Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

International Development

  • Thread starter Thread starter jatz14
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

RedV3x said:
No. IT's how the USA sees the football world. has nothing to do with reality what-so-ever.
Major investment in RSA, PNG and NZ and lesser in the Pacific and lesser again Europe.
Let's see after the I.C. shall we.
Click to expand...
The article indicates a mainly growing restlesness or impatience from some overseas leagues at the AFL`S attitude. We got a whisper of this earlier this year from a person involved with International footy.
Redvx is correct the AFL is handing out funds to certain countries much to I suspect the chagrin of the non receivers.
Ok Redvx what is going to happen after IC17 - You obviously know something - You are amongst friends here.
No doubt the article above will find its way to AFL House.
 
TWLS said:
The article indicates a mainly growing restlesness or impatience from some overseas leagues at the AFL`S attitude. We got a whisper of this earlier this year from a person involved with International footy.
Redvx is correct the AFL is handing out funds to certain countries much to I suspect the chagrin of the non receivers.
Ok Redvx what is going to happen after IC17 - You obviously know something - You are amongst friends here.
No doubt the article above will find its way to AFL House.
Click to expand...

There is a huge differential in investment levels, that's why I keep saying in order to discuss A.R. O/S you must look at each region individually.
There are reasons why investment is in RSA and PNG and that is different from NZ.
There are reasons for the growing investment in the Pacific.
What we're talking about is the minimal levels in "organic growth" regions and even these investments have produced leveraged benefits.
If you are looking at football from a business p.o.v. then the USA is a poor choice because the bigger the market then the bigger the outlay.
We hear the USA p.o.v. but we don't hear much about countries making spectacular gains.
We have heard zero of what Baltimore would do with more money.

I am not privvy to the AFL but I would say that they would continue and increase to underwrite good business models/proposals.
 
RedV3x said:
There is a huge differential in investment levels, that's why I keep saying in order to discuss A.R. O/S you must look at each region individually.
There are reasons why investment is in RSA and PNG and that is different from NZ.
There are reasons for the growing investment in the Pacific.
What we're talking about is the minimal levels in "organic growth" regions and even these investments have produced leveraged benefits.
If you are looking at football from a business p.o.v. then the USA is a poor choice because the bigger the market then the bigger the outlay.
We hear the USA p.o.v. but we don't hear much about countries making spectacular gains.
We have heard zero of what Baltimore would do with more money.

I am not privvy to the AFL but I would say that they would continue and increase to underwrite good business models/proposals.
Click to expand...
If the AFL could get .5% of the USA, a wealthy country, interested by 2037, that is 1,500,000 people -so I think that the Combines, trying to find an athletic giant ruckman is a good investment in the USA (& Canada).
There are concussion concerns with American Football -RU is growing quite well there, not sure if it's related to those problems.

If Mason Cox becomes a regular player, how much publicity would that attract in the USA?
Also, are there many park, community gridiron/rugby/soccer grounds in the US, directly side-by-side ;& therefore, two grounds combined, could permit an AF 18 a side game to be played?

Sadly, the widespread poverty in SA (only blacks play AF, who are surprisingly short, in large nos.) & PNG (players also short), from a media rights perspective, makes these less attractive. The large Indian middle class, English speaking, plenty of big ovals, could be worth pursuing -only need .5% over 20 years, media rights could be valuable?

AFL should aim for a NZ TAC (allow them to field U21) team playing H & A against Vic. TAC within 10 years. Not all euro. Kiwis have big enough bodies/want to bulk up/smash into increasingly bigger bodies in RU - so AF is an attractive option. Try to become no.2 to RU in the next 20 yrs.

International devel. is a philosophical/strategic issue. A question re return on costly investment: how much resources are allocated o/s -for the long term devel. of the code o/s?

The feedback from foreign players is that they LOVE the range of skills needed for AF ie kicking/marking/running on a big ground/no offside/courage needed to play (but not the big hits/need to bulk up of RU & Gridiron). Thus, there genuinely is fertile ground -but how many tens of millions, for how long, needed to cultivate it, before it bears fruit (ie AFL recruits/ excellent foreignTV rights)?
We allow $180,000,000 pa to be spent on 18 clubs (x $10,000,000 each for non-player wage Football dept. spending). Should this be reduced, & more funds allocated overseas?

OR dramatically provide much greater funding for Newcastle/Hunter/Coast, Nth Qld, Sthn. Sydney (& fix the former Tas. recruitment bonanza)?
I suspect the AFL would get more beneficial results/recruits/more AFL attendances/more media rights by focusing mainly on these "easier"Aust. barren areas, cf overseas. Get AFL games in these areas asap -Townsville has a suitable large oval, I'm not aware if Newcastle or Sth Sydney does.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BringBackTorps said:
If the AFL could get .5% of the USA, a wealthy country, interested by 2037, that is 1,500,000 people -so I think that the Combines, trying to find an athletic giant ruckman is a good investment in the USA (& Canada).
There are concussion concerns with American Football -RU is growing quite well there, not sure if it's related to those problems.

If Mason Cox becomes a regular player, how much publicity would that attract in the USA?
Also, are there many park, community gridiron/rugby/soccer grounds in the US, directly side-by-side ;& therefore, two grounds combined, could permit an AF 18 a side game to be played?

Sadly, the widespread poverty in SA & PNG, from a media rights perspective, makes these less attractive. The large Indian middle class, English speaking, could be worth pursuing -only need .5% over 20 years, media rights could be valuable?

AFL should aim for a NZ TAC team playing H & A against Vic. TAC within 10 years -not all Kiwis have big enough bodies/want to bulk up -so AF is an attractive option. Try to become no.2 to RU in the next 20 yrs.

International devel. is a philosophical/strategic issue. A question how much resources are allocated o/s -for the long term devel. of the code o/s?

The feedback from foreign players is that they LOVE the range of skills needed for AF ie kicking/marking/running on a big ground/no offside/courage needed to play (but not the big hits/need to bulk up of RU & Gridiron). Thus, there genuinely is fertile ground -but how many tens of millions pa, for how long, needed to cultivate it, before it bears fruit (ie AFL recruits/ foreignTV rights)?
We allow $180,000,000 pa to be spent on 18 clubs (x $10,000,000 each for non-player wage Football dept. spending). Should this be reduced, & more funds allocated overseas?

OR dramatically provide much greater funding for Newcastle, Nth Qld, Sthn. Sydney (& fix the former Tas. recruitment bonanza)?
I suspect the AFL would get more beneficial results/recruits/more AFL attendances/more media rights by focusing mainly on these "easier"Aust. barren areas, cf overseas. Get AFL games in these areas asap -Townsville has a suitable large oval, I'm not aware if Newcastle or Sth Sydney does.
Click to expand...

Many good points you've mentioned there and only have time to say that each situation is different because different conditions apply.
What people tend not to discuss is the political side of things from national, state down to local government.
That makes a huge difference to leverage.
 
RedV3x said:
Many good points you've mentioned there and only have time to say that each situation is different because different conditions apply.
What people tend not to discuss is the political side of things from national, state down to local government.
That makes a huge difference to leverage.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate on last 2 cryptic sentences?

IMO, foreign media rights (or realistic potential of media rights) from wealthy countries (inc. big Indian & Chinese middle class) must be the main KPI- before the AFL will spend big $ on overseas devel. Question: What comes first -TV monies, or foreign AFL draft recruits?

Pt Adelaide broadcasts in China have rated in the millions. Sustainable? Can they be monetised? How much value to the foreign media rights would be 3 Chinese/Indian/US players in the AFL?
Has the AFL disadvantaged itself (re short Chinese & Indian AFL players) by the current game style making it very difficult for anyone under 180 cm to be drafted? Reducing congestion, with no interchange, IMO would bring more small players back (less packs, so smalls -below 80 kgs- get smashed less; smalls can run all day - tall, heavy players would blow up after middle of 3rd qtr. Main reason NRL has reduced interchange from 10-8, talk it might go to 6).

The VERY BIG problem is that young foreign players below 195 cm are VERY far behind in skill levels to young Aust. players (exc. Gaelic). So AFL gets more economic "bang for its back"by spending more on GR growth in NSW & Qld -MUCH higher chance of recruiting young athletes.
RL & RU male contact regd. nos. there are in a long term decline. L.Daley last month has advocated making all jnr. RL regns. FREE in 2018 to arrrest decline; 2 days ago Rothfield in DT reported that there are now more non-contact male touch/tag nos. in Paramatta than male contact RL regd. nos.

I can only realistically, in the next 20 years, see the AFL drafting VERY athletic, male U21 y.o., from Ireland, USA, Canada, NZ -unless AFL is on TV in India & China.
For overseas females, if AFLW continues to prosper & becomes a full time, well paid sport (cf. other female team sports), I think the AFLW could be attracting very young athletic females from everywhere.

The crucial factor is getting the AFL on FTA & cable overseas -it would turbocharge growth.
 
Last edited:
BringBackTorps said:
Care to elaborate on last 2 cryptic sentences?
Click to expand...

Literally, every situation is different. And by talking about quick fixes you're missing individual assistance possibilities.

You seem to be fixated by the AFL and that is the main point of differentiation.
The growth of Australian Football and more AFL players are widely differing subjects
and that is the main difference between the Southern Hemisphere and the rest of the world.
 
BringBackTorps said:
I can only realistically, in the next 20 years, see the AFL drafting VERY athletic..
Click to expand...

That is again the AFL/Australian Football divide.
The AFL runs combines to recruit athletes from around the world.
To build a competition to the point it would produce AFL standard players would cost considerable money.
There are plenty of players from overseas playing in Australia now.
They had to change the rules to limit the numbers in this year's I.C.
There has to be good reasons to invest in big numbers.
 
RedV3x said:
That is again the AFL/Australian Football divide.
The AFL runs combines to recruit athletes from around the world.
To build a competition to the point it would produce AFL standard players would cost considerable money.
There are plenty of players from overseas playing in Australia now.
They had to change the rules to limit the numbers in this year's I.C.
There has to be good reasons to invest in big numbers.
Click to expand...
So after many posts here you are for Selective Targeting of Countries suitable for Development, rather than the usual scatter gun approach.
So define your criteria once a Country is selected, and name them.
Remember it usually starts with a small group of expats and locals, and most countries do not have suitable grounds, and have adopted the 9 a side model.
 
RedV3x said:
The partnership between the AFL, the Australian Government, the South African government and Costa Logistics is still going strong
and has matured into many open-age AFCs in at least four provinces. The evidence can be seen by the rise of the R.S.A. in the world rankings.
Currently the R.S.A. is ranked 5th. Considering the numbers playing in the R.S.A. they seem to be a little short on talls.

You don't hear anything about the R.S.A. IMO because the AFL is waiting to promote the first local product.
The story of their coach playing in the SANFL needs a makeover.
Despite over 700 volunteers working for football in the R.S.A. you don't get much publicity.

IMO the next step in development would be to establish a relationship with the W.A.F.L. is some way.
The W.A.F.L is closer, cheaper and perfect for interaction and promotion.
Click to expand...

Costa Logistics pulled out years ago.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

TWLS said:
So after many posts here you are for Selective Targeting of Countries suitable for Development, rather than the usual scatter gun approach.
So define your criteria once a Country is selected, and name them.
Remember it usually starts with a small group of expats and locals, and most countries do not have suitable grounds, and have adopted the 9 a side model.
Click to expand...

This is the eternal question with no easy answer.

We know that the AFL dedicates minute resources to international development, so one thing we know for sure is that the more focused we can be, the more success we are likely to have in developing and improving the quality of local leagues.

