APFCA makes submission to FIFA/AFC delegation

Sydney, 21 February 2018

The APFCA members today met with the FIFA/AFC delegation overseeing the formation of the Congress Review Working Group for FFA.

Speaking after the meeting, Greg Griffin, Chairman of APFCA, said:

“The APFCA delegation felt the meeting was extremely positive and productive and look forward to contributing to the joint stakeholder meeting to be held tomorrow.”

He added: “We remain committed to the successful completion of this process.”

An outline of the APFCA submission made to the FIFA/AFC delegation is as follows:

This document provides feedback in order to help define the terms of reference of the proposed Congress Review Working Group (CRWG) – which includes its:

1. Objective
2. Composition
3. Mandate
4. Timeline.

Before dealing with each of those matters separately there are three important general points we wish to make that are relevant to this process:

• The FFA governance reform “process” has given rise to an unprecedented discovery on the part of APFCA – and that of other stakeholders – as to exactly how bereft of good governance the Australian game is. We remain firmly rooted in the era of FIFA 1.0 with no obvious pathway at present to FIFA 2.0.
• As you will be aware, early in 2016 FIFA together with the AFC rightly intensified pressure on the Board and Administration of Football Federation Australia (FFA) to finally provide the governance reform that had been demanded by FIFA for the preceding seven years. Almost two years later, we, as the professional clubs of Australia find ourselves in the invidious position of being a de facto disenfranchised football family stakeholder whilst at the same time being the single largest financial contributor to Australian football.
• The guiding principles for the FIFA 2.0 vision are Transparency, Accountability, Inclusivity and Cooperation. We believe that these should be the guiding principles of the CRWG and the recommendations it makes.

1. Objective

We believe that the Objective of the CRWG must be to:

a) Create complete alignment of Football Federation Australia Governance with FIFA statutes.

b) Make recommendations for the alignment of FFA with relevant Governance Best Practices

The focus of Australian governance reform since April 2016 has been the Congress. Whilst the Congress matter sits at the heart of the issues affecting FFA poor governance, the focus solely on it as an issue has been to the detriment of linked and equally relevant governance matters. Put simply, the focus solely on Congress has created an artificial impediment to the much-needed broader governance reform of the FFA.

In effect there are a raft of inter-related governance matters that make the FFA fundamentally flawed as a Member Association. We believe these issues must be considered by the Working Group in order to quickly remove the impasse among stakeholders that currently exists.

i. Organisational Type and Structure:

It is important to note that there is a fundamental issue with the FFA’s membership of FIFA. Article 11 of the FIFA Statutes requires FIFA Members to be Associations. The Football Federation of Australia is not an Association. Rather, it is an unlisted public company, limited by guarantee, a legal status that sees it at odds with FIFA Member Association structures around the World.

Because of this anomaly we have seen Australian Corporations Law used repeatedly by the FFA Board and Executive as the rationale to avoid the implementation of the FIFA required Congress model and to deliver complete alignment with FIFA Statutes.

c) We would request that the terms of reference of the working Group include the consideration of how to best align FFA with Article 11 of the FIFA Statutes.

ii. Consideration of the Requirement of an “Independent” FFA Board

The important context to the matters highlighted in point 1.i is the issue that The APFCA has already raised with FIFA and AFC representatives as to its concerns regarding the asserted independence of the FFA Board. This assertion of independence is made consistently by the FFA Board and its Administration – a position the Clubs simply do not accept.

The concerns of the Clubs have been summarily dismissed by FFA Chairman, Mr. Steven Lowy on behalf of the FFA Board. APFCA remains deeply troubled by the real and perceived conflicts in the decision making processes of the current Board which continues to make decisions to the significant financial detriment of the A-League Clubs and to the operation of the A League itself.

In line with Mr. Steven Lowy’s request of the 20th of July, APFCA provided particularised details of its concerns. The APFCA document dealt with thirteen (13) pertinent issues. We contend that the FFA Board operates as an uncontrolled stand-alone entity and in its own interests. The facts speak to this, with only 12 new FFA board members being elected in the last 14 years and each of them candidates nominated by the Board itself and elected unopposed by an historically compliant and the mainly financially dependent body of Member Federation States.

