National second division finds support within the A-League’s top brass

Avatar

As a national second division becomes inevitable, key stakeholders within the A-League agree it is crucial to the development of Australian football, forging a path for promotion and relegation to become a reality.

In the past, public perception has been that A-League clubs were hesitant to allow for their positions within the competition to be challenged, however this is quickly changing as the plans for a second division continue to evolve.

A question hanging over the breakthrough is who will handle the administration of the league. Currently, the A-League is run by the Australian Professional Leagues (APL), which is controlled by current A-League clubs.

Danny Townsend, CEO of Sydney FC and the APL, explains that while there hasn’t been any dialogue towards the APL’s role in the running of a national second division, they would willingly support the competition in any way they can.

“We are responsible for professional football in Australia, and everything below that is essentially under the remit of Football Australia (FA), and the member federations in each state. If there is a view that we could contribute or play a role in supporting the second division, either under our banner or in partnership with someone, of course, we would always look to promote football,” he said.

“At the end of the day promoting and encouraging football to be as sustainable as it can be in Australia, and if we have a role to play there we would absolutely engage with that.”

Currently, the clubs that would potentially make up a second division are represented by the Association of Australian Football Clubs (AAFC), who would likely play a large role in the administration of a national second division. Currently the AAFC, the APL and FA are the three biggest players in shaping the structure of professional football in Australia going forward.

Tony Pignata, CEO of Perth Glory, expressed support for a second division featuring promotion and relegation.

“Football needs promotion and relegation. We see it overseas in the leagues, teams are promoted, and the bottom teams are beating the top teams just to survive. It does add a lot to the game, so I think a second division is warranted and needed,” he said.

He adds that the second division will launch when Football Australia can ensure the additional clubs can handle the financial burden of professional football.

“The timing will depend on the financial viability of the league, and that’s what FA are working on at the moment,” Pignata said.

With the support of the APL and A-League clubs, the largest hurdle that faces the second division is creating a structure that is financially viable for the inaugural teams, as they evolve from semi-professional to fully professional outfits. This journey has happened in reverse previously, as the former National Soccer League clubs joined their state leagues at the A-League’s inception.

One idea currently being floated at Football Australia is a structure similar to the current Champions League format –  32 teams divided into groups of four, followed by a knockout stage. The attraction of this format is to reduce costly away days for the clubs, limiting them to just three away games, unless they proceed to the knockout stages.

Whether this would be embraced by clubs within the second division – and the A-League teams who would eventually become a part of the competition through promotion and relegation – remains to be seen. The concept is seen as a stop-gap between bringing the second division into reality and creating a sustainable professional league.

With plans for the structure of a second division still in the works at Football Australia, it is important they deliver a structure that ensures the long-term financial viability of not just the second division clubs, but also those A-League teams that are relegated.

Pignata mentions that some of the hesitancy towards promotion and relegation from the current A-League clubs is due to the potential lack of representation for a state in the Australian top division.

“I’m talking as a football purist. The only issue that the A-League clubs are raising is if Perth Glory gets relegated, and a New South Wales team gets promoted, there is no team in Perth. If Adelaide gets relegated, then there is no team in Adelaide, and that is an issue,” he said.

“But saying that, we have to make sure we don’t get relegated, and that is what you need to fight for.”

Pignata believes that for football to reach its potential in Australia, the challenges of promotion and relegation need to be embraced by the professional clubs, despite potential issues that it would present for current clubs.

“I think in years to come, that is how it will be played, and we have no fear. We shouldn’t be a closed shop. If we want to make football here in Australia as in Europe, then we need to have promotion and relegation, and clubs need to make sure they don’t get relegated.”

Relegation could potentially mean a loss of income that could prove fatal to A-League clubs. One solution to this would be cash payments to relegated teams from the first division into the second, a concept that is currently employed in major leagues around the world such as the English Premier League. These ‘parachute payments’ would protect against the financial shock of relegation, ensuring clubs aren’t forced to fold.

There are several issues that Football Australia, the AAFC, and the APL will be required to resolve before a national second division becomes a reality. Unlike in the past, it is clear there is the will and desire for a national second division like never before.

Previous ArticleNext Article

The Young Socceroos exposed one of Australian football’s biggest problems

Avatar
Image Credit: AFC

Australian football has spent years trying to create a clearer structure for the game.

But one question keeps resurfacing: who is actually responsible when the interests of Australian football collide?

The Young Socceroos failing to qualify for the 2027 AFC U20 Asian Cup is the latest example.

Australia finished third in its qualification group after a 2-0 defeat to Indonesia, failing to qualify for a tournament it won in 2025.

The result itself was disappointing. But the circumstances around the squad selection were arguably more so.

Several A-League players were unavailable because their clubs did not release them for the qualification campaign. Melbourne City’s Lawrence Wong and Medin Memeti and Adelaide United’s Amlani Tatu were among those affected.

The reason is straightforward. The U20 qualification tournament fell outside a FIFA international window, meaning clubs were not obliged to release players. A previous agreement between Football Australia and A-League clubs had allowed national teams to select domestic players outside those windows, but that arrangement expired.

That leaves a much bigger question than whether three players should have been available.

Why was there not a structure in place that could resolve this conflict before it became a problem?

One game, multiple priorities

The answer is partly structural.

Football Australia is responsible for the national teams and the broader national framework. The APL operates and commercialises the A-Leagues. State federations oversee their own competitions and development structures, while clubs have their own commercial, sporting and player-development priorities. Meanwhile, the PFA represents the players.

Football Australia’s own governance outline acknowledges the unbundling of Football Australia and the APL was completed at the end of 2020, while noting the two organisations still need to collaborate across areas including pathways, community football and national teams.

On paper, that separation makes sense.

In practice, difficulties emerge when the model is tested and conflicts of interest emerge.

A club has an obligation to its competition and its squad. Football Australia has an obligation to its national teams. Players have career considerations, while the APL has commercial and scheduling interests. State bodies have their own competitions and pathways.

None of those interests in isolation are necessarily unreasonable.

The problem comes when they point in different directions.

The cost of fragmentation

This is not the first time the club-versus-country question has reared its head.

The same issue has affected Australia’s youth pathways before. In 2012, then-national technical director Han Berger acknowledged the particular difficulty Australia faces because many young players are overseas and youth international tournaments are often held outside FIFA windows, meaning clubs are not obligated to release their players.

And there is a broader irony here.

Australian football is producing young players good enough to attract serious international interest. A-League clubs are increasingly important development environments, with 15 A-League players included in Australia’s 2025 U20 World Cup squad.

Yet the system seems to struggle coordinating those same players when the national team needs them.

That is not necessarily a club problem.

It is a system problem.

Who gets the final say?

The answer cannot simply be that Football Australia should have more power.

Nor should clubs be expected to sacrifice their own interests whenever national teams come calling.

The real issue is whether Australian football has clearly defined the points at which the interests of the national team, professional clubs and players intersect and importantly, where they take priority.

If it has, those rules need to be understood and consistently applied.

If it hasn’t, this should be the catalyst to fix them.

Because the consequences extend beyond one U20 tournament.

Australia’s youth national teams are part of the country’s player-development pathway. International tournaments provide players with experience, exposure and opportunities to progress. The U20 Asian Cup also serves as a pathway towards the FIFA U20 World Cup.

Missing that pathway matters.

At the same time, A-League clubs are investing in academies, recruiting young players and trying to build sustainable professional businesses. They cannot simply operate as talent suppliers for national teams without considering their own competitive and commercial interests.

That tension is natural, and not going away.

Australian football needs alignment, not another power struggle

The answer may therefore be less about deciding who is in charge and more about establishing who is responsible for what.

Football Australia, the APL, clubs, state federations and the PFA do not need identical objectives.

But they do need a common framework for the moments when those objectives collide.

That could mean clearer player-release agreements, longer-term scheduling coordination and defined mechanisms for resolving disputes before squads are announced.

The alternative is a cycle of arguments.

Clubs blame national team scheduling. National teams point to player availability. Players find themselves caught between employers and country. Fans are left wondering why a supposedly connected football system cannot agree on something as fundamental as making Australia’s best young players available for an international tournament.

That is why the Young Socceroos’ failure to qualify should prompt a bigger conversation than whether three A-League players were released.

Australian football has spent years building separate professional, national and community structures.

The next challenge is making those structures work as one.

Because when nobody has the authority or responsibility to resolve the competing interests, everyone can have a legitimate position and Australian football can still lose.

Australia football needs to fix its football governance before it can fix its referees

Avatar
Image Credits: Football Australia

The clearest image yet of Australian football’s refereeing crisis arrived on Wednesday night as Sydney FC and Melbourne Victory met in an Australia Cup semi-final at Jubilee Stadium.

A first ever Big Blue in the competition – and towards it’s pointy end – should have been a showcase event for Australian football but instead, the referees were in the spotlight. Not because of the quality of their officiating, but because of the dire situation the game finds itself in and it’s present need to resort to international imports.

Four Singaporean referees were in charge of the fixture, which Victory won 2-0. Australian referees had refused appointments because of their ongoing dispute with Football Australia. The issue is no longer theoretical. Australian referees are not simply threatening industrial action – their absence has already changed how major matches are delivered. That is a governance failure on the part of Football Australia and the Australian Professional League.

What are the referees fighting for?

Around 90 elite Australian match officials are currently without contracts. That includes referees, assistant referees, fourth officials and video match officials working across the A-Leagues and Australia’s national competitions. The previous contracts expired last month. Some officials are also waiting for outstanding payments from A-League trial matches.

 The Professional Football Referees Association (PFRA) has set three main requirements:

  • It wants the existing contracts extended until June 30, 2027, or until a new agreement or independent refereeing structure is established. 
  • It wants all outstanding match fees and expenses paid.
  • It wants a professional refereeing structure that does not place elite officials directly under the APL, which is controlled by the clubs they officiate. A new central structure is what the referees are demanding and should get.

Evgeny Vizelman, chairman of the PFRA, believes that whilst the strike action is extreme, it is necessary to protect Australian referees.

“We do not take the decision to stop officiating matches lightly,” Vizelman told Sydney Morning Herald last week.

“Our referees are being asked to perform in one of the most scrutinised roles in Australian sport without basic certainty around their employment and, in some cases, without even being paid for work already completed. That is not acceptable.”

Football Australia and the APL have been working towards a new structure, but one in which the two organisations contract separately for Australia Cup and A-League matches. The referees believe that is the wrong model.

Their concern is simple: The APL is 67.7% owned by the A-League Club Unitholders. Essentially, the clubs are appointing their own referees. That creates a perceived conflict.

If the referees sit under Football Australia as a regulator, it ensures there is no conflict of interest and that A-League clubs have no opportunity to influence the referees they may be appointed to matches.

England shows another way

England has already built the structure Australia is struggling to create. Professional Game Referees, or Pro Ref, is the central body overseeing refereeing across the Premier League, EFL, WSL Football and FA competitions. It is funded by those aforementioned competitions.

The important distinction is those competitions do not each run their own separate professional refereeing workforce. Pro Ref manages the system. It oversees appointments, development, training and performance. For the 2026-27 season, its new Professional Referee Group will service the Premier League and EFL Championship.

Officials work within the same professional structure and can be selected across competitions. That centralisation brings consistency. It also allows referees to be treated as a professional group rather than a collection of officials contracted separately by different competitions.

Whilst it is centralised, the system is not perfect. England has also recognised the need for greater independence in assessing referee performances due to Pro Ref being owned and funded by leagues and, as a result, the clubs they represent. However, as the body is also owned in part by the English FA, the governing body can oversee practices.

Pro Ref has also implemented world-leading officiating practices. Its Key Match Incidents panel includes former players and coaches, alongside representatives from the Premier League and Pro Ref, and reviews major decisions independently each week.

Pro Ref now has dedicated development groups, specialist coaching, sports science, psychology and performance analysis. 37 Pro Ref officials are currently on the FIFA International List. That does not prove centralisation alone creates better referees. But it shows what happens when refereeing receives a professional structure, long-term investment and consistent management.

Australian football needs to collaborate

This is where the Australian dispute becomes bigger than referees. Football Australia and the APL have been unable to secure agreement over who funds the referees over a long period of time, leading to this standoff; it comes at the same time as the APL’s difficulty in negotiating a new CBA with the players’ union.

 Both organisations have a role in running their respective parts of the Australian game, but again an industrial dispute has the game appearing in shambles on the eve of another domestic season.

 The most frustrating part of this dispute is that everyone needs the same thing. Football Australia and the APL need referees; there is no doubt the refs deeply value their employment at the elite level. With due respect to Wednesday’s flow-in Singaporean officials – themselves from a valued partner member through our shared position in the AFC – nobody wants to see the circumstances under which they were required on Wednesday continue any longer.

The PFRA dispute should therefore be treated as more than an industrial disagreement. It is an opportunity to fix the structure. Australia should learn from the principle behind Pro Ref and the English system. Centralise, professionalise and protect the officials who manage the game.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend