There has been a lot of conjecture surrounding the FFA’s FFA Marquee Player Investment criteria ever since the ruling came into place.
In particular, Melbourne Victory fans cried foul late last week when the FFA rejected their marquee submission for Italian international Alessandro Diamanti.
We decided to break it all down for A-League fans:
Key Findings:
-Criteria structured around three key categories: Football Pedigree, Media & Marketing Impact and Commercial Value to the Hyundai A-League.
-In addition: other practical considerations such as whether the Player speaks fluent English, the size of their social media following and age factored into the points system.
-Process accommodates both traditional recruitment of players by clubs, and also a centralised approach from FFA who will take an active role in negotiating directly with players.
-Clubs who identify such Players through their own recruiting processes can submit an application to FFA for Marquee Player Investment
-FFA financial support of a Player will be determined by a points system based on the aforementioned criteria – only Players that score 75% (337 out of a maximum 450 points) or higher will be submitted to the Review Panel appointed by the FFA
-Panels consists of representatives from FFA and the Broadcaster(s)
– The Fund, to be determined on an annual basis is $1 million for the 2016/17 season (We understand it to be a $10 million war-chest)
-FFA will invest up to a nominal 25% of the Player’s total contract value for the first year
Key Talking Points:
Criteria deliberately drafted vaguely
Good or bad, this criteria was clearly drafted with Tim Cahill at the top of the agenda who ticks all the boxes from an Australian point of view. Hence, it has deliberately been designed in such a vague fashion. Every club has the ability to sign a ‘Cahill’ but whether they have the financial clout to do is the sticking point. From the FFA’s point of view, this is what they would have expected by putting $10 million into a special fund – supposedly each club is granted $1 million in compensation. In other words, ‘the money is there if you want to use it, but we don’t think you all will.’
Using the centralised ‘war-chest’ the sticking point for clubs
The FFA have $10 million put aside for this Marquee Player Investment initiative, the kind of financial clout very few clubs will actually utilise. The message from head office, the money is there for the clubs to use but realistically, they would only expect three or four clubs to consider utilising this fund. Realistically, the investment would not be worth it for any club but the ones willing to take a hit would be limited to Western Sydney Wanderers, Melbourne Victory, Sydney FC and Melbourne City. The FFA have estimated the average value of a marquee who would meet the criteria for this investment be worth between $3-4 million. For argument’s sake, if a club wanted to sign ‘Player A’ for $4 million and meets the criteria, the FFA would chip in 25% which would leave the club to find $3 million.
Frankly, this sort of investment is not particularly viable or attractive for a lot of A-League clubs. With the exception Victory and the Wanderers, most clubs are not financially stable and to chip in a sizeable amount to increase memberships or crowds is not seen as viable, particularly when these type of marquees tend to financially benefit the other nine A-League clubs rather than their own. If they would like to take the hit and make the investment, then the ‘war-chest’ is their to ‘aid’, but in reality, the tide has changed with the clubs and their thought processes regarding marquees. Not discounting the fact the FFA would also like to see a return on their 25% investment, which would carry considerable weight in their decision-making process.
Diamanti case upheld by the criteria
As a practical guide, only four players in the history of the A-League have been recognised by the FFA in meeting this criteria: Dwight Yorke, Robbie Fowler, Alessandro Del Piero and Harry Kewell. Regarding the marketability criteria, Diamanti does not appeal to a wider audience the aforementioned names would. Yes, he appeals to us who live and breathe football (and Miroslav Klose would be in the same bracket), but he does not appeal to the wider market which is why this ‘guest marquee’ ruling has come into place.
How rigorous are the FFA in their approach?
Are the FFA actively seeking, approaching and engaging with marquees and their agents? The Marquee Player Investment document says they are, but speaking on the Daily Football Show, respected player agent Ritchie Hinton begged to differ.
Asked whether he thought the FFA had a list of targets and were actively trying to engineer deals with players, Hinton said:
“No. I’m happy to be contradicted but I don’t think that is happening.”
Hinton pointed to the constant turnover of staff at the FFA, who were instrumental in starting this process, as a key part of why he believes the pursuit of marquees from the FFA have been lacklustre. Former Head of the A-League, Damien De Bohun, (who started this process) has left, as has General Manager, Sam Chadwick (this week), Head of Corporate Affairs and Communications, Kyle Patterson to name just a few. A significant amount of football knowledge has left the FFA which would no doubt have taken the steam out of this initiative. This process needs leadership and a facilitator, and whether this is going on behind the scenes is guesswork at best. We cannot see or hear a unified front from all parties – the FFA, Players Football Association, the clubs and the agents. It’s time for change and continuity.
