Scraping through: What the APL can improve ahead of the next Unite Round

Avatar
A-Leagues Unite Round 2024
Image credit: IOIO IMAGES / Shutterstock.com

The first iteration of Unite Round has not gone by without criticism, but the product itself may well have saved the Australian Professional Leagues (APL) from a complete disaster.

With high-scoring thrillers, player milestones, and little controversy, A League football delivered when it really needed to, and it should give the APL plenty of marketable content for future editions of the round.

In addition, match-going fans performed admirably to help create atmosphere within the grounds.

This includes valiant efforts from interstate fans, particularly Adelaide United and Brisbane Roar, and not least those from the Wellington Phoenix and Perth Glory.

These fans were treated to some rip-roaring football, but there simply was not enough of them, with data analysis reporting a total attendance rate to be 47,425 across 12 games; an average of 3,952 per match.

Attendances continue to be the major talking point for fans and critics of the A League, but a simple fixturing change to the round could make the difference next time.

Wellington Phoenix and Perth Glory fans had their women’s sides play at Leichhardt Oval on Friday night, before having to wait until Sunday night for their men’s match.

Given the distances fans from both sides have to travel, situating their games as bookends was far from accommodating and recorded a combined attendance of under 5,000 across the club’s three games.

The reverse of this occurred to Western Sydney Wanderers and Melbourne City, with the men’s match taking centre stage on Friday night, whilst the women’s encounter took place at 5:00PM on a Sunday.

While some Wanderers fans did turn out in the grandstand for their women’s team, the RBB was nowhere to be seen and contributed to the low crowd of 1,515.

Finally, there was a same-day clash for Adelaide United fans, who had to make an incredibly tight public transport connection between Leichhardt Oval and Allianz Stadium, or fork out money for a taxi/uber fare between grounds.

It led to many Reds’ fans either leaving their women’s team early, or arriving late to their men’s encounter.

A mirroring of the men’s and women’s league fixtures could have alleviated some of the pressures on attendances, and delivered a more economical and logistically sound solution for fans.

In addition, the APL would be allowing clubs to do its own Unite Round marketing for them, by encouraging their fans to attend both their men’s and women’s fixtures.

We could have seen popular active supports’ such as the RBB, The Cove, The Red Army and The North End, supporting their men’s and women’s teams throughout one night.

Instead, we had disjointed looking crowds at the men’s double-headers, with women’s double-headers left hung out to dry in Leichhardt.

Furthermore, the APL’s decision to pair its newest clubs Western United and Macarthur FC to play at 5PM on a Friday only accentuated doubts over its fan base growth.

The logic may have been to capture match-going fans of Wanderers and City, but it simply did not work, recording an attendance of just under 3,500, with many fans not arriving until the conclusion of what turned out to be a thrilling encounter.

Again, the APL could look at scheduling games between clubs with smaller fan bases, as well as clubs with the greatest amount of travel, Perth and Wellington, to take place at smaller venues that will enable a greater atmosphere.

Twelve games across three venues makes sense, but the scheduling did not. Thankfully, this should be an easier fix for the APL if Unite Round returns next season.

Most disappointing from the perspective of match-going fans, though, was a lack of entertainment at the grounds.

Whilst in-stadium DJ’s and compares did their best to engage the crowd in-between games, there was very little activities on offer with no food vans or sideshows present.

Regardless, with grassroots participation in football so strong the APL cannot let up in finding solutions to entice juniors and their families to A-League matches.

Player and fan interaction could be the place to start, evidenced by the frenzied post-game atmosphere involving Wanderers and Adelaide United fans, who stayed well after the final whistle to meet the players, take selfies and sign shirts.

Could the APL have created exclusive areas, similar to those at the Melbourne F1 Grand Prix, for fans to meet players across the weekend?

There is also the potential to replicate what AFL sides did during Gather Round by conducting open training sessions the day before their matches begin, so that fans can again interact with their clubs.

Even further afar, Major League Soccer continually provides examples of how to engage fans into football whilst battling several high-profile codes.

Offering free merchandise to fans outside the ground such as scarves, hats, banners or even t-shirts are a fixture of the MLS fan experience, whilst brand partners of clubs and the league itself immerse their names and products around stadiums.

To the latter point, sponsor involvement has been so successful that a 2022 survey revealed 73% of MLS fans would try the products of brands associated with their MLS club.

Connecting league and club sponsors, especially during a landmark event like Unite Round, should be pivotal to its success. Of course, the APL will need its representative clubs to pull their weight by getting their sponsors on board.

Finally, in relation to off-field entertainment, the APL cooled some doubts about the round clashing with the Socceroos Asian Cup opener against India, announcing it would provide a fanvzone outside the stadium for spectators to watch the match.

However, fans leaving the Allianz Stadium were led on a merry dance around Moore Park, as the big screens in the designated fan zone failed with very little explanation.

A pub in the entertainment quarter graciously re-opened its doors to show the match on its two big screens, but many fans had already called it a night, leaving them disgruntled despite a terrific night of A-League football.

Indeed, situations like this re-ignite lingering resentment towards the APL, particularly from clubs outside New South Wales, who still hold the organisation accountable for its now-reversed decision to move grand finals exclusively to Sydney.

The reversal gave birth to the Unite Round, and it is likely that many fans chose not to support the initiative because of its connection to the APL’s initial decision.

Meanwhile, reports of financial turmoil within the organisation are being attributed to its redundancy measures, which will see its digital content arm KeepUp effectively removed.

This turmoil could explain the APL’s hasty approach towards its organisation of the round, as well as its conservative approach to its marketing and promotion.

Responding to the redundancies, an APL statement released on Tuesday offers reassurance for stakeholders, clubs, and fans.

“With the original three-year strategy coming to an end, a planned full strategic and commercial review has taken place over the last several months,” it read.

“The review has identified significant opportunities to create efficiencies through consolidation and this necessitates an organisational restructure that is now underway.

“APL’s priorities remain the same – to deliver commercial growth and sustainability by creating the most exciting competitions possible for our fans – with strong teams producing great young players across Australia and New Zealand.”

If the APL stays committed to these priorities, we will hopefully be treated to a more successful edition of Unite Round, and more importantly, a football experience befitting of what is being delivered on the field.

Previous ArticleNext Article

Brazil is coming. But what is the real price of bringing football’s giants to Australia?

Avatar
Image Credits: Shutterstock

There is something undeniably exciting about Brazil coming to Australia. The five-time World Cup winners will face the Socceroos twice in Queensland from Friday, with Townsville and Brisbane set to host the blockbuster fixtures.

For Australian football, these are the kind of games that should be anticipated, celebrated and capture the public’s attention. But they also raise questions: how much should Australian football pay to bring the world’s biggest nations here, and when does the bill become too big? 

The cost of bringing the big names

Australia has always paid up to bring big names down under. Last week’s NFL game in Melbourne, at a cost of between $10 and 15 million dollars to the Victorian Government, is just the latest example.

It could cost the same amount to bring Brazil to Queensland. A report in The Sydney Morning Herald last year revealed Brazil was reportedly seeking around $7.5 million per match to play in Australia. The fee is in line with other major international events; Western Australia reportedly faced a bill of around $12 million in taxpayer funding for the recent Perth Italian Football Festival.

I’m worried Football Australia won’t get return on investment to make this particular event worthwhile. The enormous fee to bring Brazil to Australia can’t immediately be justified as an investment in our footballing future. Instead, Football Queensland and the state government could have put these funds into grassroots facilities. Part of Football Queensland’s scrapped state headquarters investment plan was to spend $8.5 million to refurbish fields, lights, drains and irrigation at Mappas and Meakin parks. Instead of these plans to invest in the state’s youth players and academies, money has been spent on two international friendlies.

So ahead of the fixtures, the question remains: will these games inspire the future generation, and will participation grow? The NFL match was impossible to ignore: a sold-out MCG and a live audience of 2.1 million on free-to-air, not even including those watching on ESPN and Netflix. Football Australia is not simply buying 90 minutes of football; it is buying the attention that comes with Brazil. So let’s see if they can maximize returns. 

Ticketing Tells a Story

Ticket sales provide insight into the interest in the fixture. Brisbane has sold much quicker than Townsville, but neither have sold out as yet. The fact these games didn’t immediately sell out may be considered surprising as there is a genuine appetite in Australia for elite international football at the moment, evidenced by SBS’ World Cup viewership numbers of 17.1 million.

Brazil is bringing some of its brightest stars: Vinicius Junior, Raphinha, Bruno Guimaraes, Marquinhos and Endrick are among the headline names in their squad. The star power is there. So why haven’t these matches sold out? There’s a chance it comes down to the competition and the visibility of the event.

The viewing problem

The timing of this fixture could raise eyebrows amongst fans. As much as Australia and Brazil will draw huge crowds, both games fall on either side of the AFL Grand Final. The 2024 AFL Grand Final, which involved Queensland’s Brisbane Lions, drew over 4 million viewers on free-to-air. Brisbane, who have won the last two premierships, will feature once again on Grand Final day. Therefore, fans who could’ve attended may instead be making the trip to Melbourne.

Then comes the strangest part: one of the fixtures Australia will play will not even be available on free-to-air television. The Townsville match will be shown free on Network 10 and 10 Streaming, as well as Paramount+. The Brisbane match, however, will be available exclusively on Paramount+. That creates a disconnect. If governments and football administrators are spending millions to bring a global sporting brand to Australia, why should a large section of the Australian public need a subscription to watch the second match?

The Brisbane game is behind a paywall, limiting the national reach of the event. Reach is surely part of the justification for spending big on Brazil, it’s not just that 50,000 people get to sit inside Suncorp Stadium. It is that millions of Australians get exposed to the spectacle and if that audience is restricted, the value of this fixture is limited.

A solution could be to spend the money on advertising the match to the public to try to generate interest across streaming and free-to-air. With less than a week until the first game I don’t believe the advertising has done enough to generate enough interest to justify a $15 million price tag for the two game series. 

The Brazil friendlies will be spectacular. They should attract big crowds, create memories and give the Socceroos an excellent test against one of football’s most recognisable nations. But for the appropriate return, attention must be measured. Does this fixture carry on the Socceroos hype and keep the eyeballs of the general public on our sport? I’m not convinced. However, if these matches bring new fans to football, strengthen the national team and create lasting investment in the sport, the enormous price tag could still be justified. But if they simply produce two nights of football before the attention disappears, then Australian football has paid a premium for a very expensive show.

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