The Western Sydney priority
2.44 The AFL's decision to prioritise the inclusion of a team in the rugby league heartland of Western Sydney over Tasmania was debated during the inquiry. Aside from claims that Tasmania's football heritage makes it more deserving of a side in the AFL (see paragraphs 2.4 - 2.10 above), the committee heard evidence that the Western Sydney option would not be as financially viable as one based in Tasmania.
2.45 The AFL admitted that the cost of establishing a Western Sydney team may be more than that required by a Tasmanian option.[37] However, the AFL told the committee that its priorities reflected a strategic approach to expanding the code by capturing 'growth markets':
During 2008, the Tasmanian Government indicated that it planned to lodge a submission for an AFL club to be based in Tasmania.
The very detailed and high-quality submission was received in late 2008 and will be considered by the AFL Commission during 2009.
While we acknowledge that Tasmania has a rich Australian Football heritage and is providing outstanding support to Hawthorn, which plays four games per year at Aurora Stadium in Launceston, we have said consistently that the Gold Coast and greater west of Sydney are our two priority growth markets.
Before determining those two priority growth markets, we assessed a great deal of information about a number of regions in Australia and took into account factors such as future population growth, the size and scope of the local business community, current and future stadium infrastructure, current and future demand for AFL matches, current growth in community participation in our game and other codes and the significance of the regions as media marketsnewspapers, television and online.
While our focus will be on the two priority growth markets of the Gold Coast and greater west of Sydney, the quality of the Tasmanian Governments submission suggests that, in the longer term, the establishment of a club based in Tasmania requires due consideration.[38]
2.46 The AFL said that it needed to have a greater presence in well populated northern markets:
Fifty-four per cent of the Australian population lives in Queensland and New South Wales and yet across all of our metrics those markets represent somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent of the AFLs total market. So we are underrepresented in two very large markets. If we are to continue to grow, we need to have a larger presence in those markets, and I think that ultimately was in the commissions mind when it made that decision.[39]
2.47 Mr Quinn characterised this approach as follows:
...the challenges for the western suburbs of Sydney are enormous and that it is an enormous risk. The Tasmanian proposition is probably less risky.
...the AFL must have a reason for not going with the low-risk model, and I would assume that that is looking at the long-term viability of the AFL as a national sport.[40]
2.48 There was doubt, though, about the possibility of an Australian Rules team ever attracting enough interest in Western Sydney for it to be viable. At present, the vast majority people living in Western Sydney have little interest in the code or the AFL competition. Mr Martin Flanagan argued:
Even in Brisbane, which had more of a pre-existing Australian football culture than New South Wales and one of the greatest sides in the history of the game within the past 10 years, ironically, crowds have dropped away enormously. So these are very fragile markets. If Tasmania is set up, it is a safe bet, whereas Western Sydney is a gamble.[41]
2.49 Mr Biggs warned that the significant cultural aspect of football makes it a much more difficult product to sell in new markets:
...the AFL has to operate on business lines and clearly that means growth and searching for new markets, but you cannot sell a sport and a culture like you can sell a commercial product. Most commercial products, given a reasonable, well-funded marketing campaign, can probably be delivered into most markets. That is not the case with sport, which relies heavily on culture.[42]
2.50 He indicated that while the AFL had successfully spread modified Australian Rules football (Auskick) into schools, efforts to establish a NSW state league in Sydney or provide the AFL with home-grown players had failed.[43] He said:
Why have those two key objectives failed? For one very simple reason: Australian Football could not break into the culture.[44]
2.51 Mr Biggs later added:
...a lot of kids play soccer and Auskick. It is what they choose to play once they get to the end of primary school years that really counts.[45]
2.52 In what becomes somewhat of a circular argument, the AFL stated that a Western Sydney AFL team is necessary to consolidate grassroots efforts in a growing market:
We looked at the absolute size of the Western Sydney market and the need for the AFL to have a presence in a market that has the second strongest growing LGA in Australia. Blacktown and Baulkham Hills have significant support from migrant groups ... We are very aware of our challenges in growing that market, and ultimately we need an AFL franchise to continue the work we are doing at the base. The participation in the greater west of Sydney was of the order of 20,000 participants in 2008. We continue to invest in that region and are building a base to be a team at the top.[46]
2.53 The committee requested that the AFL provide statistics on participation levels in Western Sydney, the Gold Coast and Tasmania, including the proportion of participants made up of the Auskick program. Unfortunately, the AFL only provided the committee with figures for the entire NSW/ACT region, rather than Western Sydney alone. They are included in Appendix 3. These statistics are not helpful in assessing meaningful participation in the code in that area as they include far Western NSW, the Riverina, Canberra and the far South Coast of NSW, where Australian Rules football enjoys strong support and well established club competitions exist.
2.54 Information on the public record, attributed to the New South Wales Minister for Sport suggests that actual participation in Western Sydney is fewer than 3,000.[47] In contrast Tasmanian participation is about 24,000 or nearly five per cent of the Tasmanian population. In the absence of more authoritative figures the committee is inclined to accept that participation in Western Sydney is, as a proportion of its population, relatively insignificant.
2.55 Mr Lane contrasted the Western Sydney approach with a Tasmanian side that would have an immediate and passionate supporter base:
...it would be a team with real heart, soul and identity. It would not be a plastic team that had no real constituencya constituency that had to be nurtured, almost had to be conceived in the first place to provide it with its own sense of backing and support. Tasmania would have that from day one.[48]
2.56 Although he recognised the challenges it poses, Mr Cook offered cautious support for the AFL's move into western Sydney:
...we would stay with the AFL position of introducing the Western Sydney licence first. That is not to say it is not going to be challenging. It is quite a surmountable, maybe insurmountable, type of challenge at the moment, there is no doubt about that, but it seems to be a very focused priority for the AFL at this point of time to introduce both the Gold Coast and Western Sydney in that order.[49]
2.57 He also suggested to the committee that potential television audiences in new markets are a major impetus behind the decision to move into the Gold Coast and Western Sydney.[50] However, Mr Cook expressed doubts that moving into those markets would generate additional revenue from television rights.[51]
Committee comment
2.58 The committee recognises that a Tasmanian side in the AFL would bring enormous economic, social and cultural benefits to the state, as well as rewarding Tasmania's strong support for Australian Rules football for more than 100 years.
2.59 There appears to be a growing consensus that Tasmania would have the necessary supporter base to sustain a financially viable AFL club. The financial difficulties facing a number of Victorian-based AFL clubs playing at unprofitable venues in a crowded Victorian football market serves to confirm this to the committee. A facilities upgrade at York Park would be needed, but a well supported Tasmanian club playing in a purpose built stadium would represent a viable option for a new AFL team.
2.60 The committee notes that the AFL has indicated its support for a Tasmanian AFL team in the future. However, they have not yet moved to facilitate its establishment or outlined the circumstances under which it might occur. Unless the AFL agrees to expand the competition beyond 18 clubs, which is highly unlikely, Tasmanian football supporters' best hope is for the AFL to withdraw financial support from an existing club in dire financial straits. The AFL has not to date indicated that this is likely to occur. The committee would encourage the AFL to be up front about the trigger for a Tasmanian licence to come about under these circumstances.
2.61 Finally, the committee is of the view that the committee's plans for a Western Sydney team are very ambitious. Although it is not the committee's intention to tell the AFL how it should manage its expansion plans, there are cultural barriers facing a Western Sydney-based AFL team that appear to be insurmountable. The AFL has cited Auskick participation in Sydney's west as evidence of fertile ground for support.
2.62 There must be concern, however, that primary school-aged children participating in modified Australia Rules via school programs will not necessarily translate into meaningful support for the code. Even in general terms, caution should be exercised when drawing parallels between participation in a sport and the likelihood of people going to see that sport live at an elite level or watching matches on television. If the committee were to accept that participation were a precursor to a viable supporter base, it is of the opinion that Auskick does not represent the sort of proactive, voluntary, participation that the AFL can depend on. Australian Rules football is barely played at club level in the area, and the weakness of the Sydney competition is most forcefully demonstrated by the fact that the existing recent premiership winning team based in Sydney, the Sydney Swans, can find no suitable competition for its reserves team in Greater Sydney and choose to send that team to play in the Canberra competition. The Committee believes this fact highlights the weakness of the market for AFL in the Sydney Basin, and underlines the risks being taken by the AFL in its decision to prioritise this market over Tasmania.
