Funding of NZF Youth Sides

I think the dangerous thing is that as Fred says, its a two year program. Ok so then who pays for that? The kids that go to the WC or that kids that are there at the start of the 2 year campaign?

The dangers as I see it are

1: As mentioned, you take 21 players and keeper number 3 never plays but has to fork out his 2k

2: If you have kids that pay up at the start of the 2 year cycle and then can't go because of injury on the eve of the tournament, do they get their cash back?

3: In light of point 2 a kid is a late addition to the squad that has never been involved in the run up, will most likely be squad man 21 and wont play. Will he still have to pay 2k

4: We start at 2k. What happens in 3 years time when someone says 'fuck it, we'll bump it to 3k' and then 5 years after that...

I think this is a poor decision from NZF. They have a history of 'one off levy's' that are never one off and keep getting more tacked on. This has danger all over it.

the solution is simply to be better at raising funds.  i know it's not straightforward, and i am simplifying things by saying this; in fact, this needs a whole thread for discussion.

someone secured asb.  that person needs to be put on the job.  there are a plethora of contract commercial manager guns for hire in australiasia; these guys pay for themselves in no time. 

any such professional would easily construct a case for a complete overhaul of the organisation's commercial structures and it's 'offer' to potential partners.

football has a vibrant and willing community (us) and a presently un-engaged mass probably 20 times the size of it's currently engaged market.  this represents considerable potential for any prospective sponsor.  but we all know how poorly NZF are set up from a comms and informationsharing POV - they are getting better, but they still need a big shake media wiseto make the most of the opportunity

NZF need to go back to brand basics, engage the presently unengaged masses and sell this to corporate new zealand and asia

Reg, I both agree and disagree.  I agree that football does have the potential to bring in far more income, and I think what you've said above is absolutely true.  

However, I disagree that if we improve income because of the passion of your average amateur football player or fan that this should automatically be spent on the "elite".

Football in NZ is a game played by about 100,000 people, of whom about 40-50 are professionals (I'm guessing here).  There does need to be a balance, and I don't think it's particularly fair for amateur players, who themselves pay to play often in fairly average facilities, to increasingly subsidise professional and/or elite players where it has been shown that few of those will go on to professional football, which really is the minimum standard you expect. NZF administers a predominantly amateur sport - let's not forget that.

I think NZF have got this wrong on this particular issue, the money is there from FIFA and that itself answers the question about who should pay, the asnwer is FIFA and they already do that - but I  there are valid questions about the extent to which limited funds should be spent on the "elite" when many of those elite players will never go on to play for the senior national team.  I also think that there is at least an argument that when you are looking at football as a career, spending money on coaching etc is an investment in your career just like paying for university etc.  Again, making attending a world cup conditional on paying money is the wrong way to go about it, but I do think there is a discussion to be had.

My personal view is that we'll improve results at senior level when we have more players playing professional football in proper leagues.  While we still have to pick amateurs we'll still be a very poor side.  NZF structures for juniors should be based around getting players into pro football, ultimately whether we win, lose or draw at U17s or U20s won't do an awful lot for the seniors if the players end up in the ASBP or Northern Football.  Milicic could have $1 million to prepare his U20s and they might get better results in 3 matches, but that's only worth spending if we end up with better players at the end of it.

i'm not disagreeing with you jd, but my post was about how to address a funding shortfall, not debating how it should be spent.  your post has some good points, but i do think that our participation in these tournys needs to be covered

Wholeheartedly agree with this.

One final point - if this was the U17 girls being asked to pay would we be hearing the same complaints (excluding people who are into women's football which is fine, I'm personally not)?  I'm not sure - personally I think of girls football as amateur football, a hobby etc, so seems more normal for them to pay.  Guys is closer to professional so we expect them not to pay - kind of reflects on NZ football as a bit tin pot which we as fans feel reflects on us.  

I think JD and reg22 are both making some very good points.

I'll take it a bit wider and say I think the whole funding of football in NZ needs a look at, not just the funding of NZF. That's something I would actually be happy with NZF spending a chunk of money on - a proper review of the funding of the entire football system with recommendations on how to improve it. Where does the money come from?, where does it go?, what are our priorities?, have we got all the policy settings right?

For instance, I know it's only tangentally related (and I know I'll be accused of being a broken record) but find it a bit bizarre that we're prepared to kick off a revolt about age grade players being asked for $2k when at the same time nobody seems to give a fuck about at least 2 of our ASB Prem franchises receiving $500k per annum in gaming funding, and for what? Think about that for a minute - the total sum of money NZF is looking to recover annually from age grade players is less than one fifth of the amount ACFC gets from the Trillion Trust. What the fuck are we doing? Another example: I keep hearing about these poor kids who are unable to pay to represent their country but how many of these players are already being paid to play at their clubs/franchises (and often by dubious means).

The funding of football in NZ is a confusing mess, properly broken from top to bottom. That makes it really hard a proper discussion about any one part of the system in isolation. We need to take a step back and look at the whole thing.

nice post term, i particularly like the point about clubs paying players

Take a break ...are you at Kiwitea Tomorrow ....?

And we haven't even discussed Sport NZ funding in the context of this thread, which really just adds another layer of complexity.

I know the Football Ferns get a shed-load of money from them (deservedly so) but I'm assuming that they, like the All Whites, are not part of this pay-to-play scheme.

Anyone know if any of the age-grade teams (Men's or Women's) also get Sport NZ funding? If they do, that should be money specifically tagged for the type of programmes that NZF is trying to cost-recover here i.e. build-up/preparation for World Cups.

Do you mean Saturday? The answer's no, anyway, although I'll be following on Twitter and/or the radio.

Btw, not picking specifically on ACFC with that comment about Trillion (for a change) just a handy example to highlight the seemingly random way money sloshes around the game here, without any grand plan or prioritisation.

Well, yeah, maybe.

I guess Smithy would probably say it's the principle at stake here and that's got nothing to do with where individual players get their money or even how much money they've got. Which is fair enough.

Regardless though, I reckon if the parents want to kick-off about this but it then turns out that some of these players get paid to play for their clubs (and who knows how legit that is on a case by case basis) then that's just a fucking embarrassing look for all involved and makes the sport look like what it is... a bit of a mess.

Fred de Jong.....what a fucking mong

Maybe get a campaign going or something to help fud these guys?   Ifill and the likes seemed upset about it could we ge them on board

You are probably the only mong around here.

NZF Statement on Player Contribution to age-group teams

September 26, 2013

AUCKLAND – New Zealand Football wishes to clarify the concept of player contributions to the cost of age group teams and outline the reasons behind this policy.

Since 2006 New Zealand has qualified to compete in 14 (fourteen) FIFA U-17 or U-20 World Cups, arguably more equivalent events than any other major team sport in this country.

This has benefits to both New Zealand Football and the players involved.

The exposure has undoubtedly helped New Zealand improve at senior level. This is borne out in improved results over the eight FIFA events at senior and/or Olympic level New Zealand has featured in since 2007.

It has also helped our players move into professional environments not just from the exposure at high profile events but also the technical improvement gained throughout the campaign. This includes coaching, playing ‘best-with-best’ on a regular basis, experiencing international competition and in some cases competing in domestic leagues as a national team selection.

Each of those age group campaigns has a budget in the region of $250,000 over the two year cycle to cover domestics camps, qualifying campaigns, additional international experience (when qualifying is held in New Zealand), training sessions and related staff and logistical costs.

Costs for competing at the respective World Cups including flights and accommodation are covered by FIFA but this is not included in the NZF budget outlined above. None of these events have prize money attached for qualifying.

The contribution of $2000 asked of squad members is put towards the cost of the entire two-year campaign not simply attendance at the respective World Cup.

New Zealand Football believes it is fair to seek a personal contribution to each two-year cycle of development to reflect the personal benefits players receive and that this is preferable than alternative options including reducing the level of activity for each campaign or placing the entire cost of the campaign on the wider football community.

However, in the case of the New Zealand team to compete at the 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup in UAE, NZF acknowledges that the timing of the policy’s implementation mean this team and their families have not have had as much time as future age group teams will to plan for this expense. We have therefore reduced their contribution to $1000. 

Pulling out of these tournaments is hardly a solution.

New Zealand Football believes it is fair to seek a personal contribution to each two-year cycle of development to reflect the personal benefits players receive and that this is preferable than alternative options including reducing the level of activity for each campaign or placing the entire cost of the campaign on the wider football community.

------

the lack of full stops in that paragraph is designed to confuse us

its still bullshit and its great people like ifill are going in to bat for our youth

Happy that Team NZ crapped out in the Americas cup. Maybe next time some of the $36 million the Govt poured into that rich boys W**k fest Americas cup could go into amateur NZ sport! So kiwi kids don't have to pay to attend a FIFA World Cup

Interesting reading that the age group teams budgets are around $250,000 for the boys. I recall hearing that the girls U17/U20 budgets were only around $140,000. What is the difference and why when the girls side of the game is having greater success do the boys still get more $$$?

Junior Subs pays Adult Wages
it occurs at every level of the game

So if NZF youth sides have to contribute money because of the benefit they receive from coaching, does that mean that the All Whites don't contribute money because Ricki doesn't provide any benefit to those players?

Jacob Spoonley made a good point on Twitter tonight that clubs will just use the $1k/$2k as a recruiting tool.

Which effectively means clubs paying players.

Which is just battling one terrible lack of principles with another terrible lack of principles.

Football really does exist in a moral abyss.

Still, problem solved. Awesome work everybody!!

In that respect it possibly does a little good. Presumably those players are currently get paid what they're 'worth' and taking $ out of the game. So on that assumption they're not going to get paid any more (not too much more at least), but this way at least the $ clubs pay them is going back into football. 

Interesting angle to look at it from. Hadn't thought of that before. 

Ricki has to contribute to Ryan Nelsen for the benefit he received from his coaching