Underlying this situation is the fundamental issue as to whether the FFA Board should be independent? Or whether it should assume a representative function balanced by a representative congress and representative standing committees. The FFA Board has defended its need to be independent – without demonstrating any material advantage to that so-called independence. At the same time, it has consumed powers normally associated with Member Association Congresses in other countries. We believe that:

d) The Terms of Reference of the CRWG should include:

• The function and mandate of the FFA Board
• Whether the FFA Board should be independent or representative and how the ideal model relates to the rest of the Australian Football ecosystem and its key stakeholders.

iii. Congress Membership

The Congress matter has been the sole focus of Australian Governance Reform conversations for the last 16 months with no material progress. We believe that the conversation should now be broader in order to give stakeholders confidence of the wider checks and balances consistent with FIFA Statute Article 15j – “legislative bodies must be constituted in accordance with the principles of representative democracy and taking into account the importance of gender equality in football”.

Regrettably, given the nature of the FFA Board’s actions over the last 16 months – and the fundamental governance flaws of its attempted Congress solutions – the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the FFA Board remains solely focused on maintaining itself as the dominant “stakeholder” in the function of the FFA Congress and as such maintaining its ability to determine the ultimate composition of its own membership. This is clearly entirely inconsistent with the requirements of FIFA Statute Article 15j.

Article 15j has been the guiding principle of APFCA in our engagement and it has seen us stand firm with the PFA on three threshold issues:

• The Professional game must have representation commensurate with the contribution it makes to the Australian Football eco-system.
• No single stakeholder should ever again hold a majority equal to, or greater than the prescribed majority required to elect Board Directors (currently 60% of the eligible voting Congress).
• That any solution must recognize the importance of gender equality in football in a meaningful way.

We believe that the broadening of Governance discussions to encompass the fundamental and inter-related issues facing the FFA will necessarily contribute to the removal of the impasse currently in place.

e) The Terms of Reference of the CRWG should include Congress Membership as part of the broader required governance reform captured in the other recommendations of this submission.

iv. Legal Framework for the Professional Game

As stated APFCA believes that the FFA should be fully aligned with FIFA Statutes. There is no such alignment at present. The extent to which the lack of FFA alignment with FIFA statutes has material impact on professional football stakeholders needs to be better understood and rectified as part of this process. There are clear symptoms of a potential impending catastrophic collapse of the Professional game in Australia and these can be directly linked to the governance issue at hand.

As part of the Working Group objectives we are requesting a review of the contractual obligations imposed upon Clubs and players by virtue of three crucial documents that are inherently in opposition to FIFA Statutes. Those documents are:

• The Club Participation Agreement (CPA) first executed in November 2004 by the then 8 constituent member Clubs of the A-League – of which several have subsequently become bankrupt and no longer exist.
• The Standard Player Agreement
• The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which the Clubs are not a party to but are bound to by virtue of the CPA, a document all Clubs were obliged to execute by the FFA without any right to demand amendments to or the deletion of clauses they found unacceptable in the document. This in itself produces financial liabilities for clubs with no recourse.

We accept that such consideration will naturally flow into consideration of the structural relationship between the professional game with the Member Association organization and we would welcome that consideration to the extent that it informs the requirement of objective 1.i. We are not advocating consideration of the detailed economic relationship, only the model as it relates to governance principles. We would therefore request:

f) A review of the compliance with FIFA Statutes of the contractual obligations currently imposed upon Clubs and players and consideration of recommendations for the principles of future governance of the Professional game.

v. Financial Transparency

Linked to Point 1.i above, is the lack of financial transparency of the FFA. The APFCA membership request that financial reporting be part of the Working Group Terms of reference. The financial statements published by the FFA are General Purpose Financial Statements (GPFRs) in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards – Reduced Disclosure Requirements (RDRs) (RDR Financial Statements).

RDR Financial Statements meet the recognition and measurement criteria of the Australian Accounting Standards; however, they are permitted significantly reduced disclosures requirements when compared to the requirements of all accounting standards.

As a result of its corporate structure, The FFA Constitution does not require compliance with Australian Auditing Standards. It merely states that financial statements must include: a statement of financial performance; a statement of financial position; a statement of cash flows; and notes to each of those statements. The FFA Constitution also states that the revenue and expenses of FFA must ‘be managed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles’ and ‘in accordance with the Corporations Act’. The FFA Constitution does not require that the financial statements be prepared in accordance with IFRS.

