Is the A-League’s return to winter another unnecessary tinkering of Australian football?

Just over 30 years ago, a decision was made to shift the top tier of Australian domestic football from winter to the summer months. Five days ago, a decision appears to have been made to switch it back.

Thus is the beautiful game down under.

Such an about turn is systematic of football in Australia, with the game rarely given any chance to settle, find its niche and become a consistent and predictable presence in the Australian sporting landscape.

For whatever reason, those who have arisen to power in the Australian game have historically held the belief that they knew what was best for it. As that power was passed from one to another, each recipient implemented the changes they felt would be advantageous for the game.

In reality, the consistent changes and alterations made to Australian football has weakened it. Egos and agendas have directed the game, many without the best interests of it at heart.

No doubt, FFA boss James Johnson has his own vision for the game and the business acumen, football knowledge and street cred required to do a stellar job in his new role. His preference to move to winter football to cope with the drastically altered schedule caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was not particularly well cloaked. Nor it appears, did he intend it to be.

Citing a need for the game to move forward under the one umbrella, Johnson clearly sees value in having NPL and junior competitions taking place concurrently with the A and W Leagues.

However, it might serve people well to recall the reasons why the game did first move into the summer months for the 1989/90 NSL season and the frustrations that brought that decision to pass.

As far back as the mid-1960’s there had been ideas centred around creating a national football competition in Australia. True to form, initial concerns were raised by the state federations.

It appears that the mere suggestion of a uniformed national competition raised their ire, with a concern emerging that status and influence within their own state borders may be lessened. Not much has changed I guess.

It took some time, 1977 in fact, for a consensus to be reached and the first incarnation of the National Soccer League to take shape, with 14 clubs selected to participate.

In essence, that should have been it. With a league in place, all that was required was to begin formulating a second division and a fair and just interstate play-off system to determine those clubs to be promoted in replace of those relegated at the completion of each season. From there, natural attrition would take place and clubs’ financial positions and decision making structures would determine who survived and who did not.

Instead, Australian football went down the path of constant tinkering and adjustment, things that have done little more than weaken the appeal of the competition to potential new fans and make it something of a farce to many in the broader sports loving Australian public.

An early experiment with northern and southern conferences was embarked upon; no doubt an attempt to cap costs for clubs struggling with the financial demands of travel and accommodation. That was to die a brisk death, as was the move to a ‘first past the post’ championship winning team, something the domestic game had not seen due to an assumed Australian preference for semi, preliminary and grand finals. It took just a season for those finals matches to be re-instated.

Hell bent on searching for a football elixir that frankly does not exist, the plan to enjoy some ‘clean air’ and move football to the summer months was hatched. The fundamental reasoning by the powers at be were threefold. The weather was warmer, pitches of a better quality and without rugby league and AFL competition, the hope was that football may find its niche.

It may have given time, yet the powers at be were not finished fiddling with and fossicking around the game.

The migrant heritages of NSL clubs was the next aspect to come under siege. Authorities encouraged fans to embrace the new agenda in order to become more attractive to mainstream Australian society. Many fans become incensed at the jettisoning of the history and culture that had helped form and strengthen their clubs in the first place.

Not long after, the emergence of teams named Collingwood Warriors and Carlton reeked of a cheap attempt to infiltrate the AFL market and as the clubs’ identities became less and less assured, the league slipped further and further into decline.

That lack of identity, fans and money had the competition on its knees by 2004 and effectively, dead.

When the A-League launched for the 2005/06 season, there was much fanfare. Played in summer and refreshed with newly branded clubs designed to appeal to a broader section of the Australian community than ever before, there were clear ups and downs.

Some franchises capitulated, yet a core group survived the first 15 years, despite the financial constraints of a salary cap and the challenges of running a professional sports team in Australia.

By 2019, after years of cries for it to happen, the league was set to expand. New teams in both Melbourne and Sydney would result in an eventual 12 team competition by 2021. An average of 10,000 people attended matches and around 126,000 had become official members of the clubs. FFA data also showed that the number of Australians showing allegiance to a team had never been higher.

Yet in 2020, it now appears the game is once again on the move. It could well be the right one, yet with another major shake-up destined to send Australia’s top league a few steps back before hopefully lurching forward in the future, one might ask when football might be left alone long enough to grow, without administrative force-feeding.

The longer it takes for the elite competition to truly find a foothold and flourish, the more attractive tinkering and tweaking appears to be. Sadly, each effort sends the game backwards for a short time and the process begins all over again.

Both the NSL and now the A-League have struggled to find a set of unique identifiers that helped define them clearly to Australian sports fans. Shifting goal posts gave them little chance to do so.

Having new fans attach themselves to a league becomes increasingly difficult when the subject of their interest is constantly moving.

Previous ArticleNext Article

NSW synthetic fields guideline: securing the future of sport

As demand for sporting fields continues to increase, NSW’s new guidelines for synthetic fields are a welcome manual to the decision-making behind the management and implementation of these fields. Though the question of how it tackles this critical issue persists.

Just this month, the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure released its Synthetic Turf Sports Fields in Public Open Space: Guideline for Decision-Makers.

A comprehensive study that outlines the application of creating more community-based synthetic fields in NSW, backed up by former NSW reports.

The Guideline is broken up into two chapters:

  • Section 2: Decision making for sports field surfaces – provides key information, considerations, and resources to help inform the decision-making process for selecting a sports field surface. This includes the pressures on public open space, the types of surfaces available to meet community needs, and the social, environmental, health, and economic considerations.
  • Section 3: Guide for synthetic turf sports fields – provides advice for projects considering and developing synthetic turf sports fields. It guides the reader on how to achieve best practice when planning, designing, delivering, and managing synthetic turf assets.

As stated in this guideline, it was produced due to the necessary need for synthetic fields to be created to keep up with a number of sporting demands.

Majorly, a growing increase in population of the state, with the population of NSW forecast to grow by 85,000 people each year, reaching 9.8 million by 2041 as outlined in the guideline.

There is also the need for reliable and safe sporting facilities for the community, making the demand and capacity of these fields necessary.

Just last year Football NSW and its associations were facing the tough reality of weather impacts as a winter of heavy rain made many of the natural grass fields unplayable.

With too few synthetic fields to use state wide, thousands of players over the state had shortened seasons and struggling management of the scheduling was met with a huge discourse of disappointment.

As is the nature of Australian sport, many codes must compete for very little space, especially when these spaces are council owned. The preparing of this is no easy task and central to this guideline.

This guideline is comprehensive and valuable for the creation of desperately needed synthetic fields.

The document combines the importance of balancing sustainability, functionality and community needs when considering synthetic turf for sports fields.

This can only be achieved through thoughtful stakeholder engagement in planning to creating multi-faceted spaces with a strong guideline of principles to make the decision of development.

This is a successful start and a very important document for the functional push for more synthetic fields and a huge step forward in providing the grounds for the production for more sporting facilities.

However, one problem is evident. The speed of production of synthetic fields, like any development, cannot fit the speed of demand.

This report importantly outlines the need of all fields is evident and also the ways in which these decisions should be made for synthetic or not. The case study of Allan Border oval in the paper is a perfect example.

Though another case study is an example in the Northern Beaches of Sydney displays the growing situation in another sense.

A local football summer competition called Small Sided Game (SSG) has voiced concerns about its reduced space allocation as the council decided for the coming playing season. Usually played on several grass fields, as it has been classified as a high-impact sport has been reserved to a singular synthetic field for the upcoming season.

The business has calculated that this would mean the loss of around 1000 participants from an average 3,500 participant strong season. A tough reality for the business as it loses such a large part of its revenue.

It is also a huge loss for the community as a thriving local business and summer sport will be considerably constrained and many people will be missing out on this vital activity.

Other environmental and health issues are associated with synthetic fields, such as the impact of injuries on the surface and the dangerous presence of carcinogenic microplastics.

Synthetic fields contribute to plastic migration and rising local temperatures, as heat islands effects potentially worsening soil and water pollution.

These issues have been presented in the guidelines and its relative supporting studies; therefore, they are factored into the overall guideline.

The problem remains, sports a vital part of our Australian culture and community needs to be able to grow physically with its demand.

Yet, is a synthetic revolution the only option?

Natural turf, available in many areas already, needs to be more effectively maintained and preserved, not just due to the logistical demands but for the community and environment demands, grass fields are crucial.

The NSW government needs to find a way to encourage the creation of synthetic fields but also more effectively maintain existing grass fields in a multi-pronged approach.

Football Australia’s $3 billion plan presented to the federal government has stated the need for funding in the growing demand. Synthetic fields and field upgrades is central to this request.

This document is the perfect start to push the necessary development process in the coming years, in conjunction with a multi-pronged approach with quick relief for existing fields and longer development for which synthetic fields is needed.

Otherwise, if situations like the one happening with SSG will continue to affect our communities, the participants who are the backbone of Australian sporting community are the ones who take the biggest hit.

The positive impact of leisure activities on physical, mental and communal health cannot be understated.

If maintaining access to sport — one of Australia’s most important cultural pillars — requires investment, then it must be made. Especially for football, the most played sport in both NSW and the nation.

There are little other endeavours that could trump its importance.

You can read the full report here.

Auckland FC champions $300 Million arena development at Western Springs

Auckland FC has thrown its weight behind a transformative $200-300 million proposal to redevelop Western Springs Stadium into a cutting-edge, multi-purpose venue that would serve as the club’s permanent home ground.

The Auckland Arena project, spearheaded by Auckland FC investor Ali Williams, aims to establish a 12,500-15,000-seat stadium alongside expanded facilities capable of hosting concerts for up to 25,000 patrons.

The ambitious development would incorporate event spaces and community sporting facilities, positioning itself as a comprehensive entertainment precinct.

Auckland Council and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, the current owners and operators of Western Springs Stadium, have commenced public consultation on the venue’s future, with Auckland Arena representing the preferred option for the A-League club.

Ali Williams, a former All Blacks lock and prominent backer of the proposal, emphasised the broader community benefits beyond football.

“This isn’t just about giving Auckland FC a home of our own, it’s about creating a community asset we as Aucklanders can all enjoy – whether we’re regularly going to games or not,” Williams said via Auckland FC official media post.

The proposal’s financing structure presents a significant drawcard for ratepayers, with the entire development to be privately funded.

 Under the arrangement, Auckland Council would grant a 50-year ground lease with two optional 25-year extensions, ensuring public ownership of the land whilst transferring all construction, operating and maintenance costs to private investors.

Tātaki Auckland Unlimited preliminary assessment suggests the arrangement could deliver ratepayer savings of approximately $18.1 million over the next five decades, as buildings would revert to council ownership at the lease’s conclusion.

Auckland FC has mobilised its supporter base to advocate for the proposal through Auckland Council’s submission process.

Fans can lodge their support online through the council’s consultation portal or submit written feedback via forms available at Mt Albert, Point Chevalier, Grey Lynn and Central City libraries.

The consultation period closes at 11.59pm on Sunday, 15 June 2025, with the club urging supporters to select “Option One – Auckland Arena” in their submissions.

The development represents a significant step forward for Auckland FC’s infrastructure ambitions and could establish a new benchmark for privately funded sporting venues in New Zealand’s largest city.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend