Fixing Australia’s youth development starts with revamping the Y-League

A lack of consistent talent-production has cast the spotlight over Australia’s youth pathways in recent years, a topic that has generated robust discussion in football circles.

With many in the industry calling for change, it was a welcome sight when in July, Football Federation Australia (FFA) released its ‘XI Principles’ discussion paper. The document was generally well-received and among the key issues James Johnson and his team addressed was the requirement for a systematic revamp of Australia’s youth system.

According to principle five, FFA will seek to ‘Create a world class environment for youth development / production by increasing match minutes for youth players and streamlining the player pathway.’

Reinvigorating Australia’s youth football pathways will require a long-term, systematic approach to be successful but one thing is certain – young players simply need more competitive minutes.

And that starts by revamping the Y-League. As it stands, 10 clubs make up Australia’s national developmental and under-23 reserve league, forming two conferences.

In principle, the league fits a purpose, but in practice the system is not providing anywhere near enough high-level football for youngsters, certainly not since structural changes were made that hamstring the progress of Australia’s youth prospects..

Gary van Egmond was appointed Young Socceroos manager after the team failed to qualify for three consecutive Under-20 World Cups.

The 2015-16 season saw a new format introduced whereby the Y-League’s regular season was reduced from 18 games per team to a meagre eight (with potential for nine including a grand final).

Part of this reduction in games was due to budget cuts, another part due to FFA’s desire for players to use the NPL system as a developmental tool. On paper this seemed reasonable, but it has proved counterproductive, as talented youngsters are often torn between multiple commitments, causing a severe lack of continuity.

Although A-League clubs can enter their academy teams into their respective state’s NPL competition, elite players are playing a mixture of Y-League, NPL and the A-League games, the latter usually in a substitute or benchwarmer capacity.

This lack of consistency is creating a massive void in player development during what are some of their most critical years.

Earlier this year, Professional Footballers Australia (PFA) published an extensive report reviewing the national youth competition through historical analysis and player surveys. In an interview with pfa.com.au regarding the report, Guinean born Australian youth-level star John Roberts had the following to say.

“The Y-League is only eight games, and sometimes you don’t play eight, maybe it’s just four or five because you’re trialling with the first team or you’re the 17th or 18th man and you don’t get to play. In my opinion, for young players I think the youth league needs to go to a full season because I just think it will benefit us young players, it will give us more opportunity when we’re not playing.”

“But after the youth league finishes, you have to wait a while and then play NPL1 or NPL2 or just wait for your opportunity in the A-League.”

“You have to play regularly in higher competitions. If you’re playing NPL1 or NPL2 and you get called up into the A-League, the intensity of the game is too different because you’re not used to that and you don’t play in a high enough competition.”

The full interview with Roberts can be found here.

Striker John Roberts spoke about the limitations of the Y-League.

Among the notable results published in the report were that 90% of players believe the Y-League season should be extended and that only 20% of players who have graduated from the Y-League over the past five years went on to make an A-League appearance.

The findings led PFA Chief Executive John Didulica to state “In its current format the Y-League does not meet the needs of the players, A-League clubs or Australian football.”

The lack of youth production has predictably influenced the national setup, with Australia’s Under-20 team failing to qualify for the FIFA Under-20 World Cup for a record third consecutive time.

With the Y-League’s structural changes in 2016 clearly not having their intended impacts and FFA’s 2017 closure of the AIS, changes need to be made.

The solution may simply involve favouring the decentralized, academy-first approach which FFA has created but designing an environment which complements it. Something akin to the National Youth League of 1981-2004.

Extending the Y-League to run parallel to the A-League as a genuine reserve grade competition would allow players to fully commit to their academy side. This would mean ample minutes, plus a guarantee of continuity that does not currently exist for players who are forced to rebound between Y-League, NPL and occasionally A-League clubs.

While in theory this could harm NPL teams if their talented youngsters are poached by academies, it could create a perfect opportunity for FFA to implement new rules and regulations surrounding player transfers and compensation that would form part of an improved transfer system.

This is something the federation has stated it wishes to achieve through principle number three, in which FFA states in intention ‘To establish an integrated and thriving football ecosystem driven by a modern domestic transfer system’.

Designing a formal compensation system to parallel a legitimate under-23’s full season competition would kill two birds with one stone, rewarding grassroots clubs for producing talent while giving young players the consistent exposure to competitive football

There are undoubtedly factors, mainly commercial, which would dictate the validity of these ideas, but the game’s top administrators do need to act, or Australia will face the risk of losing its next generation and fading from international football relevance.

Previous ArticleNext Article

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

Avatar
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.

Football’s Growth Is Outpacing Council Planning and Clubs Are Paying the Price

Avatar
One Nil

Football is growing fast in Australia, but the infrastructure and planning behind it are not. In a Soccerscene-exclusive survey conducted between 19 and 30 January 2026, distributed through our 31,000-strong industry database, grassroots and semi-professional leaders raised consistent concerns that council consultation, long-term facility planning, and funding priorities are failing to match rising participation demand.

The risk is bigger than overcrowded pitches and volunteer burnout. If the foundations of the game cannot keep pace, Australia’s ability to develop talent, retain players, and remain competitive, particularly against structured football nations like Japan and South Korea, becomes harder to sustain.

Football participation in Australia continues to grow at a rapid pace. Local councils frequently emphasise their support for the game and its contribution to community life.

However, feedback from those responsible for administering football at club level suggests this support is not consistently reflected in long-term planning, effective consultation, or infrastructure funding that matches rising demand.

A growing game facing structural pressure

The disconnection can be seen in recent survey findings gathered from across Australia’s football ecosystem, including administrators, coaches, club executives and volunteers working predominantly at grassroots and semi-professionals levels. The results point to a consistent pattern of concern around how local councils are engaging with the game.

When asked how well their local council understands football participation demand, almost two-thirds of respondents (64 per cent) said councils had either a limited understanding or no understanding at all. Only one respondent indicated that their council understood participation demand “very well”.

Concerns extend beyond awareness to process. Three-quarters of respondents (75 per cent) described council consultation with football clubs as either inconsistent or ineffective. This suggests that while engagement may occur, it is often fragmented, reactive or lacking meaningful follow-through.

 

Long-term planning failing to match participation growth

The implications of this are most evident in infrastructure planning. Half of respondents said football facilities are not being planned with long-term growth in mind, with a further 19 per cent indicating planning is short-term only. In other words, nearly seven in ten respondents believe current approaches fail to adequately account for future participation pressures.

Funding priorities continue to challenge football’s expansion

Funding priorities also emerged as a critical issue. Almost half or respondents (47 per cent) identified the lack of prioritised funding as the single biggest council-related challenge facing football, ahead of poor facility design, limited engagement and slow planning processes.

 

Importantly, these concerns were raised by people deeply embedded in the game. The majority of respondents represented grassroots or semi-professional clubs, many holding governance, leadership or operational roles. Underscoring that these findings reflect lived, on-the-ground experience rather than isolated dissatisfaction.

Taken together, the data suggests the issue is not one of individual councils falling short, but of a broader mismatch between football’s rapid participation growth and the frameworks councils use to plan, consult and invest.

The reality on the ground for clubs and communities

The consequences of this misalignment are already being felt on the ground. Findings in a 2024 audit undertaken by Football Victoria affirm that across many municipalities, football facilities are operating at or beyond capacity, with pitches heavily overused across multiple days and codes, increasing wear, limiting recovery time and compromising playing surfaces.

For clubs, this pressure is most visible in how access is allocated. Women’s teams are increasingly competing for already limited training and match slots, often scheduled later in the evening or displaced altogether, despite participation growth being strongest in the women’s game. Junior teams, meanwhile, are frequently compressed into unsuitable or undersized facilities, with multiple age groups sharing spaces not designed for that level of demand.

In the absence of sufficient council-led planning, clubs are left to absorb the consequences. Volunteer administrators are tasked with managing participation growth councils did not anticipate, juggling scheduling conflicts, maintaining deteriorating facilities, and responding to rising expectations from players and families.

Over time, these pressures risk undermining the very outcomes councils say they value. Participation pathways become constrained, equity of access is compromised, and clubs are forced into reactive decision-making simply to keep programs running. What emerges is not a failure of clubs to manage growth, but a system in which demand has outpaced the infrastructure frameworks designed to support it.

How councils interpret and respond to these challenges ultimately shapes how football infrastructure evolves at a local level.

How councils view the challenge

Longstanding Councillor of Merri-Bek, Oscar Yildiz, acknowledges that funding football infrastructure remains one of the most complex challenges facing local government, largely due to competing demands across multiple sporting codes.

“We get requests from AFL, cricket, bowling and a whole range of other sports,” Yildiz said. “With limited funding, councils are constantly trying to balance those competing priorities and direct investment where it will have the greatest impact.”

Yildiz also suggested that funding decisions are influenced not only by council budgets, but by broader political dynamics between local, state and federal governments.

“If all three levels of government aren’t working together, you’re going to have fractures,” he said. “And when that happens, clubs lose, players lose, and communities lose.”

Consultation, another major concern identified in the survey, is an area Yildiz believes councils must continually improve. While he noted that council officers often maintain strong working relationships with local clubs, he acknowledged that bureaucratic delays and staff turnover can weaken engagement and slow progress.

“The biggest issue with any level of government is time,” Yildiz said. “Clubs want issues resolved quickly, whether it’s facility access, maintenance or funding, but processes can be slow. During that time, clubs can lose members, resources and opportunities.”

In municipalities such as Moreland, where football plays a significant cultural and community role, Yildiz believes councils have an added responsibility to recognise the sport’s social value.

“Football engages thousands of people across culturally diverse communities,” he said. “It’s not just about sport – it’s about connection, wellbeing and participation.”

What happens if councils fail to keep pace?

Ultimately, Yildiz argues that the cost of failing to invest in football infrastructure extends far beyond financial considerations.

“It’s about the return on investment for families and communities,” he said. “If clubs aren’t supported to continue operating and growing, the long-term social and health impacts are something we all carry.”

While councils face genuine financial and political constraints, the survey findings highlight a growing expectation across the football industry that infrastructure planning, consultation processes and funding frameworks must evolve alongside participation growth.

The question is no longer whether football is growing. The question is whether council planning is prepared to grow with it.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend