2030: You'd think an international club comp would be on the radar

[jatz14]

I doubt by 2030 we will have a team based outside of Australia...but I can see increased numbers of players in the AFL from South Africa, New Zealand, Fiji and the USA.

IMO:
Expect a team to have a 3-4 game/year contract with New Zealand, an increase on the Saints deal, as well as a small New Zealand league that is actually somewhat quality.

A team will have sold 1-2 games a year to South Africa as well imo.

North or the Dogs to have expanded heavily into regional Victoria, and I genuinely believe Hawthorn can have a long term deal with Tassie.

Have a 3rd WA club, and a club possibly based out of Tasmania (that can be the New Zealand one), and we have a comp that is national, as well as broadening its bases overseas (New Zealand & South Africa get H&A games, China, USA, Canada and UK get off-season matches, players recruited from Ireland, Tonga, Fiji and Papua New Guinea relatively regularly as well as the other countries)

So we will not have an international competition, but the sport will be international if that makes sense. If we only increase the no. of teams by 2, but increase the talent pool majorly, we should see some excellent football.

Would have to agree that the most likely scenario will be something along these lines. Not sure about SA getting games, its a long trip to make mid season. Maybe 2 teams with a bye the next week could do it. The only conceivable base for an international team is NZ, and even if the game gets good consistent growth there, they are miles off.

I think the point you make about the talent pool is key. The game cannot grow on a static talent pool. If you look at the big soccer clubs, their playing talent is the equivalent of a whole list of AA standard players. The gap between the best players in the AFL and the worst is to big as clubs scrape the bottom of the barrell hoping for an overlooked gem.

Even a handful of athletically gifted foreigners blooded as youngsters in small overseas leagues would be a godsend.

 

[Cmarsh]

Would have to agree that the most likely scenario will be something along these lines. Not sure about SA getting games, its a long trip to make mid season. Maybe 2 teams with a bye the next week could do it. The only conceivable base for an international team is NZ, and even if the game gets good consistent growth there, they are miles off.

I think the point you make about the talent pool is key. The game cannot grow on a static talent pool. If you look at the big soccer clubs, their playing talent is the equivalent of a whole list of AA standard players. The gap between the best players in the AFL and the worst is to big as clubs scrape the bottom of the barrell hoping for an overlooked gem.

Even a handful of athletically gifted foreigners blooded as youngsters in small overseas leagues would be a godsend.

If the AFL want a team in NZ then they will make it happen, just like they did in Western Sydney. The thing about NZ is, I feel that it would meet alot of resistance in some quarters there. We in Australia complain about the competition of having 4 football codes - Imagine how the same situation would go down in NZ, a country much smaller than Australia.

 

[cos789]

Not sure about SA getting games, its a long trip to make mid season. Maybe 2 teams with a bye the next week could do it.

The RSA is a 11 hour flight from Perth. Rugby shows us that it isn't a problem but byes would help.

The only conceivable base for an international team is NZ,

It's the most probable.

I think the point you make about the talent pool is key. The game cannot grow on a static talent pool.

The population of Australia is constantly growing and the Australian Football numbers are constantly growing. Participation figures for Australian Football overseas are constantly growing and if the current 110,000 participants of Australian Football overseas can flow through to community football then there is a good possible catchment of future players.

.

 

[cos789]

If the AFL want a team in NZ then they will make it happen, just like they did in Western Sydney.

The AFL have established a clear pathway for this type of development.

The thing about NZ is, I feel that it would meet alot of resistance in some quarters there.

Sydney is by far the hardest market of all. There has been huge and ongoing resistance to Australian Football due mainly to the interstate rivalry thing. I expect there would be some resistance by Kiwis but I wouldn''t expect it to be at the same level or vitriolic as we have seen in Sydney. In fact, I rather put my money on Kiwis accepting a new elite team as beneficial in much the same way as cities outside of Sydney have accepted expansion teams as a boost to their economies.

.

 

[Colonial]

Sydney is by far the hardest market of all. There has been huge and ongoing resistance to Australian Football due mainly to the interstate rivalry thing. I expect there would be some resistance by Kiwis but I wouldn''t expect it to be at the same level or vitriolic as we have seen in Sydney. In fact, I rather put my money on Kiwis accepting a new elite team as beneficial in much the same way as cities outside of Sydney have accepted expansion teams as a boost to their economies.

Yes because the Melbourne Storm and Adelaide Rams were so welcomed when they showed up..

Ever one protects the patch of turf, to the detriment of the people. More sport the better i say.

 

[cos789]

Yes because the Melbourne Storm and Adelaide Rams were so welcomed when they showed up.

A good example of why you have to invest in process.

.

 

[Shoei]

The AFL have established a clear pathway for this type of development.



Sydney is by far the hardest market of all. There has been huge and ongoing resistance to Australian Football due mainly to the interstate rivalry thing. I expect there would be some resistance by Kiwis but I wouldn''t expect it to be at the same level or vitriolic as we have seen in Sydney. In fact, I rather put my money on Kiwis accepting a new elite team as beneficial in much the same way as cities outside of Sydney have accepted expansion teams as a boost to their economies.

.

Really? You expect New Zealand of all places to be less vitriolic towards a team playing a purely AUSTRALIAN
game?

You don't know New Zealanders very well then.

 

[cos789]

Really? You expect New Zealand of all places to be less vitriolic towards a team playing a purely AUSTRALIAN
game?

As distinct from playing a purely English game or the Australian dominated game of rl ?
That's why it's marketed as "AFL" not Australian Football.
From my experience Kiwis have great rivalry not vitriol.

.

 

[Shoei]

As distinct from playing a purely English game or the Australian dominated game of rl ?
That's why it's marketed as "AFL" not Australian Football.
From my experience Kiwis have great rivalry not vitriol.

.

There's a distinction between games adopted a hundred years ago and now with national identities.

AFL would be seen as distinctly Australian in nature and rejected like an unwanted pest.

Having lived in Auckland for a few years and having NZ family, they can be very hostile to anything that would blur the distinction between the culture of the two countries.

It could work, but the AFL needs to handle it with Kids gloves and not force an expansion. You think NSW/QLD are tough markets...

 

[cos789]

There's a distinction between games adopted a hundred years ago and now with national identities.

The simple fact is that you ar e not trying to appeal to people that are so fixated.
Getting in young , running Kiwikick and following through has been shown to be effective.
At media level there seems to be support for sports promotion in NZ as contrasted with some of the vitriol that has emmanated from some some Sydney media.


.

 

[Colonial]

The simple fact is that you ar e not trying to appeal to people that are so fixated.
Getting in young , running Kiwikick and following through has been shown to be effective.
At media level there seems to be support for sports promotion in NZ as contrasted with some of the vitriol that has emmanated from some some Sydney media.


.

It would be worse than in Sydney now. Sydney 20 years ago but not now. The Kiwis live and breath union, and then have a passing interest in League, Soccer and BB.

 

[cos789]

The Kiwis live and breath union, and then have a passing interest in League, Soccer and BB.

The same was said of Sydney people and their sports.
Again, you're not trying to appeal to people who are fixated in their sports.
You get in young and use Kiwikick just like Auskick, but even more so.
The difference is that you you don't have the vitriol from the MEDIA (so far in NZ)
You don't have the aggrogance that Sydney is automatically ther biggest and the best.
Kiwis want to beat Australians at as many sports as possible that's why they play in Australian national comps. Kiwis would really go off in a NZ side beat Aussie teams at their own sport.

.

 

[Colonial]

The same was said of Sydney people and their sports.
Again, you're not trying to appeal to people who are fixated in their sports.
You get in young and use Kiwikick just like Auskick, but even more so.
The difference is that you you don't have the vitriol from the MEDIA (so far in NZ)
You don't have the aggrogance that Sydney is automatically ther biggest and the best.
Kiwis want to beat Australians at as many sports as possible that's why they play in Australian national comps. Kiwis would really go off in a NZ side beat Aussie teams at their own sport.

.

Im not saying I wouldnt love having a couple of teams from the land of the sheep shaggers (Sth and Nth island), just think that it would be much harder than my poor Giants are recieving from the media.

 

[cos789]

The thing about NZ is, I feel that it would meet alot of resistance in some quarters there.

The difference is that Wellington council wants AFL involvement. They are keen for the economic benefits that flow from having an elite sporting club resident and the flow of tourists to NZ.
So far the press has been all positive. A lot of adults are set in their ways but positive press will encourage the others and young people.

.

 

[Aucklander]

On NZ

Link

Had it been in Melbourne there would have been nothing out of the ordinary about the scene at ASB Arena yesterday.

Excited talent scouts, three testing stations, a bunch of St Kilda’s AFL stars and 40 young hopefuls punching and kicking red Sherrin balls.

Thick Aussie twangs extolled the virtues of “kick-catch-pass-bounce”, rolled together so fast it became one word.

 

[Aucklander]

New Zealand is interesting. I don't think the Australian in Australian football is an issue. Calling us sheep shaggers won't help. LoL

As the article above shows you've got the short shorts and tight fitting guernseys stereotype alive and well.

Even though the AFL state they're "not trying to take over New Zealand" you can be assured that's exactly what the NZRFU especially will think they will be trying to do. The plus side for the NZRFU is the long time support they've had from the NZ government which in some cases has ensured other sports play only bit part roles in the community.

Personally I think the game can find enough support to eventually host a team in either Auckland or Wellington and when the AFL decide to expand they usually don't leave anything for chance. I think they've gone about establishing the game over there very, very well.

 

[fabulousphil]

There's a distinction between games adopted a hundred years ago and now with national identities.

AFL would be seen as distinctly Australian in nature and rejected like an unwanted pest.

Having lived in Auckland for a few years and having NZ family, they can be very hostile to anything that would blur the distinction between the culture of the two countries.

It could work, but the AFL needs to handle it with Kids gloves and not force an expansion. You think NSW/QLD are tough markets...

Agree, hope no-one takes this the wrong way, but IMO, and i know a few kiwis, and in general i like them , they have a big brother little brother relationship with Australia, i have never seen any other country so patriotic as kiwis, every kiwi will have the biggest fern leaf across the back of the car, leaving everyone in no doubt where they are from and where their loyalties lie, they really do suffer a bit, and everyone knows that little brothers tend to try to beat big brothers, and big brothers don't really care.

I reckon NZ should just be a state of Australia or Australasia or whatever and get on with it quite frankly,

 

[Pessimistic]

Just to clarify, "On the radar" means being discussed - much as the AFL was discussed for a few decades before it came about.

And I deliberately said club football rather than international because you can recruit aussies (with limits) this making the league more competitive.

Would anyone have predicted, 15 to 20 years ago) the amount of money being spent in IPL today

 

[Munro_Mick]

Firstly - the capacity to sell American Football outside of the US is hindered by the fact that it occupies a 'football' market domain already occupied by RU, RL and Canadian Football. If the Yanks haven't yet managed to swallow up Canadian Football - then what hope to convince RU and RL followers to desert their ranks from far flung nations/continents outside of Nrth America.
The same goes the other way. Obviously RU was hamstrung in the real world of money by being so gentlemanly amateur (private school) for so long. RL stole a march in Australia which leaves the ARU the runty little brother of RSA and NZ in this neck of the woods.
Alas for RU - it's mainly a commonwealth game which puts it in it's place in England compared to soccer.

Soccer though occupies the other end of the 'football' market spectrum.

It's the space in the middle that has opened up since the first attempts at serious codification in the mid/late 1800s by those codes.
We know that the 1863 London Rules of the FA allowed a fair catch, had no x-bar, no mention of headers etc. These things evolved (as the London and Manchester FA's 'merged' effectively over the next 10-15 years). At it's heart was the Eton field game. And Etonian snobbery towards the somewhat more common folk from Rugby school.
The Rugby game started as one where a try allowed a shot on goal - and wasn't worth any points - it was all about kicking the goal. That's changed over the years and RU advocates in Australia still try to deny the urging for kicking at goal in general play. The Johnny Wilkinson's of this world had no such issue.
However - in the main, the Rugby game moved right of centre and the soccer game left of centre and one game seems more or less still somewhere near the centre (perhaps 2 if we include Gaelic Football) - and that's Australian Football.

There is a market niche therefore that the game occupies - if only it can be illustrated that that market has suitable potential.

btw - Tom Wills can often get too much credit. The 10 rules can be a bit overstated at the outset. It's not so much what WAS written down (disallowed throwing, goals had to be 'clean', i.e. no deflection or touched, 'out of bounds') but also what WAS NOT written down (no mention of Off side, On side or 'touch'). Also - the evolution of the rules illustrates the concepts that were being experimented with in actual play. There were some false starts - and for a short while goals via the scrimmage were allowed and later disallowed for example.

The first set of rules included fundamental ones such as dimension of field. Big deal. We know that English school games were referenced, and acknowledged as being referenced. The 'Australianess' of the game is more in the decision to just get on with it - as happened a lot in colonial Melbourne. The young city was growing rapidly with newcomers from across the globe drawn from 1851 on with the gold rush, republicans and 49's from America, Germans, Italians, Irish, Chinese and English, ex convicts/Van Demonians etc. That the gold fields of Ballarat and Bendigo regions were so close to Melbourne, and so rich - by all standards - we saw Port Philip become the most heavily defended port in the southern hemisphere.

We saw the Eureka Stockade effect early democratic change, we also saw the 8 hour day, we saw Sat half day off, we saw recreation time, we saw young men play football with older men for local clubs and not for schools (as per such pursuits back in England). We saw an internationally unique football culture established in the city in the world growing at probably the quickest relative pace with the money to bankroll it in the industrial era. Suburbs grew with their clubs at the same time - this could not happen in other more established cities around the world. People also had the time and inclination and funds to attend, to spectate......the nags and the footy (and the cricket). That's why the Melbourne Cup is huge and the Sydney Cup is when?? and the MCG is huge and the SCG is not.

So - to make the decision to go it alone - and then subsequently to stick with the game despite ongoing immigration ever since of people increasingly schooled in Rugby Football or Soccer - shows a tremendous self belief and independence that's more important than the very first collection of 10 rules.

 

[fabulousphil]

Firstly - the capacity to sell American Football outside of the US is hindered by the fact that it occupies a 'football' market domain already occupied by RU, RL and Canadian Football. If the Yanks haven't yet managed to swallow up Canadian Football - then what hope to convince RU and RL followers to desert their ranks from far flung nations/continents outside of Nrth America.
The same goes the other way. Obviously RU was hamstrung in the real world of money by being so gentlemanly amateur (private school) for so long. RL stole a march in Australia which leaves the ARU the runty little brother of RSA and NZ in this neck of the woods.
Alas for RU - it's mainly a commonwealth game which puts it in it's place in England compared to soccer.

Soccer though occupies the other end of the 'football' market spectrum.

It's the space in the middle that has opened up since the first attempts at serious codification in the mid/late 1800s by those codes.
We know that the 1863 London Rules of the FA allowed a fair catch, had no x-bar, no mention of headers etc. These things evolved (as the London and Manchester FA's 'merged' effectively over the next 10-15 years). At it's heart was the Eton field game. And Etonian snobbery towards the somewhat more common folk from Rugby school.
The Rugby game started as one where a try allowed a shot on goal - and wasn't worth any points - it was all about kicking the goal. That's changed over the years and RU advocates in Australia still try to deny the urging for kicking at goal in general play. The Johnny Wilkinson's of this world had no such issue.
However - in the main, the Rugby game moved right of centre and the soccer game left of centre and one game seems more or less still somewhere near the centre (perhaps 2 if we include Gaelic Football) - and that's Australian Football.

There is a market niche therefore that the game occupies - if only it can be illustrated that that market has suitable potential.

btw - Tom Wills can often get too much credit. The 10 rules can be a bit overstated at the outset. It's not so much what WAS written down (disallowed throwing, goals had to be 'clean', i.e. no deflection or touched, 'out of bounds') but also what WAS NOT written down (no mention of Off side, On side or 'touch'). Also - the evolution of the rules illustrates the concepts that were being experimented with in actual play. There were some false starts - and for a short while goals via the scrimmage were allowed and later disallowed for example.

The first set of rules included fundamental ones such as dimension of field. Big deal. We know that English school games were referenced, and acknowledged as being referenced. The 'Australianess' of the game is more in the decision to just get on with it - as happened a lot in colonial Melbourne. The young city was growing rapidly with newcomers from across the globe drawn from 1851 on with the gold rush, republicans and 49's from America, Germans, Italians, Irish, Chinese and English, ex convicts/Van Demonians etc. That the gold fields of Ballarat and Bendigo regions were so close to Melbourne, and so rich - by all standards - we saw Port Philip become the most heavily defended port in the southern hemisphere.

We saw the Eureka Stockade effect early democratic change, we also saw the 8 hour day, we saw Sat half day off, we saw recreation time, we saw young men play football with older men for local clubs and not for schools (as per such pursuits back in England). We saw an internationally unique football culture established in the city in the world growing at probably the quickest relative pace with the money to bankroll it in the industrial era. Suburbs grew with their clubs at the same time - this could not happen in other more established cities around the world. People also had the time and inclination and funds to attend, to spectate......the nags and the footy (and the cricket). That's why the Melbourne Cup is huge and the Sydney Cup is when?? and the MCG is huge and the SCG is not.

So - to make the decision to go it alone - and then subsequently to stick with the game despite ongoing immigration ever since of people increasingly schooled in Rugby Football or Soccer - shows a tremendous self belief and independence that's more important than the very first collection of 10 rules.

Good post, i reckon the gold fields has had a much bigger part of the start of football that many people credit it with, Wills went to the gold fields, saw everyone playing football or different forms of folk football and etc etc etc ... and maybe something clicked about formalising it.

Remeber Sandhurst football club has now been found to be older than Geelong, and IMO probably older than Melbourne FC ( but nothing formalised )

And just on how sports spread, WA is a very good case in point, initially footy was held together by WA boys schooled in Adelaide and then returning to WA or Croweaters migrating to WA, in the initial days Victorians had nowhere near the influence on the game as Croweaters, however that all changed when the goldrush hit WA.

Victorians by the thousands migrated West, and just to throw some stats out, ....... roughly 820 men from Kalgoolie enlisted to fight in WW1, out of those 820 - 280 listed their place of birth as Vic, i think that is roughly 35%.

Of course that is men born in Vic, i wonder what the figure would be if we included Kalgoolie or WA born, whose parentage was Victorian, a stat that would be very hard/impossible to work out.

Little wonder why at one stage Kalgoolie was considered to have a football competition the equal or near to the VFL around the early 1900's....... with all the gold/money available.

 

[cos789]

Firstly - the capacity to sell American Football outside of the US is hindered by the fact that it occupies a 'football' market domain already occupied by ...

Soccer.

There aren't too many countries where football using the hands is prominent let alone dominant.
American Football went to Europe with moderate success.
Maybe because there is mostly soccer there.

.

 

[Colonial]

Soccer.

There aren't too many countries where football using the hands is prominent let alone dominant.
American Football went to Europe with moderate success.
Maybe because there is mostly soccer there.

.

Agreed. There is allot of similarities between us and the septics. Probably allot to do with while we are european to begin with we were so isolated from the "mother land" we made our own way

 

[cos789]

Agreed. There is allot of similarities between us and the septics.

Only in appearances. In most ways we are very different.

Probably allot to do with while we are european to begin with we were so isolated from the "mother land" we made our own way

Probably not. Probably more to do with the fact that we're been a rather insignificant country for a very long time.

.

 

[Colonial]

Only in appearances. In most ways we are very different.


How so? We are both countries that were eurpean/english created, did unspeakable things to the original inhabitants and only now are making up for it. We have created our own sporting/recreation loves without caring what the rest of the world thinks. Dont really see there being much difference.

Probably not. Probably more to do with the fact that we're been a rather insignificant country for a very long time.

That doesnt really mean much in sport though. Look at some of the countries around the world who are soccer number 1 countries and they aremt exactly ever been "significant" or important.
.

 

[cos789]

Only in appearances. In most ways we are very different.

GG , you have picked the superficial similarities not the real differences

Probably more to do with the fact that we're been a rather insignificant country for a very long time.

GG, being small, we have been unable to influence the world.

.