After six ICs, it seems to me that a pattern of sorts is emerging if we want to play the game of choosing winners:
- Neighbours/Pacific region - where we're likely to get the most bang for our buck, where proximity allows some cross-fertilisation and where we're most likely to get government assistance via AusTrade (PNG, Nauru, Indonesia, Pacific islands, New Zealand, maybe East Timor)
- Indian sub-continent - availability of cricket grounds, no football codes dominate to any great extent, plenty of links and interchange via cricket, immigration and tourism
- North America - existing leagues, growing women's participation, cultural links, market exists for a game like aussie rules, availability of space, pockets of interest where a critical mass of interest can be established
- Scandinavia - tourism links to Australia, similar culture, availability of space, history of local leagues (although it's a worry that not a single scandinavian team made it this time round for the first time ever)
- UK - cultural links, plenty of ex-pats, league with long history, well established, improving quality, availability of cricket grounds, womens game established very quickly
- Sth Africa - fits a market gap, availability of cricket grounds, some recent success in establishing leagues
- Croatia - I'm not sure why, but the game was able to take roots in a very short space of time and they were immediately competitive with other European nations - worth keeping this fire going, also some early womens interest, smallish country makes it easier to establish a national league
- China - just too big and important to ignore, recent success in establishing league.

What's clear is that nations can regress if there is insufficient cross-fertilisation, and Sth Africa and the Scandinavian countries might be an example of this, it already looks like footy is on hold in places like Norway and Iceland, and maybe even Finland, after leagues had existed for a few years.

We can't support absolutely anyone who puts their hand up, we have to be selective.
 
Gigantor said:
This is the eternal question with no easy answer.

We know that the AFL dedicates minute resources to international development, so one thing we know for sure is that the more focused we can be, the more success we are likely to have in developing and improving the quality of local leagues.

After six ICs, it seems to me that a pattern of sorts is emerging if we want to play the game of choosing winners:
- Neighbours/Pacific region - where we're likely to get the most bang for our buck, where proximity allows some cross-fertilisation and where we're most likely to get government assistance via AusTrade (PNG, Nauru, Indonesia, Pacific islands, New Zealand, maybe East Timor)
- Indian sub-continent - availability of cricket grounds, no football codes dominate to any great extent, plenty of links and interchange via cricket, immigration and tourism
- North America - existing leagues, growing women's participation, cultural links, market exists for a game like aussie rules, availability of space, pockets of interest where a critical mass of interest can be established
- Scandinavia - tourism links to Australia, similar culture, availability of space, history of local leagues (although it's a worry that not a single scandinavian team made it this time round for the first time ever)
- UK - cultural links, plenty of ex-pats, league with long history, well established, improving quality, availability of cricket grounds, womens game established very quickly
- Sth Africa - fits a market gap, availability of cricket grounds, some recent success in establishing leagues
- Croatia - I'm not sure why, but the game was able to take roots in a very short space of time and they were immediately competitive with other European nations - worth keeping this fire going, also some early womens interest, smallish country makes it easier to establish a national league
- China - just too big and important to ignore, recent success in establishing league.

What's clear is that nations can regress if there is insufficient cross-fertilisation, and Sth Africa and the Scandinavian countries might be an example of this, it already looks like footy is on hold in places like Norway and Iceland, and maybe even Finland, after leagues had existed for a few years.

We can't support absolutely anyone who puts their hand up, we have to be selective.
Click to expand...

Excellent response Gigantor - Well summed up. Can I suggest you send a copy of this to AFL House -- Attention International Development Dept

My thoughts on Croatia - It appears some countries will respond to the game better than others. They are very sports minded and very competitive and once they get the hang of 18 - a - side they will go very well.
Have had a lot to do with them and their Aussie Descendants here in Perth in the Commercial world and most of them were tall guys.
Have big rivalry with their Neighbouring countries and that could be possibly involved. A dose of reasonable seed funds would assist greatly.
 
TWLS said:
Excellent response Gigantor - Well summed up. Can I suggest you send a copy of this to AFL House -- Attention International Development Dept

My thoughts on Croatia - It appears some countries will respond to the game better than others. They are very sports minded and very competitive and once they get the hang of 18 - a - side they will go very well.
Have had a lot to do with them and their Aussie Descendants here in Perth in the Commercial world and most of them were tall guys.
Have big rivalry with their Neighbouring countries and that could be possibly involved. A dose of reasonable seed funds would assist greatly.
Click to expand...

Agree re Croatia, of all the links we have to Southern Europe via immigration, Croatia appears to be the one most disposed to our game. They like basketball as well as soccer, and as you say, they produce tall athletes so of all the places South of Denmark, this is the place that deserves some immediate AFL investment. They don't appear to play rugby to any great extent, so there might be a place for aussie rules.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TWLS said:
My thoughts on Croatia - It appears some countries will respond to the game better than others.
Click to expand...

Yes they do and it it's hard to work out why exactly.

With Croatia it might have something to do with post-war immigration and being a apart of the WAFL history.
But then we have little football in Italy and none in Greece.

IMO it's better to look at contact football generally.
Australian Football does well where rugby is played but also where gridiron is played.
Argentina, South of France, R.S.A., Pacific and the Western Isles.
Gridiron is strong in Zagreb and big in Germany, some Scandinavian countries and of course North America.
 
Gigantor said:
- Neighbours/Pacific region - where we're likely to get the most bang for our buck, where proximity allows some cross-fertilisation and where we're most likely to get government assistance via AusTrade (PNG, Nauru, Indonesia, Pacific islands, New Zealand, maybe East Timor).
Click to expand...

I call this the Southern Hemisphere because the AFL has leveraged AusAid off of the R.S.A., P.N.G. and some Pacific Islands.
Indonesia is a possibility but it has a huge population with a strong government.
East Timor plays A.F. but doesn't receive much help. I believe maybe the Army when it's there and E.T. is a small young population.
After the I.C. I can see the AFL targetting Fiji trying to attract more of their athletes to crossover.
Nauru will never get any bigger. It's tiny island.
N.Z. is an entirely unique case with a GWS style approach but with Auckland money and a smaller television component.
The R.S.A. is still ticking along nicely but without any direction. No AFL players drafted so the AFL which remember is the 18 clubs has lost interest.
Remember the AFL were in China not so long ago with Brisbane and Melbourne(especially Melbourne). The AFL ground created lays dormant.
The AFL is reluctant to work with second tier organisations (unless they carry the AFL banner). There are many ways to further develop R.S.A. but it's probably not going to happen. You really need some profile. AFL teams are expensive and the people to poor to pay for AFL teams exhibition or otherwise.
So the logical next move is WAFL involvement. The WAFL should be paid to develop the R.S.A. from the AFL because they could do it at a fraction of the cost. WAFL teams could play exhibition matches or even live rounds. WAFL teams could adopt players or teams etc.

Nothing is going to happen without money and every situation is different. AFLNZ now has a "national competition" which is a very positive step. Seemingly it didn't require much assistance to establish. A NZ team playing in Sydney then graduating to the NEAFL certainly would. There are endless possibilities and again it gets down to money, the amount, the leverage and the benefits but most of all it gets down to whether the strategy is for more Australian Football players or more AFL players. Currently in North America and the Western Isles it's cheaper to run combines than to build up organic leagues to produce AFL players.
 
AFL Canada‏ @AFLCanada 11h11 hours ago
Look who's in the @OttawaCitizen today! Thanks again @nickmfaris

DHwUVRnUIAAZpTF.jpg

0 replies4 retweets16 likes
 
This article gives food for thought for future TV deals. Browsing around different websites it appears the general opinion is that the next TV deal maybe halved - We repeat maybe, and this view is offset by the demand for live TV sport globally.
What has this got to do with International Footy - Well I thought perhaps with the current Rivers of Gold TV Deal AFL House may increase funding considerably.
Then again it maybe CH7 preparing the financial world (Incl the AFL) for future profit downgrades etc etc, with tough times ahead.

Anybody else care to make some comments.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/medi...-media-reports-745m-loss-20170815-gxx2uo.html
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom