the English First Division), our national league has lived within a cloud of uncertainty and constant change. We’ve played in the winter, in the summer, we’ve had clubs, we’ve had franchises, we’ve had more teams, and we’ve had fewer.

The constant restructuring and fiddling has damaged the league by eroding heritage and tradition, by undermining its credibility and by demoralising those who invest their time and energy. But, in fairness to the administrators, change has been a response to problems, to failure, to dissatisfaction and in the admirable pursuit of something better. I can understand that mentality. It’s hard to knock people for wanting more for the game.

At the heart of the national league debate over the past few years has been one key issue, whether the league should be franchise-based (as is the current model) or club-based (as is the historic model). There are strong and vociferous advocates of both models within the football community. People are going to be grumpy, whatever the outcome. Unfortunately for the club diehards, I agree with Tony Smith that Auckland City FC’s tremendous showing at the World Club Champs has probably settled the debate – in favour of the status quo, or something close to it.

Whatever the prevailing view within NZ Football and whatever the recommendations of the competitions review before the Club World Cup, it is now very hard to see the club option emerging. None of Christchurch United, Caversham, Napier City Rovers, Miramar or even Central United could have achieved two victories at the Club World Cup. It’s as simple as that.

And before diving further into the club versus franchise debate, I want to reflect on Auckland City’s achievement for a moment. OK, the first side Auckland disposed of, Al Ahli, qualified as champions of the host nation rather than as champions of their Confederation. Nevertheless, the UAE league is fully professional, is backed by Middle East wealth and has an allocation of four slots in the Asian Champions League (the A-League currently has but two slots). Al Ahli was a higly commendable scalp, especially in their stadium. And it was no fluke. Auckland deserved their result.

Auckland’s second win, over TP Mazembe, was even more impressive. The Congo may not be known as Africa’s football stronghold, but TP Mazembe are the club champions of the African Continent. They earned the right to play at the Club World Cup ahead of sides representing leagues from the likes of Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria. That’s a damn fine effort.

The other thing I need to take care of before entering the aforementioned debate is disclosure. I’m a director of NZFC franchise Team Wellington. I reckon my views are independent of that interest, but it’s also possible my proximity to the current system has influenced my perspective.

So, is the NZFC broke? No question, it has its problems and weaknesses. Its profile is low, crowds are sparse and there’s an unhealthy dependence on “pokie” money. On the positive side of the ledger, the NZFC is a decent standard (as Auckland City has demonstrated), it has ensured more of our talented local players are pitted against each other at the highest local level, the conditions are good and so, generally, are the facilities. In these respects it’s an improvement on its predecessors. And its been delivering some handy Fifa prize money.

I agree a club model has some advantages. It allows for a natural promotion-relegation system, which would add spice and provide a valuable carrot for all aspiring clubs. People tend to identify much more closely with clubs than franchises. People care about clubs. They are passionate about them.

Unfortunately, our clubs are tiny as are the numbers of club diehards. Their resources and capabilities are limited. Clubs also compete fiercely for talent within regional boundaries. They dilute an already thin player base.

Returning to a club-based, national league would be a retrograde step. It would weaken the quality of the league and undermine the pathway for young footballers – without, in my view, any certainty of an upside. It would be a highly speculative and very risky choice based on hope and romance rather than fact and history.

None of this means we shouldn’t expect more from the NZFC than to be a means of player development (yawn). It may never inspire wild parochial fan bases or attract vast TV audiences, but, with more investment and marketing, with history and tradition gradually accrued, with more exposure and credibility through international success, it can grow its profile, it can become an aspirational goal for young kids, and it can draw more than 300 loyal souls to Newtown Park.