Refined inclusivity principles for club identity released by FFA

Liam Watson

Today is a new step forward by Football Federation Australia who have announced the release of new Inclusivity Principles for Club Identity to replace the National Club Identity Policy.

The changes have been made to preserve club ethnicity and will promote multiculturalism.

Here are the key points from a recent media release by FFA:

FFA INCLUSIVITY PRINCIPLES FOR CLUB IDENTITY 

Creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for participants from all cultural and linguistic backgrounds. 

Football in Australia has a rich and diverse history which FFA wishes to acknowledge and celebrate. Many clubs were formed and have developed from particular local communities who have made significant contributions to the growth and reputation of the sport of football as a whole. These communities are reflective of the multicultural nature of Australia and the vast reach of the love for the “World Game”.

FFA celebrates diversity and multiculturalism in our game and wants to ensure that football in Australia is open, accessible and embracing of all participants from all cultural backgrounds. Every person should feel welcome, safe and included at their local football club.

The way a club identifies itself to the community (including through its name, logo, principles and actions) can have a significant impact on whether a person feels welcome and included at that club. It can also affect the broader reputation of the game.

Following consultation with independent industry experts, FFA recommends that clubs embrace broad identities that are not tied to a single specific culture. FFA understands the importance of clubs being able to respectfully recognise their heritage and the specific communities that were instrumental in establishing and developing such clubs. At the same time, clubs that celebrate diversity, promote inclusion and make people feel like they belong regardless of their cultural background are more likely to succeed.

FFA has developed the following Inclusivity Principles for Club Identity to provide guidance to clubs on how they can be more inclusive in the way they identify themselves as well as the practices and actions that clubs adopt in engaging with their members and the broader community.

Importantly, these Principles are only a part of the development of a broader FFA Inclusion and Diversity framework which will encompass other matters that are fundamental for our sport to create an open and inclusive environment, such as promoting gender diversity and accessibility for people with a disability (to name just two examples). The Inclusivity Principles for Club Identity also provide guidance on how clubs may wish to recognise their heritage in ways that are not inconsistent with these fundamental objectives.

Inclusivity Principles for Club Identity

(a) These Inclusivity Principles for Club Identity are not intended to be enforceable, strict regulations. Rather, they are guiding principles for clubs to refer to in seeking to be inclusive to people from all cultural backgrounds.

(b) Clubs are encouraged to consider various ways to recognise and celebrate their heritage while still respecting and welcoming people from all backgrounds. Clubs that identify themselves in an all-embracing and inclusive manner that is open to all participants may be perceived as more welcoming than clubs with branding that is targeted to one single culture.

(c) Club names that reflect the local geographical region they represent and do so in a way that is welcoming to people from all cultural backgrounds are encouraged.

(d) Clubs may be more attractive to a broader range of participants if their name is:

(i) in English rather than a foreign language; and

(ii) of broad appeal rather than solely associated with a particular cultural, political or religious group.

(e) Clubs are encouraged to celebrate multiculturalism and diversity and make it clear to the community that they welcome people from all cultural backgrounds. Club names that reference another country or region (outside their locality) may indicate to the community that only people from that country or region are welcome (or are more welcome) to participate at that club.

(f) Clubs are encouraged to use symbols and words in their logo or emblem that are of broad appeal to make it clear to the community that they welcome people from all cultural backgrounds.  Clubs that adopt a logo or emblem with a dominant reference which is associated with a particular culture, religion, or political group may cause people who do not associate with that background to feel less welcome.

(g) Milestone years for clubs present an opportunity for them to recognise their heritage and show the journey that the club has been on. This heritage could be acknowledged by displaying a temporary commemorative version of their old logo alongside their new current logo in marketing and promotional materials and on the club’s website.

(h) In seeking to acknowledge their heritage clubs should have regard to the FIFA Laws of the Game and relevant regulations in relation to playing kit which the club must adhere to, including any prohibition on political and religious slogans, statements and images.

(i) Clubs should be aware of their obligations under federal, state and territory discrimination laws (including but not limited to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)) and never give preference to one player over another on the basis of their cultural background or religious or political beliefs. The FFA Statutes (including the National Member Protection Policy and National Code of Conduct) also prohibit discrimination on these grounds.

(j) Clubs should encourage positive, welcoming and safe support at (and in connection with) Matches and take all reasonable steps to discourage rivalry with another club on the basis of any actual or perceived cultural, political or religious affiliations to that club, including in relation to their supporters.

Discrimination and other prohibited conduct

To be clear, FFA has a zero-tolerance policy in relation to discrimination, vilification, hatred and violence on all legally recognised grounds including race, nationality, ethnicity, religion and political views. FFA strongly encourages anyone who becomes aware of these behaviours, including by any club, to immediately report these incidents to their competition administrator. There are also applicable federal, state and territory discrimination laws that clubs must adhere to at all times.

Any incident of this nature may be dealt with by the appropriate body in accordance with applicable rules and regulations including any local or FFA rule or regulation, such as the National Code of Conduct. Clubs should note that, under the National Code of Conduct, they may be held liable for the actions of their supporters.

Accordingly, clubs have an important role to play in ensuring that football matches in particular are played in an open, safe and welcoming environment for all participants and spectators.

https://www.ffa.com.au/news/ffa-releases-inclusivity-principles-club-identity

Previous ArticleNext Article

Adelaide United renews StudyAdelaide partnership for Asian campaign

Avatar
Image Credit: AFC

Adelaide United has brought back a familiar commercial partner for its return to continental competition, with StudyAdelaide signing on as front-of-shirt sponsor for the club’s 2026/27 AFC Champions League Two campaign.

The partnership reconnects two South Australian organisations after StudyAdelaide previously featured on Adelaide United’s shirt during their 2010 AFC Champions League campaign.

Adelaide commenced their six-match group-stage campaign on Thursday at Hindmarsh, defeating Hong Kong’s Tai Po 3-0.

For StudyAdelaide, the value of the partnership extends beyond traditional football sponsorship. The organisation, a partnership between the South Australian Government and more than 50 education institutions, is using Adelaide United’s Asian competition to promote South Australia as an international study destination.

The club’s continental schedule provides exposure in several key Asian markets, with Adelaide travelling to face BG Pathum United in Thailand and Lion City Sailors in Singapore during the group stage.

StudyAdelaide chief executive Jane Johnston said the partnership would provide a great opportunity to connect with young people across Asia.

“Having StudyAdelaide featured throughout this international competition is a unique platform to connect with young people across Asia and highlight the many reasons South Australia is their best option to study, live and build a career,” Johnston said.

The deal illustrates how football’s international competitions can provide commercial value beyond traditional brand exposure, particularly for organisations looking to promote to a specific or new region.

The Reds’ ACL Two campaign continues against BG Pathum United in Thailand on October 15.

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.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend