What will a National Second Tier mean for the NPL?

As the concept of a National Second Tier becomes a reality in Australia, there are questions on what the removal of the biggest clubs will mean for the State League competitions.

Football Australia are still discussing and workshopping the format of the concept, and how it operates and coexists with the National Premier Leagues (NPL) is one of the biggest questions.

When the NPL was created in 2013, the aim was to standardise the State League competitions across Australia and serve as a second tier to the A-League. The competition has been the top division in each state outside the A-League, with the winners playing off against each other at the end of the season.

The NPL hasn’t managed to bridge the gap between the State League clubs and the A-League, shown by the push for a true National Second Tier.

We know that the current NPL clubs would jump at the chance to join a National Second Tier, however, what would this mean for the State Leagues moving forward?

There is certainly commercial value to having South Melbourne and Melbourne Knights play off in the Victorian State League. Without the traditional powerhouse clubs in there, the Victorian NPL would struggle to attract sponsors and fans that drive the clubs, allowing them to perform at a semi-professional level.

Determining what the value of the NPL is without traditional clubs is a question that will be asked across every state competition if a National Second Tier drags them away.

Football Australia has previously floated a Champions League-style competition idea, with 32 teams competing in a group stage format followed by a knockout stage.

The allure of this concept is to reduce the cost of travel and the financial burden on the clubs at the league’s inception while allowing the clubs to continue to play in their respective state NPL competitions.

However, this is a stop-gap solution to get the competition off the ground, with the intention of easing into the transition from semi-professional into a fully professional second tier with promotion and relegation down the track.

There are certainly positives to this structure. Using the Champions League-style format to get the competition off the ground and running before evolving into a traditional league format could be the best way for a National Second Tier to launch.

The reality is that the first few years in a National Second Tier will be difficult for the clubs if the competition is a complete home and away league featuring at least 18 games. It is a distinct possibility clubs will fold, or flee back to the relative safety of their state competitions.

This isn’t a reason not to proceed with the competition, however, it is a danger that the clubs must recognise. To alleviate this danger, clubs can play in their state competitions while featuring in a parallel Champions League-style competition.

Some of the NPL’s biggest clubs would prefer a traditional style home and away season. South Melbourne President Nick Maikousis outlined in an interview with Soccerscene that a National Second Tier could mean some of the biggest clubs depart the State Leagues.

“We don’t agree that a Champions League-style competition is a National Second Division. Our views are that it needs to be a stand-alone competition. The challenge for the state federations is potentially losing some of their biggest member clubs,” Maikousis said.

“If you take South Melbourne, Melbourne Knights, and Heidelberg out of the NPL Victoria competition, it becomes a different conversation.”

He also pointed out that reluctance to lose these clubs from their respective state leagues by some stakeholders is similar to arguments raised against the formation of the National Soccer League in the 1970s.

Fears of losing the State League’s biggest clubs aren’t new. At the NSL’s inception in 1977, the Victorian Premier League forbid its clubs from joining the new competition. Mooroolbark SC, an unremarkable Eastern Suburbs club, broke the deadlock, paving the way for South Melbourne, Heidelberg and Footscray just to follow in their footsteps.

Mooroolbark unfortunately found themselves relegated out of the NSL in their only year in the competition, before ending up in the provisional league at the bottom of the football pyramid by the 1980s.

Eventually, any national second tier competition must become a stand-alone league if Australian football is to have a proper pyramid of competitions featuring promotion and relegation. The state NPL competitions will lose their biggest clubs to this, but it creates opportunities for other clubs to forge ahead and take their place.

Australian football needs to be brave in its attempt to create something that will outlast us all. Countries like England, Spain, and Italy have built their football not only on heritage, but also a deep talent pool developed playing in the leagues below their top division.

Promotion and relegation must be the end game for football if it’s to reach its full potential in Australia. For a club to climb from State League 5 to the A-League, from amateur to professional, is the ultimate expression of the beautiful game.

The state leagues will survive losing their biggest clubs, like they did at the NSL’s inception. The question is what value these competitions still have without their biggest assets.

Previous ArticleNext Article

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

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.

No More: FV introduces ‘draconian’ Three-strike Rule with Mass Points Deductions

Football Victoria (FV) has ratified an uncompromising new “Three Strike Policy” for the 2026 season.

The regulatory overhaul targets the systemic abuse of match officials, shifting liability directly onto club administrations for the behaviour of all associates, including spectators.

The policy responds to critical workforce retention data. In 2022, over 50% of first-year referees exited the system, creating a sustainable coverage crisis. With 2025 data revealing a persistent trend of “egregious incidents” (including threatening language and physical violence), FV aims to arrest the decline by enforcing strict club accountability.

The Framework

The policy targets specific offences, including inappropriate physical contact, intimidation, spitting, and violence committed by any Club Associate. Crucially, this definition encompasses coaches, players, parents, and general spectators. Strikes apply cumulatively over a rolling 12-month period.

Strike 1: A suspended 3-point deduction is issued to all club teams. This places the entire membership on notice immediately.

Strike 2: If a second offence occurs within 12 months, the 3-point deduction is triggered immediately for the offending team. A mandatory $2,000 fine applies. Operationally, FV may also mandate closed-door matches or venue reversals, stripping clubs of home-ground advantage and vital matchday revenue.

Strike 3: A third offence triggers the 3-point deduction for every team in the club that has not yet been penalised. A mandatory $5,000 fine is levied. Furthermore, Club Executives are summoned to a mandatory meeting with FV leadership to explain the pattern of behaviour. FV reserves the right to remove teams from competition or revoke club affiliation entirely.

Implementation

Significantly, there is no right of appeal against a strike. This removes the traditional tribunal pathway for these specific offences, streamlining the punishment process. If a club accumulates a fourth strike, fines escalate to $10,000.

This zero-tolerance approach ensures clubs can no longer view behavioural fines as a mere operational cost. By tying spectator and associate behaviour directly to the league table, FV has effectively monetised the culture of abuse, forcing committees to police their sidelines or face relegation.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend