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.
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 playing 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.