Nottingham Forest invokes European Cup history with Adidas deal

Nottingham Forest & Adidas

English Premier League side Nottingham Forest has announced a new multi-year kit deal with historic partner Adidas for the 2023/24 season.

The deal will cover all of Forest’s teams including its academy and women’s sides. It also has allowed for the upgrade of Forest’s official megastore which reopened under Adidas in July, just in time for the new EPL season.

Adidas is a German athletic appeal and footwear manufacturer that is the largest in Europe and second largest in the world. By partnering with such a large group, Forest is placing themselves as peers alongside the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid who are both also sponsored by the German manufacturer.

Not only is this deal great financially for the club, but it also has a great emotional resonance for the Tricky Trees who were sponsored by Adidas back in the 1970s when the club won back-to-back European Cups.

Speaking to this longstanding connection and the club’s excitement in having Adidas join them on their new Premier League chapter Nottingham Forest Chairman, Nicholas Randall KC, said via press release:

“We are delighted to announce Adidas as our new official kit partner,” he stated.

“Adidas is a highly respected global brand with a special relationship with Nottingham Forest arising from the iconic shirts forever associated with our European Cup successes.

“We now look forward to working together again with the aim of writing a new story of achievement for the current generation of our supporters.”

Mirroring these sentiments on the two partners shared history Adidas’s VP Brand in North Europe, Chris Walsh added via press release:

“Nottingham Forest has an incredibly rich history in football, and it is an exciting prospect for Adidas to partner with the club for the foreseeable future,” he said.

“Adidas worked with the club during some of its most successful times, including the club’s two European Cup wins in 1979 and 1980.

“We now look forward to further success with the club and its passionate fans in the coming years.”

Overall, this a fantastic opportunity for the historic club. Not only does it provide a great kit sponsor with huge access to the latest technology and industry insights, but also helps to build up this proud club for ongoing success.

Prior to last season, Nottingham Forest had spent nearly 30 years away from the top flight of English football so it is great not only for fans of the club but also lovers of English football alike to have them back in the top league. A sponsorship such as this proves the club’s seriousness in maintaining its place among some of the biggest clubs in world football.

Previous ArticleNext Article

The Participation Boom Councils Didn’t Plan For Is Hitting Football Hard

Football in Australia isn’t being held back by passion, participation, or community support. It’s being held back by local government failure. From a CEO perspective, the warning signs are no longer subtle — they’re screaming. Confidence towards councils is collapsing, clubs are done believing the rhetoric, and the people carrying the game every weekend are telling us the same thing: councils don’t understand football, don’t consult properly, and don’t plan for growth. This isn’t opinion anymore. It’s measurable. And it should embarrass every policymaker in the country.

Football in Australia isn’t struggling because of a lack of passion. It isn’t struggling because communities don’t care. And it certainly isn’t struggling because participation is declining.

Football is struggling because, at the local government level, confidence is collapsing. What is more, the people closest to the game can feel it.

Soccerscene’s latest survey on council readiness and football planning shows something deeply confronting: trust in councils is at its lowest point, and clubs no longer believe the rhetoric. Councils frequently speak about “supporting the world game” and “investing in community sport,” but the data tells a different story.

The people building the game every weekend, people such as presidents, coaches, volunteers and administrators, are telling us councils do not understand football demand, do not consult effectively, and do not plan for long-term growth. And that’s not an emotional opinion. It’s now measurable.

In our survey, over 61% of respondents said their council has limited or no understanding of football participation demand. Consultation outcomes were even worse: 74% said council consultation is inconsistent or ineffective. And when asked if facilities are being planned with long-term growth in mind, the answer should stop every policymaker in their tracks: more than 71% said planning is short-term or non-existent.

Results graphic from Soccerscene’s January industry survey:

This is not a small problem. This is a national warning sign.

Football is not a niche sport. It’s the world’s sport

Councils across Australia are making decisions as if football is still an emerging code, competing for scraps. That thinking is decades out of date.

Football is not only Australia’s largest participation sport in many communities – it is also part of the global economy of sport, the largest sport market on earth, and a cultural engine that connects Australia to Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

When councils underinvest in football infrastructure, they’re not just failing local clubs. They’re failing an entire economic pipeline: participation growth, player development, coaching pathways, community engagement, multicultural integration, women’s sport, health outcomes, events, tourism, and commercial opportunity.

And yet, football is still treated as the code that should “make do”.

The Glenferrie Oval case: a perfect example of the imbalance.

Take the redevelopment of Glenferrie Oval and the historic Michael Tuck Stand in Hawthorn.

This is a major project with a total estimated investment of approximately $30 million, with the City of Boroondara allocating $29.47 million over four years to transform the site into a premier hub for women’s and junior AFL.

Let’s be clear: there is nothing wrong with investing in women’s sport. In fact, it’s essential.

But this investment is also a symbol of something football people have been saying quietly for years: councils understand AFL. Councils prioritise AFL. Councils know how to justify AFL.

They don’t do the same for football, despite its participation scale, multicultural reach, and global relevance.

Across the country, football clubs are being told there is “no funding,” that “planning takes time,” or that facilities “can’t be upgraded yet.” Meanwhile, we see multi-million-dollar grandstands, boutique ovals, and legacy infrastructure funded and delivered for other codes.

Football isn’t asking for special treatment.

Football is asking for fair treatment based on reality.

Councils are stuck in a domestic mindset – while football is global.

Here is the core issue: local councils are making decisions through a domestic sporting lens, while football operates in a global one.

Football isn’t just a Saturday sport. It’s a worldwide industry with elite pathways, commercial frameworks, international investment, and an ecosystem that Australia must compete within.

If councils don’t understand this, they will keep making decisions that shrink our competitiveness.

And this is where the stakes become real.

Australia is not only competing against itself. We are competing against countries like Japan and South Korea, who treat football as a national asset. They don’t leave football infrastructure to fragmented local decision-making without a clear national framework. They invest strategically, align education with delivery, and build systems that create long-term advantage.

We cannot keep pretending we are in the same conversation globally while our local facilities remain stuck in the past.

Clubs are carrying the burden – and it’s breaking the system.

The survey results point to a harsh reality: football clubs feel like they are carrying the weight of growth alone.

When asked what the biggest council-related challenge is, nearly 49% said funding is not prioritised, while others pointed to poor facility design, limited engagement, and slow planning processes.

This isn’t just an inconvenience.

It is creating volunteer burnout, club debt, stagnation in women’s participation, and barriers to junior growth. It is forcing clubs into survival mode – patching up grounds, sharing overcrowded facilities, and trying to grow in spaces that were never designed for modern football demand.

And when planning is short-term, the problem compounds. Councils aren’t just falling behind- they’re building the wrong solutions.

So what do we do? We stop reacting and start leading.

Football cannot keep waiting for councils to “get it” organically. That approach has failed.

What we need now is a national strategic response that is structured, intelligent, and relentless.

This is where football must learn from high-performing football nations  not just on the pitch, but in governance, philosophy, and decision-making.

A powerful example is Korea’s “Made in Korea” project, which was built to identify structural gaps, align stakeholders, and create a unified development philosophy. It wasn’t just a technical framework, it was a national alignment strategy.

Australia needs the off-field equivalent.

A National Football Facilities & Readiness Taskforce.

I believe the time has come to establish a National Football Facilities & Readiness Taskforce, made up of the most capable minds across the game and beyond it.

Not another committee. Not another meeting group.

A taskforce.

It should include leaders from football, infrastructure, urban planning, commercial strategy, government relations, and corporate Australia. We should be selecting the most intelligent and effective people in the country, not based on titles, but based on outcomes.

This taskforce should have one clear mission:

Educate, influence, and reshape how councils plan, consult, and invest in football infrastructure.

Alongside a taskforce, we need long-term strategic working groups embedded across the states, designed to:

educate councils on football participation demand and growth forecasting

standardise best-practice facility design and future-proofing

create consistent consultation frameworks

align football investment with economic, health and multicultural outcomes

build a national narrative that football is an asset rather than a cost

Because right now, the survey shows councils aren’t prioritising football for economic reasons. In fact, only 2.56% of respondents said councils should prioritise football due to economic benefits. This is not because it isn’t true, but because councils haven’t been educated to see football that way.

That is a failure of strategy, not a failure of the game.

This is bigger than facilities – it’s about Australia’s place in the world game.

If we want to be taken seriously as a football nation, we must build a country that treats football seriously.

Not just at elite level.

At local level – where the entire pyramid begins.

The message from the survey is blunt: football’s confidence in councils is collapsing. But within that truth is also an opportunity.

Because when trust hits its lowest point, change becomes possible.

The next step is ours.

We either continue accepting a system that doesn’t understand the world game – or we build one that does.

No More: FV introduces ‘draconian’ Three-strike Rule with Mass Points Deductions

Football Victoria (FV) has ratified an uncompromising new “Three Strike Policy” for the 2026 season.

The regulatory overhaul targets the systemic abuse of match officials, shifting liability directly onto club administrations for the behaviour of all associates, including spectators.

The policy responds to critical workforce retention data. In 2022, over 50% of first-year referees exited the system, creating a sustainable coverage crisis. With 2025 data revealing a persistent trend of “egregious incidents” (including threatening language and physical violence), FV aims to arrest the decline by enforcing strict club accountability.

The Framework

The policy targets specific offences, including inappropriate physical contact, intimidation, spitting, and violence committed by any Club Associate. Crucially, this definition encompasses coaches, players, parents, and general spectators. Strikes apply cumulatively over a rolling 12-month period.

Strike 1: A suspended 3-point deduction is issued to all club teams. This places the entire membership on notice immediately.

Strike 2: If a second offence occurs within 12 months, the 3-point deduction is triggered immediately for the offending team. A mandatory $2,000 fine applies. Operationally, FV may also mandate closed-door matches or venue reversals, stripping clubs of home-ground advantage and vital matchday revenue.

Strike 3: A third offence triggers the 3-point deduction for every team in the club that has not yet been penalised. A mandatory $5,000 fine is levied. Furthermore, Club Executives are summoned to a mandatory meeting with FV leadership to explain the pattern of behaviour. FV reserves the right to remove teams from competition or revoke club affiliation entirely.

Implementation

Significantly, there is no right of appeal against a strike. This removes the traditional tribunal pathway for these specific offences, streamlining the punishment process. If a club accumulates a fourth strike, fines escalate to $10,000.

This zero-tolerance approach ensures clubs can no longer view behavioural fines as a mere operational cost. By tying spectator and associate behaviour directly to the league table, FV has effectively monetised the culture of abuse, forcing committees to police their sidelines or face relegation.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks