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

Why Australia won’t host a men’s World Cup soon

Avatar
Image credit: IOIO IMAGES / Shutterstock.com

In December of last year, Saudi Arabia was officially announced as the host nation for the 2034 FIFA World Cup.

This makes them the fourth country from the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) to host the tournament—following Japan and South Korea in 2002, and more recently, Qatar in 2022.

What stood out about Saudi Arabia’s selection, though, was the lack of competition—they ended up being the only country to submit a formal bid.

Australia, a fellow AFC member nation had initially expressed interest in hosting the 2034 World Cup, but with Saudi Arabia heavily investing in their bid and momentum clearly shifting in their favor, Australia chose to step back.

Instead, they redirected their focus toward hosting the 2026 AFC Women’s Asian Cup—an event they were awarded in 2024—and the 2029 Club World Cup.

This isn’t the first time Australia has tried to bring the World Cup Down Under. Back in 2010, they launched a bid to host the 2022 tournament.

However, it ended in disappointment—they received just one vote in the first round, while Qatar controversially secured hosting rights under what many described as “suspicious circumstances.”

Now, 15 years after that failed bid, and with Saudi Arabia next in line to host, it seems increasingly unlikely that Australia will get a World Cup anytime soon. And there are several reasons why that might be the case.

Cost Factor

One of the major reasons Australia may not host a men’s FIFA World Cup in the near future is due to the enormous cost involved in staging the tournament.

According to Statista, Qatar spent a staggering $220 billion USD ($342 billion AUD) to host the 2022 World Cup, making it the most expensive edition in the tournament’s history.

This was largely due to Qatar needing to build much of the necessary infrastructure from scratch.

Even so, previous World Cups have still come with hefty price tags.

Russia spent around $11.6 billion USD ($18 billion AUD) to host the 2018 tournament, while Brazil’s 2014 World Cup cost about $15 billion USD ($23 billion AUD).

In fact, the last men’s World Cup to cost under $1 billion USD ($1.56 billion AUD) was the 1994 tournament held in the United States.

In contrast, the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup—co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand—had a far more modest price tag.

According to FIFA’s bid evaluation report, the tournament was expected to cost around $150 million AUD, with just over $100 million AUD contributed by governments.

Not only does the Women’s World Cup cost significantly less to host, but many of the stadiums and infrastructure acceptable for the women’s tournament would fall short of FIFA’s stricter requirements for the men’s event.

To meet those higher standards, Australia would need to make substantial upgrades, adding further to the cost.

Beyond the economic risks, there’s also a broader question of national priorities.

Australia may ultimately decide that the billions required to secure and host a men’s World Cup could be better invested elsewhere—into areas that deliver more lasting and equitable benefits for the population.

For example, upgrading the nation’s public health system, affordable housing initiatives, education infrastructure, and climate resilience projects are all pressing needs that demand long-term funding and attention.

Investments in regional transport networks, Indigenous community support, and renewable energy development could arguably provide a stronger return on investment in terms of social and economic outcomes.

Given these competing priorities and the immense cost of hosting, Australia may find that the pursuit of a men’s FIFA World Cup is a luxury it simply can’t justify—at least not in the foreseeable future.

Rival Interest

Rival nations within the AFC (Asian Football Confederation) would play a major role in limiting Australia’s chances of hosting a Men’s FIFA World Cup.

The FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world, and the competition to host it is incredibly fierce.

Countries go to great lengths to secure hosting rights, especially within the AFC, where Arab nations in particular have been extremely proactive.

One major factor is the concept of sportswashing—the practice of using sports to improve a country’s global image, often as a way to divert attention from human rights issues or political controversies.

This has become especially common in the Middle East over the past decade.

Between early 2021 and mid-2023, Saudi Arabia alone reportedly spent $6.3 billion on sportswashing efforts, including around 300 sponsorship deals.

Their investments span across numerous sports: boxing, motorsport, snooker, golf, ATP tennis, cricket, and even the America’s Cup sailing regatta.

However, football has been their biggest focus.

In recent years, Saudi Arabia’s top-tier football league—the Saudi Pro League (SPL)—has emerged as Asia’s most high-profile domestic competition.

This rise in prominence has largely been driven by the league signing world-famous players to extremely lucrative contracts.

The most notable example is Cristiano Ronaldo, arguably the most recognisable athlete on the planet, who joined Al Nassr on a deal reported to be worth around $207 million USD (approximately $322 million AUD) per season.

But Saudi influence in football isn’t limited to their domestic league. They’ve also hosted major international club competitions.

For instance, five of the last six editions of the Supercopa de España—a tournament featuring the top Spanish clubs—have been held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s capital.

Now it’s not just the World Cup, looking at the AFC Asian Cup, the premier men’s international football tournament in Asia, three of the last four editions were hosted by Arab nations.

Qatar alone hosted it twice during that period and Saudi Arabia is also set to host the 2027 edition.

So, Australia faces stiff competition within the AFC for the rights to host a World Cup—particularly from wealthy and politically influential Arab nations that have a proven track record of securing major football events.

The previous FIFA World Cup was held in Qatar, and the next AFC host is Saudi Arabia and based on the current pattern, it wouldn’t be surprising if another Arab nation—such as the UAE—secured the next opportunity after that.

Location

One major factor that could affect Australia’s chances of hosting a men’s FIFA World Cup is its geographical location.

Because Australia is so far from Europe and the Americas—where most of the global football audience is—many matches would air at inconvenient times in those regions, potentially lowering TV viewership.

This issue was already evident during the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup, which was co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand.

According to FIFA, the final between Spain and England reached 222.02 million viewers.

That’s a noticeable drop compared to the 2019 final in France, where the USA faced the Netherlands and drew 263.62 million viewers.

A decline like this in viewership could make FIFA and its broadcasting partners think twice about holding a men’s World Cup in Australia.

Speaking of broadcasting, broadcast rights are another concern with time zone differences potentially reducing the value of international broadcast deals, since matches wouldn’t air during prime hours in key markets.

In fact, ahead of the 2023 Women’s World Cup, FIFA reportedly missed its target for selling broadcast rights by about $100 million USD ( $155 million AUD), according to the Wall Street Journal.

FIFA had hoped to bring in $300 million USD ($466 million AUD), but only managed around $200 million USD ($310 million AUD).

It even reached a point where FIFA president Gianni Infantino warned of a possible TV blackout across Europe unless broadcasters increased their offers.

All of this shows how Australia’s remote location could seriously impact global viewership and broadcasting revenue, making it a tougher sell as a host for a future men’s World Cup.

Conclusion

So, in light of these financial, geopolitical, and logistical challenges, it’s clear that the odds of Australia hosting a FIFA World Cup remain firmly stacked against them—making another failed bid not just possible, but increasingly probable.

Given the significant financial demands, complex geopolitical dynamics, and substantial logistical hurdles involved, it becomes increasingly evident that Australia faces an uphill battle in its pursuit of hosting a FIFA World Cup.

These compounding challenges not only diminish the likelihood of a successful bid in the near future, but also raise the probability that any renewed attempt could end in yet another disappointment.

Next CEO of Football Australia steps into the hot seat

Avatar
Whoever the new Football Australia CEO is. They will face tough challenges.
Image Credit: Pxhere

Last Thursday James Johnson announced his resignation as CEO of Football Australia (FA) after five and a half years at the helm.

James Johnson over his tenure has presented over much activity in Australian football.

He’s overseen Australia’s co-hosting the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup with New Zealand.

This event produced a record influx of girls and women to all levels of the game and highlighted that the current footballing system didn’t have the capabilities to sustain this increase.

He was partied to the A-Leagues break from the FA into the Australian Professional Leagues (APL) in 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis.

Only recently he was instrumental in the FA’s creation of the National Second Division (NSD) to develop the footballing pyramid.

Many of these initiatives had and continue to have a significant impact.

Yet the complexity and work for these undertakings continue.

Though who is going to be the successor?

Heather Garriock, ex Matilda, has been confirmed as Interim CEO.

She has had experience in this type of role serving as CEO of Australian Taekwondo and as a director on the FA Board since 2021.

Garriock currently serves on the Asian Football Confederation’s Technical Committee and is an exciting fit.

Other than Garriock’s appointment, very little has been spoken on the position.

State Federation CEOs such as Football NSW’s John Tsatsimas and Football Queensland’s Robert Cavallucci are well regarded in the industry.

Would taking them away from their state positions a wise plan or are they even keen to take this huge role anyway?

Maybe from outside the footballing space a CEO of business experience could be valuable.

That being said, caution of people with little ‘football knowledge’ should not be taken lightly.

Football fans know all too well the divisiveness of CEO’s who don’t understand the complexities of the game can be.

What challenges are ahead?

For whoever claims the top spot, they and the FA already face some important hurdles.

First and foremost, they will have to preside over the upcoming start of the NSD in October this year.

A huge occasion in the story of Australian Football and a competition that many clubs, fans and communities are banking on to be a success.

If successful, not only will it bring back into the limelight storied clubs, who’s history have woven the rich tapestry of Australian football, but it’ll open the pathway to a new and improved Australian footballing pyramid, giving clubs the following and support they need to grow and develop.

Things such as funding opportunities, more mainstream media audiences and the chance to stamp their mark into the footballing nucleus.

Though with great expectation comes more chance for disappointment.

The current system for the NSD can be argued to be sufficient, but like all great shifts in football it needs to grow, to expand and importantly to deliver on its goal of a more streamline pyramid.

This push will face funding and support challenges and the NSD, the clubs and the FA will struggle if this new chapter is stagnant.

Which brings us to the next challenge.

The A-League and APL

The A-league is producing an amazing new generation of players for Australia, with increased viewership, fan presence and transfer revenue from home grown talent its producing a record season.

However, under the surface the A-League has struggled since its break from the FA into the APL.

The funding and its recent overhaul paint a bleak picture for the clubs.

On top of this the prospect of future relegation would worry any figures of the clubs, from investors to the club’s lifeblood’s, the academies and fanbases.

Whoever takes up the new role must walk the uncomfortable tight rope of supporting the extensive and growing football scene while not ignoring our highest professional level.

The Women’s Game

The 2026 Women’s Asian Cup is just around the corner, providing an exciting opportunity to further elevate Australia’s women’s football journey and continue its impressive momentum.

On-field and tournament success are only the tip of the iceberg as the continuation of the game’s development is critical.

The positives of this progression far out way the negatives but the FA and its incoming CEO must make smart and well-constructed plans to keep the progress going.

Funding

James Johnson and the FA recently hatched together a plan for $3 Billion worth of Funding from the Government.

Funding through Government sporting grants is the backbone of football, especially the grassroots system, the highest participated sport community in Australia.

Before leaving James Johnson, the FA and the extensive member federations presented their Securing Footballing Future initiative before the 2025 Federal Election decided our new government.

This document 23 major points, spanning all levels of the game outlines where and how this funding should be allocated over 10 years.

Securing Footballing Future is bold and focuses on key aspects that have been present issues for football.

The new CEO should make sure that this initiative is a crucial deal to ratify with the government to stabilise funding for years to come.

The federal governments $200 million “Play Our Way” grants program in 2023 was created in the euphoria of the Women’s World Cup.

Though not centrally football focused and far smaller amount of funding, it’s proof that government funding can be acquired and allocated.

As the Sydney Morning Herald reported this week, the FA will record $8.3 million loss at the next general meeting on May 23, funding will become a fundamental issue.

Now more than ever the FA is calling for Garriock and its next potential CEO to be ambitious, show strong leadership and be open to taking calculated risks.

It’s a monumental task ahead, but for the passionate and invested football fans around Australia, they know that optimism for the future while simultaneously being grounded in the present is part of the beautiful game.

As the saying goes, ‘one game at a time’.

Whoever is appointed as Football Australia CEO, whether Garriock or another candidate, should seize the opportunity and lead with purpose.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend