Paying players in local football - Part 2

There are two main sources of income for football clubs, subscriptions and charitable grants - very little money is made from club bars, fundraising and sponsorship.  Typically, a club will fund 30 - 50% (although sometimes as much as 70%) of it's operations through community trusts.  Football is funded by pokies at every level, including the NZFC, and the shortfall is made up by those who pay subscriptions, typically those "social" players who actually pay subs below second team level.  Do any of them particularly care who is turning out for the first team?  They should, they're paying part of the wages.  

I would like to hear a club chairman justify the outlay on first teams.  And if gaming money is to be spent on semi-professional football, shouldn't it go towards the NZFC, which requires substantial commitment of the players, at least draws some crowds and has produced All Whites and professional players for the A-League?

One of the key themes in Capital Football's strategic plan is a recognition of the aspirational nature of elite performance is a key driver of mass participation.  More simply, the desire to achieve at the highest level in turn leads to more people playing the game. 

But, this is balanced by a recognition that the distribution of resources between mass participation and elite performance needs to be balanced - as it states - one cannot be achieved without the other and under-investing in either is likely to lead to poor results for both.  

Rightly, the first team is the focus at most clubs.  But the balance has become completely skewed towards the elite (and that phrase hardly applies to Capital Premier and the Central League), rather than a balanced approach to raising standards across the board.  At most clubs the return for your subs is a used kit, a match ball and some muddy playing fields.  No coaching, no training and very little opportunity to improve or even learn something about the game.

Club members at every level can have legitimate questions as to what this football arms race has achieved.  Training conditions are still mediocre, very few clubs have access to indoor facilities.  Increased professionalism?  A visit to Kitty's and Electric Avenue on a Thursday will quickly disavow you of that notion.  

Individual clubs have their day in the sun while they splash the cash and attract players, but other than Western Suburbs and Lower Hutt who lead the way in training facilities very little has changed since the mid - nineties, other than the standard, which has gone backwards.  No club has said no, we're not going down this route and recognised that short-term financial largess serves no-one's interests.  

Strategically, what are board members hoping to achieve?  And what is the succession plan for when the money runs out, or someone gets a better offer from across town?

I recently spoke to a senior administrator in Wellington sport about the future of the Phoenix, the NZFC and the recent failure of the netball team the Wellington Pulse.  His view?  That there are too many professional or semi - professional sports leagues in New Zealand and that the current situation is unsustainable.  

Economic reality deigns that corporate sponsorship dollars will fall further.  Gaming income has been falling due to a combination of the smoking ban and recent government legislation.  Amateur sport needs to remain just that, amateur.

I have heard it argued that players at higher levels deserve payment because of the increased commitment involved with playing in a league.  Yet predominantly the money is only secondary - footballers play because they love playing the game and play for that reason.  It merely serves as an inducement to change clubs, players just want to play football and if they can get some money while doing it then that's a bonus.

It's a fallacy that money is needed to induce top players to play football, a fallacy that clubs have bought into.  As an example, the first team at my club in London includes 10 players with NZFC, Northern Premier League or Central League experience, and even one who was a full time professional for two years in the old NSL.  

There are no benefits to being in the first team other than a newer strip.  They pay subs like everyone else, pay for their own tracksuits and boots and their own travel, usually on public transport, halfway around and across London every Saturday in a long season.  Why?  Because they love the game, they realise that they are amateur players in an amateur league and that is the way things are.

Another valid comparison is club rugby.  The demands on club rugby players are arguably greater than those in football, many clubs proscribe off season weights programmes and even dietary plans.  Some clubs have dry seasons.  And yet,and yet, payment in senior club rugby is unheard of.

But if clubs are going to hire players then they need to be seen as an asset- merely turning up on a Saturday should not be enough.  Cricket has long had the tradition of the "club pro" who plays for the first team while being responsible for much of the coaching at the club and in the region.  Any team in a club should be able to call up and ask for a training session or advice. 

To some people this entire article be considered an overreaction, why rock the boat?  But we are a game with limited financial constraints and to see money flowing out, money that is desperately needed elsewhere, seems shockingly counterproductive. 

Ultimately, leadership and change has to come from our administration.  NZF, and locally Capital Football, must decide if this is the future of the sport in this country.  Already there is talk of the NZFC being suspended next year while yet another review is commissioned.  Club based national competitions have been tried and failed for many of the reasons set out here.  If we truly are going to grow the game from the grassroots up, spending money where it is needed seems a great place to start.