2020 AFL International Cup

[BringBackTorps]

I would prefer IC games split between Brisbane & GC . Many games would be held at local grounds, before or after the local Seniors team plays.
Ditto, some IC matches could be held on a day/weekends when AFL games (not concurrent with IC games) are also scheduled in Brisbane/GC- ie also playing IC at the Gabba & Metricon.

Women's GF to be played immediately before an AFL game at the Gabba- & men's GF held immediately after the same AFL game at the Gabba, to attract the biggest crowds. On current strong form, Brisbane games at the Gabba in 2020 are likely to attract large, passionate crowds.

 

[*Crash*]

I don't believe the WAFL was ever approached. The WAFC could have approached WA Tourism and argued a case.
The AFL is Australian money not just money for Victoria. The AFL could give the same money to the WAFL or SANFL.
The AFL shared the IC with Sydney to boost the incoming Giants. So I would suggest the money is on Metricon to boost the Suns.
Also Metricon has the best/most convenient facilities for a tournament.

The AFL is not giving money to anyone. The AFL has a set budget for the tournament to cover costs to host the tournament regardless of location, and does not go to a football league or commission. The bids provide an offering that enhances the tournament and covers/subsidises costs on the ground to both the AFL and teams involved. In return the winning bid had an influx of players, support staff and hopefully supporters - and reaps the obvious benefits that those visitors bring both direct and indirect.

 

[TWLS]

You will not win with the Vics Red. It is their game and always will be. The rest of the country just tags along.
This is another example of AFL House not really thinking things through -The Womens game is expanding everywhere and they are now imposing caps on the number of teams.
I think a lot of International teams have the mindset of - Gee we are lucky to get anything from the AFL and we will accept the crumbs off the table.

Off Topic but talking about future AFL funding for International footy or not
Apparently Gil travelled to the USA earlier this year and set up meetings with the various streaming Giants and also has met with CH7 to discuss an two year extension to the current TV deal.
Source - Caroline Wilson and the others on the footy panel on CH9 this week.
It seems we are moving into uncertain times TV/Streaming wise the other panelist`s said.

 

[TWLS]

Thinking further about the cap on teams for future Cups it will possibly mean that in places like Europe and elsewhere there will have to be pre-comps held to see who travels in the years the Cup is held.

 

[RedV3x]

The AFL is not giving money to anyone.

That seems at odds to your next statement.

The AFL has a set budget for the tournament to cover costs to host the tournament regardless of location,

It would seem the AFL is giving the money to cover costs?

The bids provide an offering that enhances the tournament and covers/subsidises costs on the ground to both the AFL and teams involved.

So the "bids" are an expression of what their location can add ?

. In return the winning bid had an influx of players, support staff and hopefully supporters - and reaps the obvious benefits that those visitors bring both direct and indirect.

So that benefits the economy and the government but how does football benefit?

 

[*Crash*]

Yes Red, paying money. E.g. footballs, they pay for them. Not give money away. Not giving money to the host city or anyone else. They spend the budget.

Yes the bids are what the location can add. Pretty standard I would think when a city/council bids to host an event?

Football benefits by the competing nations having the best tournament package that bidders can offer. That would be why the bids are assessed by the AFL for the best outcome for the tournament.

 

[*Crash*]

Thinking further about the cap on teams for future Cups it will possibly mean that in places like Europe and elsewhere there will have to be pre-comps held to see who travels in the years the Cup is held.

Correct, and AFL Europe already well across this.

 

[RedV3x]

Yes Red, paying money. E.g. footballs, they pay for them. Not give money away. Not giving money to the host city or anyone else. They spend the budget.

Yes the bids are what the location can add. Pretty standard I would think when a city/council bids to host an event?

Football benefits by the competing nations having the best tournament package that bidders can offer. That would be why the bids are assessed by the AFL for the best outcome for the tournament.

I'm well aware of both the USAFL Championships and the Euro Cup.
Both events are increasing in value and professionalism with each event.
Both shop their event around to different locations to get the best deals and the Euro Cup boasts varied and exotic locations.
With the number of countries and the varied locations I see the Euro Cup going from strength to strength.
The AFL is a huge business yet the best they could organise in Melbourne is 3 suburban fields and sub-standard facilities.
I see the IC becoming a Southern Hemisphere/Asia event if they continue as in the past.
.

 

[RedV3x]

Correct, and AFL Europe already well across this.

To reduce costs at the IC end or because countries cannot afford the outlay?
To countries that don't come it's always about the outlay.

 

[TWLS]

I will venture to say in the future at one point that the number of Mens teams will have to be decreased and the Womens team increased to have 50/50 split in the spirit of fairness as per the National Anthem.
The AFL is very very fortunate in that most AFL fans could not careless about IC2020 so there is no pressure to REFORM their balancing act on funding for footy offshore.

 

[RedV3x]

I will venture to say in the future at one point that the number of Mens teams will have to be decreased and the Womens team increased to have 50/50 split in the spirit of fairness as per the National Anthem.

I don't see why there has to be any restriction on numbers.

The AFL is very very fortunate in that most AFL fans could not careless about IC2020 so there is no pressure to REFORM their balancing act on funding for footy offshore.

Though I can criticize the AFL in some areas, the AFL has to be congratulated in other areas.

 

[TWLS]

I don't see why there has to be any restriction on numbers.



Though I can criticize the AFL in some areas, the AFL has to be congratulated in other areas.

I have no issue with the AFL Competition and everything else they manage domestically in fact the AFLW competition is a stroke of genius.
It has added up to 600,000 players (Total unconfirmed) to the game in Australia.
The capping of Womens teams at this time reflects the true underlying policy - They would say every dept has a budget and the IC2020 is no different to any other Dept.
18 Mens team arrived for IC2017, will the Mens be capped as well, or is the IC2020 budget fixed for 26 teams.

 

[RedV3x]

I have no issue with the AFL Competition and everything else they manage domestically in fact the AFLW competition is a stroke of genius.

Well, the AFLW could have been even bigger, better and longer.

They would say every dept has a budget and the IC2020 is no different to any other Dept.

Because of the lack of tranaprency I don't know exactly what the AFL provides outside of Royal Park and umpires,
but going backwards is ridiculous. Have costs escalated to such a degree that teams have to be culled ?
Not acknowledging the growth of women's football is ridiculous, immoral and strategically the opposite of what's required.
If the AFL are not serious about this event why don't they just give it to someone who cares.

 

[BringBackTorps]

IC 2020 News. Venus still not decided.
Comments at the end of the article are interesting.

2020 AFL International Cup update - World Footy News

www.worldfootynews.com

 

[TWLS]

IC 2020 News. Venus still not decided.
Comments at the end of the article are interesting.

2020 AFL International Cup update - World Footy News

www.worldfootynews.com

This article is a brilliant example of the not fully commited to International Footy attitude held by the current AFL Administration which like its forebares inherited from previous administrations down the years.
However the best thing is that this attitude will have to change eventually because the game overseas will continue to grow and develop and the AFL House will have to adjust to the new reality.
As we all know they will only get properly involved in I.F. if there is a dollar in it ie. China, and that is not a bad thing overall.
The point about the Womens teams numbers is not really crucial because of the small number of countries currently fielding teams but that number will grow.

 

[RedV3x]

As we all know they will only get properly involved in I.F. if there is a dollar in it ie. China, and that is not a bad thing overall.

More acccurate, the AFL will invest if it feels it can leverage a result primarily for the AFL.
Direct investments in Qld and NSW have been underwritten by media contracts and merchandise sales etc.
This is the reasoning behind the AFL push into N.Z.
Other investments have primarily used other peoples money.
e.g. O/S Foster's Cup by CUB. RSA, PNG and the Pacific uses aid money. China is PAFC's product.
That is a good business approach.
Modest investments in Europe, Asia and Canada have been effective for local football.
There should be more of these "business case" type of modest investments IMO.

The point about the Womens teams numbers is not really crucial because of the small number of countries currently fielding teams but that number will grow.

