Funding of NZF Youth Sides

Great stuff. A few questions from me if you get the chance to ask them:

- What does FIFA actually pay for at these tournaments? What does NZF pay for? What costs will these player contributions go towards?

- Is this a philosophical decision or one driven purely by financial realities?

- Is the amount of international activity NZF is currently expected to support sustainable?

- How much impact did failure to qualify for the Confeds Cup have, if any? Would this decision have been made anyway?

- In hindsight did we allocate too much of the 2010 WC proceeds to the players and grassroots?

- Is this decision likely to be reversed in future, or is it here to stay? Will qualification for the 2014 WC make a difference either way?

- What other options were discussed? Did the Board consider the possibility of talking to the player's union about levying current and future professionals (i.e."taxing" those who actually realise a financial benefit from age-group representation).

- Did the Board consider having a more public discussion about priorities and the potential trade-offs that could be made?

- Will the Board consider publishing some more detail about the background to this decision?

Just a brain dump. I'm sure you have lots of your own questions!

What would they know....

There is all this talk her about wanting to know the financial ins and outs of this decision, however I recall a year or so ago many on here being quite adamant that we had no right to know how and why NZF made its financial decisions and we had no right to see where all the money was going to and why.... Someone was even called at 'retard' because they believed that we did have that right. Has something changed or is this situation different to wanting to know how much NZF paid to the Phoenix and why?

Dunno about that, but I know it's off topic.

Interview with Fred is in the can. Good on him for fronting, even though I still don't agree. Listen to this week's In The Zone to catch up with what he had to say.

Did he tackle the hard questions or straight bat them?

Ah nice looking forward to it

 

excuse me but what is "In the Zone" ?

thanks

interesting convo this afternoon with a parent asking about the bill for NTC. Their assumption was that it was paid for by NZF. Obv a bit disappointed now. 

Ever looked at that menu at the top of the screen under the yellowfever banner foal?

In the Zone

thanks

Thanks for getting Fred onto podcast and talking about this.

If Stretford Junior was selected for "honour of representing your country" as Greenie put it, but then asked to front an extra $2K (on top of every other bloody cost), his parents would think twice about saying to NZF they couldn't afford it. There is pride involved and also fear that the spot may be offered to someone else who can afford it. So they go into more debt or spend time they don't have trying to fundraise other ways - to people and organisations who have probably already contributed before. At this level payers are training pretty much every day and they don't have time to stand behind BBQs selling snags 'n sauce.

This is just wrong. Not everyone is on a 6 figure salary.

So Fred's answers can be summarised as follows:

- What does FIFA actually pay for at these tournaments? What does NZF pay for? What costs will these player contributions go towards?

FIFA pays for airfares for 28 people, plus accomm and meals from 4 days before the 1st game until the day after you get knocked out. NZF pays for other staff costs, medical expenses, insurance etc. The players contribution will go towards the overall cost of a two-year programme, including warm-up games for the tournament itself. Fred estimated a single two -year programme at $250k and stressed that the player's contribution (of approx. $40k) was fair but significant in that context.

- Is this a philosophical decision or one driven purely by financial realities?

Largely a philosophical decision. Fred stressed that this is a two-year programme that the players get significant benefit from and therefore they should make a contribution. However, the financial sustainability of international programmes was mentioned as a reason. That said, Fred denied that anything "untoward" forced the decision.

- Is the amount of international activity NZF is currently expected to support sustainable?

The financial sustainability of international programmes was mentioned as a reason. Fred acknowledged that qualifying for just about every age-group WC creates pressure. He noted that qualification through Asia would be more expensive and that Australia don't actually go to all these WCs. Implication that NZ gets a good deal despite the cost.

- How much impact did failure to qualify for the Confeds Cup have, if any? Would this decision have been made anyway?

Confeds Cup not related. Decision would have been made anyway.

- In hindsight did we allocate too much of the 2010 WC proceeds to the players and grassroots?

No, the allocation of WC winnings was "good". Fred stressed that after paying the players NZF got $6m ($4m of which went to grassroots) which is less than 1 year's revenue for NZF - "the WC winnings were not as significant as people think".

- Is this decision likely to be reversed in future, or is it here to stay? Will qualification for the 2014 WC make a difference either way?

Not directly answered but as is a philosophical decsion fair to assume answer is "no".

The other questions weren't directly asked, although great job overall on the interview by Smithy I thought.

Fred was keen to stress that this is a contribution to a two-year programme that the players get significant benefit from.

OK, fair enough, but if that's the case then I think NZF have messed up their comms on this.

They should have pitched it as being exactly that - a contribution to a two-year programme, rather than a contribution to going to a World Cup. That immediately takes some of the emotion out of "being asked to pay to represent your country".

In fact, if they asked for this money from the programme participants in instalments over the course of two years and then refunded it to those players not selected for the WC, that would have defused it even further in my view.

I will take issue with one thing said in the pod though.

Sorry to be blunt, but the implication that the state of the game has somehow regressed and "after all these years we're sending kids out to sell meat-packs" is a load of emotive rubbish.

Before Australia's defection to Asia in 2006 we sent a grand total of 3 age-grade rep teams to World Cups, out of a possible 28 (that's across Men's and Women's U17 and U20 going back to 1974).

Since 2006 we've sent teams to 12 out of 13 possible World Cups, a significant increase in activity and costs, without generating any additional revenue.

The fact is this is an issue that has only arisen in the past seven years and it is an indication of the progression of the game here, not a regression.

Our age-grade players now have an almost guaranteed opportunity to play at a World Cup that simply never existed in the past. I really wish they didn't have to pay anything but at the same time I am damn sure that none of them, no matter what their financial circumstances, would rather turn back the clock.

if Norman Rogers figures are good then $2000 is chump change re 3 of 24 vs 12 of 13. 

.

Dont agree. We have progressed obviously, it is in the funding that we are struggling
PS Never "end of" in this forum

Do we have to admit we are a small fish - Bring back a senior player levy ( have we removed the first or third) to fund NZ World Cup campaigns as long as that is where the money goes. 

2nd thought " as long as the money is not lost on NZF management junkets.  

We should of got a proper interviewer, someone that knows something about football.... like Brendan Telfer [tongue in cheek emoticon]

So a couple of new articles about this today:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/9194767/Danny-Hay-Revolt-brewing-over-NZF-pay-to-play

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/9194995/Pay-to-play-not-OK-says-top-NZ-coach-Milicich

I thought Danny Hay's article was a poor piece of writing from him. It contains a couple of serious inaccuracies, lacks context and offers no alternative solutions.

When he says NZF's financial position is "very healthy" he is completely wrong. Even a cursory examination of NZF's accounts shows that the current level of activity is unsustainable. Unless changes are made (or we qualify for the WC) NZF will be broke again in 2-3 years.

He also fails to acknowledge that since 2006 our age-grade players are regularly getting opportunities to go to World Cups that they just never had before. That's great, but it also costs a lot of money, and not just for the tournament itself (which FIFA pays for), but for the whole 2-year build up. We now send U17 and U20 men's and women's teams to just about every World Cup. Is it really such a disgrace that they are being asked to make a contribution? Maybe an alternative view is that the honour of wearing our national team shirt is now being diluted and we are sending players to World Cups who have no business being there. Maybe those players should consider themselves very lucky to even have the opportunity to "buy" a trip to a World Cup that most young players around the world can only dream about ever achieving.

And what about alternative solutions? Danny doesn't have any but I still very much like the idea of a levy on current NZ pros to create a fund designed to support future pros coming through. Pay it forward.

The Milicich article is interesting because he offers more insight into the way this actually went down. However, I suspect the real reason he saw a difference between the 2011 and 2013 WC campaigns was not because Michael Glading was a better CE than Grant McKavanagh but that Glading had the advantage of committing a large chunk of the 2010 WC winnings and now the international reserve is spent.

That said, I totally agree with Milicich when he complains about how badly this has been communicated by NZF. Could have been a lot more proactive and transparent.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/9194995/Pay-to-play-not-OK-says-top-NZ-coach-Milicich

"the man who successfully challenged Kiwi football bosses, overturning a proposal to charge players $2000 each to play in this year's under-20 World Cup in Turkey..."

Now we know the real reason Milicich wasn't re-appointed !

Also reveals the actual costs to NZ Football of competing in FIFA age group World Cups  - $10.000 - i.e. stuff all !!!

Milicich's criticism and De Jong's response:

"Unsure over NZF's claims on cost, Milicich also struggles to understand the rationale of charging 21 players $2000 each when Fifa covers all flights and on-ground costs during World Cups.  

    Fred de Jong, NZF's high performance director, confirmed Fifa's role, saying NZ Football's actual event expenses are about $10,000 - for insurance, staff costs and medical supplies.  

    De Jong said the player contribution is to manage wider, two-year campaign windows, not balancing tournaments in isolation.  

    Milicich does not agree: "Costs of $250,000 does seem extraordinarily high. In our previous [2011] campaign, yes, that was the budget. But this one? No."

- no doubt running age group sides through qualification tournaments etc. costs money but asking teenage players (i.e. their parents) to pay $2000 for representing their country really sucks bigtime.

Apparently there is now a revolt amongst parents of the current u-17 side unhappy with the  fee - perhaps some players will now pull out? What a mess !!! No doubt this wrangling is why the team hasn't been named yet.

Two weeks from the u-17 World Cup and no team named, no warm-up games or preparation announced. A right balls-up...

De Jong = Epic Fail!!

just Fred's fault is it?  your sure about that?

In the 30 years prior to 2006 NZ sent approx. 60 players to age-grade world cups (qualified 3 out of a possible 28 times). As an age grade rep your chances of representing NZ at a world cup were about 10%.

In the 7 years since 2006 NZ has sent over 200 players to age-grade world cups (qualified 12 out of a possible 13 times). As an age grade rep your chances of representing NZ at a world cup are now about 95%.

In the past couple of days I've read a lot about "earning the right to represent your country" and how nobody should have to pay for "the honour of representing your country" but isn't the truth here that the honour of representing NZ at an age-grade world cup has been severely diluted since Australia moved to Asia? And doesn't this form an important part of the context for the debate about whether these players should make a contribution to the costs?

Let's be honest, in many other countries most of our players would not even get near national selection, let alone then be part of a side that qualifies for a world cup tournament. Does the $2k contribution that they are now being asked for actually just allow them to "buy" a trip to play at a world cup that they don't really deserve?

gidday chopah, i know fred's a good ellerslie man and all, so maybe you are privvy to more information than we are. 

on the surface of things, fred is a big part of this fiasco, simply due to him being the high performance manager and him having to front this whole fiasco

we all know of course that the HPM is just great for the CEO because the CEO can now hang the HPM out to dry on such matters whereas in the past it would all come back to bite the CEO, so i sympathise with fred in this regard

so, unfortunately for fred, unless our national teams start performing at a high standard (which is his actual responsibility), this threatens to be his legacy

Emotive terms like "deserve" and "honour" really dilute the debate here.

For me it's a simple economic question. With revenues of ~$10m and being the biggest youth sport in the country, we should be able to support our elite youngsters totally if we determine that they are the best in the country and ask them to go to a World Cup for us.

It's that easy.

^This (Edit: what Reg22 said)

 

The fact that there is no CEO and Fred made himself the mouth piece means he earns 100% of the vitrol whether he deserves it or not. Regardless whether its his decision that he made or others did, he is complicit purely because the communication of it is such a hatchet job and he fronted on that. For a guy that has CEO skill (GM of a company?) he definitely gets a brick bat for the way this has been communicated.

 

My next question is what are NZF going to do if the parents refuse to pay....? I don't think it will be too difficult for them all to band together in the growing face of negative publicity on this and push back. This could become a massive problem for NZF at a time where they don't really need it and it is growing and is not going away anytime soon. The media have latched onto it and have given air time to two prominent voices in Milicich and Hay (regardless if they have a point or its factually correct, or not) so it seems it may not go away anytime soon.

If FVH is watching, this may count against Fred as the next CEO just the way this has all been handled. I notice that the interim CEO Mark Aspden sits quietly in the background. Smart.

I agree. The fact that Australia moved to Asia should not be relative to the conversation. It looks like it gives it weight when you are comparing before and after but the reality, this is the environment. What would we be saying if Australia had never been part of OFC?

I think any incoming CEO, if they want to score quick runs (and not necessarily easy runs) is reverse this and make it all work in the budget. As Smithy says, with revenues of $10m...... Someone is creaming it here.

"   De Jong said the player contribution is to manage wider, two-year campaign windows, not balancing tournaments in isolation."

But I take it only the 21 selected, who go to the World cup are being asked to cough up?

Also begs the question if Little Billy's parents pay the 2k, they would expect some game time, not to pay for the experience of traveling to some far flung country they wouldn't normally visit?

Seen plenty of age group world cups where not all the players get on the field, especially when Fifa says you must take 3 keepers, poor old 3rd keeper, has virtually no chance of getting game time, but good on Fifa for making us try and develop them!

I would rather NZF find a way of not asking for money from players to represent their country.

Yeah, I am playing devil's advocate to some extent and admit to being prompted by the emotive rhetoric in Danny Hay's opinion piece. It's a shame the guy has a national audience because he doesn't do the debate any good at all by just lobbing poorly thought out (and sometimes factually wrong) grenades at NZF. That said, I still think NZ's current age-grade reps are lucky as all fuck and that needs to be borne in mind by them and their parents before they go on a big crusade.

But of course, it would be great if we could have the best of all worlds - representation at all these World Cups and from within NZF's core budget. It would also be great if NZF could enable a fully informed debate by opening the books and getting stakeholder input into how the money gets prioritised. Unfortunately, with people like Danny Hay around a seige mentality is a much more likely outcome.

Btw, I reckon by far the best analysis and reporting of this so far has been on this forum and in the podcast. Which is a pretty damning indictment of the rest of our sports media. Is it too much too ask that even one journo takes a proper look at this from all sides?

Ah shit, I knew my comment about the quality of the debate would jinx it.

Any forum readers who have kids involved in 2013 U17 boys or 2014 U17 girls prepared to divulge what the comms from NZF have been on the matter and how the parents have responded? I hear what Fred said on podcast but I'm interested in mood of parents on the matter. As has been raised, it just opens a whole pandora's box - do all parents who pay expect a % of game time; plus the wider philosophical issue  - as Smithy notes - "it just shouldn't happen". End of.