The FFA Directors have the option to prepare full GPFRs, which would provide more disclosure than is currently provided in the financial statements. This would provide information useful and relevant to the users of the financial statements; in particular the Congress of the FFA and the Australian Football Family. The fact that they do not speaks volumes to the motivations and modus operandi of this FFA Board.

After two years of pressure the APFCA members were finally provided with a current one page “attribution” Profit and Loss for the A-League. This is the extent of the disclosure the Clubs have been given. The FFA is unable or unwilling to provide further financial statements. A simple benchmarking of line items against other global Leagues begs many questions.

After having to resort to threatening legal action on several occasions to be entitled to exercise our legal right to inspect and examine the FFA books and records, Greg Griffin, as the sole “A-League Representative” Member of the FFA congress, has been granted access to financial information covering the last three years. That process is still underway and has taken more than seven months to date. One area that he has not been granted any access to are the accounts around the bid for the 2022 World Cup.

The Garcia report and associated FIFA investigations are unequivocal in portraying the negative implications of the Australian bid for the 2022 World Cup. It is troubling to the APFCA that two senior executives involved in that bid remain integral to the matters outlined in this letter and that the current FFA Chairman, who was significantly involved in that bid, restricts access to the relevant records.

It is important to record that on the 26th of July, 2017 the FFA Board cancelled all exploratory discussions on the migration of the A-League to an Independent Model as a result of our push for more financial transparency. Precisely the kind of financial transparency that is essential as the basis for a meaningful discussion about an independent professional League. On the financial reporting evidence alone, it is hard to argue with the assertion that Australia remains firmly rooted in the era of FIFA 1.0.

g) We would request that the terms of reference of the CRWG include the consideration of alignment with best practice Member Association financial reporting.

vi. FFA Compliance Specifically With Article 15.d of the FIFA Statutes

Article 15.d of the FIFA Statutes creates the obligation for all Member Associations to have independent arbitration processes. Our experience is Australia does not meet that obligation.

The Professional game in Australia lives under a regime which provides no FIFA compliant or meaningful Appeal Process. Put simply, the Dispute Resolution process contained in the FFA Rules and Regulations is itself not compliant with FIFA Rules.

As you are aware, in addition to the obligations of Article 15.d, Article 59.3 of the FIFA Statutes (and equivalent in AFC Statutes) requires all disputes between FFA and its constituents (or among constituents themselves) to be resolved in one of two forms of ‘independent’ arbitration – either:

• The Court of Arbitration for Sport
• And ‘independent and duly constituted’ arbitration tribunal

The FFA Regulations create what it describes as an Independent Tribunal but which falls significantly short of a Tribunal that can possibly be regarded as meeting the FIFA test of what constitutes independence. It is nothing more than a further internal FFA Body that hears Appeals from decisions from the FFA appointed Arbitrator. Furthermore, the test to be granted leave to even Appeal is so incredibly difficult that it renders leave being given almost impossible. It actually requires as a prerequisite for being permitted to Appeal that the Appellant meet what is known in common law countries as the “Wednesbury Test” which means you can only succeed as an Appellant if you can show that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached the decision that is the subject of the Appeal.

h) We request that the terms of reference of the CRWG include consideration of FFA compliance with Article 15.d of the FIFA Statutes. 

2. Composition

Our assertion that the FFA Board is operating as a stand-alone entity and in its own interests is extremely relevant to the consideration of the composition of the CRWG. The FFA Board’s actions over the last 16 months, and the fundamental governance flaws within its attempted solutions to this crisis, further underscore our submission that the FFA Board remains solely focused on maintaining itself as the dominant “stakeholder” in the function of the FFA Congress. As such maintaining its ability to determine the ultimate composition of its own membership.

Inconsistent with the requirements of FIFA Statute Article 15j this behaviour, as a stand-alone issue, should be of great concern to FIFA given the issues identified already in this submission.

Given the very clear and firm guidance provided to the FFA by the FIFA Secretary General in relation to the consequences of its failure to meet either of the March 31st deadline or the November 30th deadline, it beggars belief that we are now facing a third extension of this phase of the congress reform process whilst the FFA Board retains its mandate. The oppressed and underrepresented stakeholders of the Australian game are surely justified in feeling badly let down.

Our view is:

i. That the FFA Board has effectively disqualified itself from participation in the CRWG.

ii. The CRWG should be made up of representatives of the originally FIFA identified stakeholders – Member Federations, APFCA and the PFA – operating without the impediment of interference of the FFA Board and Executive.

iii. We believe the ideal Membership or the CRWG is:

a) Three Member Federations

b) Two A-League Clubs

c) One PFA Representative

d) This would see a committee evenly balance between the Professional and Amateur games.

iv. Consultation with the AAFC, PRFA and Coaches Australia needs to be        incorporated within the process. This recognizes the importance of these nascent Special Interest Groups and also that there is already some representation overlap through Member Federation and FFA Standing Committees.

v. The CRWG should be chaired by an independent Chairperson of suitable legal and procedural expertise who would have a casting vote.

vi. The CRWG should be supported by FIFA and AFC legal resources, along with an Australian commercial legal service in order to ensure that relevant recommendations of the CRWG are captured with optimal constitutional draft amendments.

3. Mandate

Assuming that the CRWG:

• Is formed in the representative manner described above;
• Is predicated on constant referral and renewal of mandate by the constituent members with their respective membership;
• Has meaningful consultation with other stakeholders built into its processes;

i. We believe that the CRWG should be mandated to create conclusive outcomes for simple ratification by the existing Congress. 

4. Timeline

For the professional game the consequences of the continuance of the status quo are dire. All critical commercial metrics associated with the professional game are in decline and our ability to arrest that trend is completely blocked by the Congress Issue.

Professional Clubs stand on the brink of joining the nine club administrations that have already become insolvent in the first 14 years of the A-League. The combined losses for the A-League clubs in the 14 years the competition has been run by the FFA amount to approximately A$300m. There would be no professional game in Australia but for the funding of the sport in Australia by the Clubs. Were the professional game to collapse due to the issues it faces that would be catastrophic for the game here.

ii. As a consequence of the real and current threat to our game, we believe that the timeline for the CRWG process should be as short as possible without compromising its efficacy. We believe that this process should be completed no later than June 1st2018.

The APFCA membership have put their faith for the last 16 months in the FIFA/AFC process in the belief that it would produce the promised reform that would enable a positive chain-reaction of further reform for the Australian game. In reality, the only thing that has changed in those 16 months is a closer bond between the APFCA Membership and Professional Footballers Australia (PFA) – borne out of our common ambition to see the professional game contribute meaningfully to the Australian football ecosystem.

We remain committed to finding consensus among the Australian Football Family in order to overcome the fundamental governance flaws of the FFA. To achieve this the artificial and undemocratic impediments that have stood in the way of the process to date must be removed and the FIFA identified stakeholders, who have to date been disintermediated, be re-empowered and re-mandated.

APFCA makes submission to FIFA/AFC delegation – Australian Professional Football Clubs Association

ourpriorities

independent governance

The APFCA is advocating for a number of important changes to Australian football’s governance arrangements. These include the long-awaited transition to an independent A-League and more democratic representation for professional clubs and players in an expanded FFA Membership.The APFCA believes that the proposed transition to an independent A-League would lead to improved governance outcomes by reducing conflicts of interest in league-related decisions and bringing the competition’s governance framework more closely into line with best practices in other Australian sports and the world’s most successful football leagues.The APFCA is also lobbying for an expanded FFA Membership based on a nine (Federation Reps), six (A-League Club Reps), two (PFA Reps) configuration that more accurately reflects the role of the professional game in Australian football. Such a configuration will allow the professional game to work in collaboration with the sport’s other important stakeholders in a formal and empowered setting for the benefit of the whole football family.

better football

The APFCA believes that some common-sense changes to the rules and regulations of the A-League would improve the quality of football played in the competition while preserving its competitive balance.This would potentially include enhancing the rules governing transfers, loans and the use of overseas players, creating new opportunities for homegrown young players to gain experience in the competition, investing in the recruitment, training, development of professional referees to officiate in A-League matches, and adjusting fixture schedules to avoid clashes with international matches while retaining the competition’s existing 30-round format.

greater sustainability

The APFCA believes that targeted changes to the league’s commercial arrangements would produce fairer outcomes and provide clubs with a greater chance of breaking even or making a profit, and ultimately investing more in their on-field and off-field capabilities.The A-League and its clubs currently lose approximately $25m per year with nine out of ten A-League clubs reporting a net loss in 2015-16. This is not a new phenomenon, with the league’s short history punctuated by the dissolution of multiple clubs and the return of multiple licences.Nowhere are the financial challenges faced by A-League clubs more evident than in relation to the distribution of broadcast revenue. Under the current model, the FFA sells the broadcast rights for its various properties, including the A-League, Socceroos, Matildas, FFA Cup and National Youth League, and then allocates a share of the total proceeds back to each of the different properties on the basis of an outdated formula.Under the current model, the A-League received an approximate 65% share of FFA broadcast revenue for the 2015-16 season. However, independent research undertaken by Nielsen, based on an analysis conducted over a 4-year cycle from 2013 to 2016, suggests that A-League clubs actually produce approximately 90% of the FFA’s domestic broadcast value.This gap suggests a significant portion of broadcast revenue generated by the A-League is being effectively redistributed to other parts of the football ecosystem while nine out of ten of its clubs are posting financial losses in order to maintain – and improve – the quality, competitiveness and intensity of the sport’s flagship competition. This is inequitable, unjustifiable and unsustainable.

a bigger contribution to the australian football community

The APFCA believes that a thriving, independent A-League underpinned by a more sustainable commercial model could make a bigger long-term contribution to the Australian football community through the provision of sustainable funding to support grassroots football, the strengthening of elite player development pathways, and the generation of increased public interest in the sport.It is also the view of that APFCA that Australia’s professional clubs should be granted greater autonomy to bolster their in-house elite youth development programs, expand their national recruitment activities, and offer promising young players a clearer and more stable pathway into high-level youth football, and ultimately, the A-League, in consultation with the FFA and state and regional bodies.

Our Priorities – Australian Professional Football Clubs Association

And people accused the NSL of being a cluster fuck. Yet with the 20/20 vision of hindsight Soccer Australia 2.0 have fucked things up worse. 

Amazing .

I still cannot accept any of these A League entities as actual "Clubs".

It's probably just a personal viewpoint, but I see them (and their role in the game) as no different to the 20-20 franchises that make up the Big Bash League.  They look to be an exact parallel to me.
I wonder how people would feel if the owners of the Big Bash franchises suddenly started demanding that they run cricket?  And this simply on the ground that they bring in most of the money?  I mean, isn't that precisely why they and their competition were formed and why they are tolerated in the wider more traditional game?

I'm much more interested in the NPL CLubs getting a seat at the table than these frauds.

Can someone list/explain to me all the involved parties currently meeting with FIFA?

The FFA are basically toast if this is correct. The FFA are in breach of their membership obligations to FIFA.

Day 1 Coaches, Fans groups, Womens reps, APFCA & PFA

Day 2, State Feds, 10 A-League clubs

Day 3 is for summary and decisions by FIFA and what is to be done next.

The APFCA document was a ball breaker very hard to argue with...

My fav bit was this...

i. That the FFA Board has effectively disqualified itself from participation in the CRWG.ii.

The CRWG should be made up of representatives of the originally FIFA identified stakeholders –

Member Federations, APFCA and the PFA – operating without the impediment of interference of the FFA Board and Executive.iii.

 We believe the ideal Membership or the CRWG is:

a) Three Member Federations
b) Two A-League Clubs
c) One PFA Representatived)

This would see a committee evenly balance between the Professional and Amateur games.

iv. Consultation with the AAFC, PRFA and Coaches Australia needs to be        incorporated within the process. This recognizes the importance of these nascent Special Interest Groups and also that there is already some representation overlap through Member Federation and FFA Standing Committees.

v. The CRWG should be chaired by an independent Chairperson of suitable legal and procedural expertise who would have a casting vote.vi.

The CRWG should be supported by FIFA and AFC legal resources, along with an Australian commercial legal service in order to ensure that relevant recommendations of the CRWG are captured with optimal constitutional draft amendments.

FIFA did specifically name women iirc. They didnt state in which capcity though eg PFA women or APFCA W-League. FFA have got the ball and are running with the FFA community womens vote.

The FFA are not compliant with FIFA membership. They incorporated as a business not a members association - they’re f’ked ... they’re basically FIFAs plaything now. It’s game over.

People need to remember AFC. 

CFG have strong links within AFC. There are also other Asian owners.

AFC and FIFA have a agreed provisionally to allow SEAsian teams into the A-League. One of which is KL, where AFC is located. 

Here is the article again
https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/exclusive-jon-smith-details-aleague-expansion-plan-into-south-east-asia-rejected-by-frank-lowy/news-story/2f291420d52b8799c2375d80778c7c1b

Sage even mentioned recently again that the Malaysian FA want a team in.

THE THEORY BEHIND THE IDEA

Besides the Philippines, Smith’s research found that audiences outside of Australia were “largely enthusiastic”.

“Without the Philippines, most of them, including Malaysia, that whole basin, had fanatical support for soccer. Them wanting to stuff (beat) an Aussie team every two to three weeks would’ve been a fillip for the audience.”

Smith noted that while the A-League was a “great product” in a “visibly important” football nation, he just couldn’t see the value in expanding to existing regions or regional centres to grow the competition.

“With slow, deliberate well calculated expansion, my guess is TV, social media will grow a new audience.

“At 16 teams it started becoming very lucrative. If you really want to be ambitious, you start looking at India, but that is burgeoning soccer at the moment, it’s huge. It’s the next one that’s going to break out.”

He said: “We looked at: could we logistically actually make it work. Could you put teams on the road for three weeks - Perth or Wellington, for example and logistically let them train, run up as far as Hong Kong, which is a journey, and come back again, while creating enough income, to feed, clothe, water a team and give it enough competitive edge.

“We came up with a plan, and boy, financially did it work, because these were regions where the television money could be sizable. There were parties, including BeIN, whose eyes were looking at the A-League.”

Given the growth of the MLS in America, the potential stakeholders felt an emerging league could be similarly successful. “A number of the owners of clubs and leagues throughout South East Asia could see a league, with Australian administration, would actually work even though its antitheses from having their own independence. They could still run their own league, but run this alongside.”


I think this is still the ultimate aim of APFCA.  The last quote is important also. In theory AAFC & FFA could run their own league, alongside. This is why it is possible and why people have been mentioning an Asian (ACL) spot of AAFC. Because it would be the same as India and there would be 2 d1 leagues in Australia. The A-League closed w/ os teams and the National NPL/Championship with pro rel. 

Have you read the Statutes or are you just taking them at their word?  How can you register as an association nationally?  There is state legislation for incorporating an association but I couldn't find similar in national legislation.  One of the association advisory bodies indicated it was normal to register under the corporations act if the association wanted to operate nationally and had high revenue.  It would be interesting to hear some legal opinion.

I would think that they would have an ice block in hells chance of getting the review committee make up they suggest.  Why leave the other stakeholders out of it?  For starters I expect that FIFA will demand the women's game be represented and also AAFC.

It depends on what AFC FIFA. They can mandate a women vote but it doesn't mean that "onside" has to be part of the discussion group.

Likewise, they can mandate or suggest AAFC get a vote and at the same time not see it as relevant that they decide the makeup of the next congress.

Up til now they were wiling to accept a 9+1 outcome decision.

Calm down Waz, I know you would love the FFA to collapse but if your seriously believe that FIFA didnt know of or approve FFA's corporate structure before the APFC meeting this week you are delirious. When Lowy shut down Soccer Australia he had to apply to FIFA to get the FFA recognized and admitted into FIFA so approval of all structures, statutes, laws, etc would have happened then.

Link to full article is below, but being a corporation was known to everyone and FFA is not only one as Griffith himself stated:

But in another charged letter to Lowy on Saturday, Griffin indicated the clubs would leave the legalities in the hands of FIFA.“Noting that the FFA is one of only a handful of FIFA Member Associations structured as a Corporation, part of our considerations is the apparent current focus of the FFA Board on the Australian Corporations Act over the obligations of the FFA as an Association Member of FIFA,” the letter read.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/football/aleague-clubs-will-not-sue-ffa-but-issue-warning-to-board-ahead-of-egm/news-story/f0e4ba6614a5834e97acf77e2c508770

APFCA has no idea, but when you cant manage to get number to stay on during ACL matches why would you be surprised. 

Article 11 below and there is no mention of corporate structure requirements anywhere. More importantly, the definition in the statues clearly says it all, FFA is recognised as an association by FIFA and that's the only real criteria for FIFA. 

Definition:
Association: a football association recognised as such by FIFA. It is a member of FIFA, unless a different meaning is evident from the context

11 Admission
1. Any association which is responsible for organising and supervising football in all of its forms in its country may become a member association. Consequently, it is recommended that all member associations involve all relevant stakeholders in football in their own structure. Subject to par. 5 and par. 6 below, only one association shall be recognised as a member association in each country.
2.Membership is only permitted if an association is currently a member of a confederation. The Council may issue regulations with regard to the admission process.
3.Any association wishing to become a member association shall apply in writing to the FIFA general secretariat.
4.The association’s legally valid statutes shall be enclosed with the application for membership and shall contain the following mandatory provisions:
a) always to comply with the Statutes, regulations and decisions of FIFA and of the relevant confederation;
b) to comply with the Laws of the Game in force;
c) to recognise the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as specified in these Statutes.

FIFA adopted 10 key development principles with regard to women's football.  This is a copy of #8.

"Football, and especially women's football, will benefit from the involvement of women on governing bodies and in management.  In principle, each Member Association should have women involved at all decision-making levels, including the Executive Committee."

I can't imagine with that being what FIFA wants that they would not have a woman on the Review Committee to ensure that the women's game is properly considered in whatever it is the Committee is given to do.

Interestingly the FFA have included FIFA's principles in their quite comprehensive Women's Football Development Guide.

https://www.ffa.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2017-10/Women%27s%20Football%20Development%20Guide.pdf

FIFA will not recognize the FFA under Australian Corporations Law. Its that simple. 

@ AJF

You state that AAPFC have “no idea” when clearly if you read their submission they do have an idea. On each point they raise they are very specific.

The difference beteeeen registering the FFA as a “member organisation” or as a “corporate” are substantial. The fact the FFA structured under corporation law provides them with immunity from their members and stakeholders - FIFA are very clear on this point, football is to be organised by and for the benefit of players and their clubs ie “the members of the FFA”.

The administration and supervision of the game is to be performed by football associations who work for their stakeholders, not the other way around.

The FFA are fucked now, they will either change or be suspended from FIFA at which point their corporate contracts and participation agreements with the clubs become null and void (not to mention the massive Legal action the mega rich owners like CFG will bring just for fun) and the clubs will then organise themselves a new federation, join AFC, and off we go again .....

The only thing that can save the FFA is FIFA and some form of colusion. The probability of that happening is extremely low as it would set a precedent for the rest of the world. FIFA will not risk the rest of the world to save Lowy, the big European clubs are already restless and FIFA won’t want to sow the seeds of their revolution in Australia. FIFA will stick by their rules, the ffa are now way off side.

@gyfox

Then PFA should be able to just send a women. APFCA as stated are trying to follow FIFAs initial suggestion.

The women's thing popped up after Lowy couldn't get his vote through.

FFA wanted 9 3 1.

best thing i have read on here in a long time

in the end i hope the AAFC has as much membership as the APFCA

Both APFCA and the AAFC have provided very professional statements regarding why they should be on the board. The FFA released a statement about utter bullshit. Fuck off Lowy football isn't about your dipshit legacy.

imagine if the FFA are banned from the working group. 

Well they were asked to leave yesterday. I don't know the reason why but they had a good chat to the NPL clubs did FIFA. These crisis moments almost make up for the drama of no pro/rel.




ALMOST.

FFA allocated 45 minutes for the refs, fans, women's new vote and AAFC.

FIFA said no and gave AAFC 2 hours without FFA presence.

Maybe it's the FFA with the agenda all along. DU DUN DAAAAAAA

Like I said. ALMOST.

They should be banned.............they are not a stakeholder. 

It's fantasy thinking but just imagine if FIFA/AFC is thinking about giving AAFC proposed competition D1 status and independence from FFA and the A-League clubs the option to join it if they want to break from FFA.

Probably so the FFA wouldn't interrupt them with some bullshit about being unique.

I am extremely curious as to why AAFC are being shown the same equality as all the current stakeholders.

AAFC must be doing something right you would think.