Actually it's the opposite. Women's football is where football can leverage the most gains.
The number of women's teams and competitions has exploded especially in Europe since the last I.C..
Women's football is where you could possibly have some Australian content. e.g. world team or premier team Vs an Australian team.

However the best thing is that this attitude will have to change eventually because the game overseas will continue to grow and develop and the AFL House will have to adjust to the new reality.

It is quite easy to see where the media trends.
The media sacrifices the international over the national over the state over the regional.
What do I mean by that exactly.
The SANFL had an attendance of 39,000 does it rate a mention - no.
Meanwhile the FFA has pitiful attendances averaging 3,000 but they receive media attention because it's national.
Attendances and ratings mean little if they are not national.
The same occurs with international events. Tonga with a population of 100,000 recieves attention because it plays internationally.

The AFL has to lift the profile of international football.
Also, as a definite side issue, I would like to see a second national football league set up as a champion's league.
Thus the media would have to give more attention to the state leagues as they would be national.
This would be cost neutral as the only travel would be for finals and well attended and rated.

 

[TWLS]

More acccurate, the AFL will invest if it feels it can leverage a result primarily for the AFL.
Direct investments in Qld and NSW have been underwritten by media contracts and merchandise sales etc.
This is the reasoning behind the AFL push into N.Z.
Other investments have primarily used other peoples money.
e.g. O/S Foster's Cup by CUB. RSA, PNG and the Pacific uses aid money. China is PAFC's product.
That is a good business approach.
Modest investments in Europe, Asia and Canada have been effective for local football.
There should be more of these "business case" type of modest investments IMO.



Actually it's the opposite. Women's football is where football can leverage the most gains.
The number of women's teams and competitions has exploded especially in Europe since the last I.C..
Women's football is where you could possibly have some Australian content. e.g. world team or premier team Vs an Australian team.



It is quite easy to see where the media trends.
The media sacrifices the international over the national over the state over the regional.
What do I mean by that exactly.
The SANFL had an attendance of 39,000 does it rate a mention - no.
Meanwhile the FFA has pitiful attendances averaging 3,000 but they receive media attention because it's national.
Attendances and ratings mean little if they are not national.
The same occurs with international events. Tonga with a population of 100,000 recieves attention because it plays internationally.

The AFL has to lift the profile of international football.
Also, as a definite side issue, I would like to see a second national football league set up as a champion's league.
Thus the media would have to give more attention to the state leagues as they would be national.
This would be cost neutral as the only travel would be for finals and well attended and rated.

The mention of direct investments in NSW and QLD etc etc brings me to the theory I read recently.
Going back to 2004/5 the AFL embarked on a big push into South Africa whereby 4 AFL Clubs were allocated a Province each to support.
This saw money going direct into South African Footy and looked to be the way forward and the AFL continued for a period of 2/3 years with this set up.
Then it all stopped and the theory goes that the Commission/Demitriou AFL boss decided that AFL funds would be better placed in adding a team each in NSW and QLD and so they went down that path to the detriment of International Footy.
It must be said the AFL still supports AFL South Africa today with modest funding, however that group are keeping a very low profile media wise for reasons best known to themselves.

 

[RedV3x]

Going back to 2004/5 the AFL embarked on a big push into South Africa whereby 4 AFL Clubs were allocated a Province each to support.
This saw money going direct into South African Footy and looked to be the way forward and the AFL continued for a period of 2/3 years with this set up.
Then it all stopped

Football in the R.S.A. was due to monies from the R.S.A. government, Australian government (aid), private funds and the AFL.
Take away the staging of AFL games there wasn't that much money involved. (I don't know why exactly AFL games cost so much)
That development actually continues and has matured but is devoid of the high profile it once enjoyed.

 

[TWLS]

Football in the R.S.A. was due to monies from the R.S.A. government, Australian government (aid), private funds and the AFL.
Take away the staging of AFL games there wasn't that much money involved. (I don't know why exactly AFL games cost so much)
That development actually continues and has matured but is devoid of the high profile it once enjoyed.

So the 4 AFL Clubs put zero dollars in each and how do you explain the 4 Provincial teams that carried their AFL names for a period.
ie. Eagles,Dockers, Magpies, Blues.

"Devoid of the high profile it once enjoyed" - Quite correct however when the South African team was in Perth at one time and played a match at Subi around 2007 I introduced myself to a couple of the bosses -They did not impress me when they walked away when I asked about how they were going with the SA media.
Enough said and most likely explains their absence in the media at this time.

 

[RedV3x]

So the 4 AFL Clubs put zero dollars in each.

I believe the four clubs had some input as well as they hoped to get some recruiting benefits out of it.

"Devoid of the high profile it once enjoyed" I meant in Australia.
I doubt that there was any lasting media result in the R.S.A.

 

[RedV3x]

I see where the AFLW boasts 18 Irish women. Presumably they could play for Ireland because they didn't learn their football in Australia.
That presumably that is the reason for the cap on the number of Australian based players in Australia for the I.C.
Wouldn't it be simpler and fairer that qualification is through playing in the home country?
Most of these elete football players have never player football in their home countries.

 

[RedV3x]

On the subject of the R.S.A. the AFL's handling of the R.S.A. seems to typify the AFL's lack of flexibility w.r.t. a fallback position.
The R.S.A. produced good numbers but for some reason the AFL decided to remove it's involvement before the investment matured.
The local football side of things was cheap. Personal was cheap using the educational system and the Rand is one tenth of the $AU.
Costs could be further reduced by using the Canadian model of training the trainers.
For a little money the WAFL could have been involved and truly developed the R.S.A. That option is still open.
The original China push was the same- a lot of noise and a football ground produced as a result
but ultimately the football ground was left to waste away.
Even in the U.S.A. with Australian Football booming on new cable television systems the AFL failed to capitalise.
It seems, without any evidence to the contrary that the AFL chose money over exposure and long term growth.
This has been the failure of many elite sports - take the money for short term gains only to lose out long term.
Nothing is more evident than the AFL's current handling of the AFLW.
The AFL is not placing the AFLW as it's priority - it is worrying about money, when it could be making even bigger gains.
The we come to the International cup. Nobody watchs it. Yet people watch various countries being demolished in other world cup codes.
The International Cup is arguably one of the most competitive events with the strictest qualifications - it just isn't promoted.

 

[*Crash*]

I see where the AFLW boasts 18 Irish women. Presumably they could play for Ireland because they didn't learn their football in Australia.
That presumably that is the reason for the cap on the number of Australian based players in Australia for the I.C.
Wouldn't it be simpler and fairer that qualification is through playing in the home country?
Most of these elete football players have never player football in their home countries.

I would say about half the Irish girls (maybe slightly more) have played Aussie rules in Ireland since the development of local comps following the last international cup.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I would like to see a second national football league set up as a champion's league.
Thus the media would have to give more attention to the state leagues as they would be national.
This would be cost neutral as the only travel would be for finals and well attended and rated.

Astute comment.
How do you envisage this would occur- ie when played, & by whom? (Rep SANFL, WAFL, & VFL sides- perhaps even VAFA; or only individual SANFL, WAFL, VFL club teams- with VAFA playing a rep side)?

 

[RedV3x]

Astute comment.
How do you envisage this would occur- ie when played, & by whom? (Rep SANFL, WAFL, & VFL sides- perhaps even VAFA; or only individual SANFL, WAFL, VFL club teams- with VAFA playing a rep side)?

Ok, I'm not 100% with the relative football standards across the leagues but as a starting point I would suggest.

1. The state competitions hold their grand finals after the AFL GF.
2. The premiers would then play off to become champion team.
3. The WAFL, SANFL and a Victorian league. I say Victorian league because any AFL affiliated teams should be banned except maybe the NEAFL. Of course Tasmania should be represented as well. IMO, Tasmainia should have been in the NEAFL by now.
4. If Tasmania played off against the NEAFL then there would be four elite teams producing a champion over two weeks.