Preliminary Findings Report

September 2021Tasmania, Australia

Football FuturesPreliminary Findings Report

Image: Solstice Digital

Thank you for taking time to engage with the Tasmanian Football Futures Project.

This document is a summary of preliminary findings through data, surveys and anecdotal feedback. It draws on our detailed baseline data assessment as well as the insights and feedback gathered through surveys, town halls and interviews throughout the Tasmanian football community.

It outlines what the Tasmanian football community has highlighted as the key issues and challenges facing Tasmanian football.

The comments and feedback within this document are direct anecdotal feedback from consultation and they DO NOT reflect recommendations for the project. The anecdotal feedback acts as one input into any recommendations.

The data assessment within this document provides broad context on football in Tasmania, a comprehensive participation snapshot, as well as testing key issues from engagement/consultations through data.

The purpose of this document is to provide the football community with an opportunity to see the preliminary findings from the Tasmanian Football Futures Project. It is also an opportunity for people to review the feedback to-date and to submit any further feedback to be added to the findings.

This can be done through [email protected] and the cut-off date for submission is October 8, 2021.

Image: Solstice Digital 2

mailto:[email protected]

Contents4 General State-wide Feedback

5 Some Questions to Consider

6 General Opportunities Identified During Consultation

7 Umpire Specific Challenges - Feedback

8 Southern Region - Feedback

9 North West Region - Feedback

10 Northern Region - Feedback

11 Tasmanian Demographic Data

14 Tasmanian Participation Summary

19 Competitive Balance Assessment

29 Future of Football Survey Overview

Image: Solstice Digital 3

General State-wide Feedback1. Volunteers

2. Women'sgame

3. Players

4. Developmentand pathways

5. Coaching

6. Leagues

• It is getting harder to retain and attract volunteers into the game.• Clubs/ leagues that have implemented a roster system tend to have the least issues with volunteers.• Very little succession/ forward planning around roles and capabilities required by clubs.• Parents depart junior clubs after kids leave, loss of knowledge in most cases that needs to be addressed.

• Women’s footy has driven the majority of the growth in most regions but clubs and leagues have struggled to keep up with the growth, causing challenges across coaching, umpiring, scheduling and other support.

• Approach for male competitions doesn’t always work for females (coaching, recruitment, training methods etc.)• Female and male structures should be aligned (end goal).• Loss of TSLW without clear high performance pathway has reduced enthusiasm amongst some of the playing group.

• Concern about the lack of juniors and youth coming through (and leaving the game), greater work is required to attract and retain players in the system and at clubs.

• At the same time there is increased competition from other sports with basketball moving into junior timeslots in some regions and soccer popularity high (including in schools).

• Need to have a clear structure in the game with the role each league plays defined with a clear purpose.• This structure should support a clear development pathway for players with an ambition to play at the higher level, including what

competitions they should play in.• Alignment between junior and senior clubs is generally desired.

• There is high variability in the standard of coaching across the state with some situations turning players away.• Appetite exists for more support, development and training to assist coaches.

• Polar opinions on the role of the TSL going forward. Relationships between the TSL and other competitions are strained.• Broad acceptance 7 team TSL model isn’t sustainable or preferred in long term, given current structure does not represent

state-wide footprint (i.e. clubs in the North West). No aspirations from North West clubs to enter.• Leagues and clubs in regions are competing against each other for players, without consideration for the impact this is having on

the surrounding areas or how to strengthen the whole industry.• Lack of aligned governance, structures and rules between leagues is creating this competition.• Some clubs struggle to recruit and retain players/coaches due to a gulf in results. Some clubs spend unsustainable money to try

and resurrect their on-field fortunes.The comments and feedback within this document are direct anecdotal feedback from consultation and they DO NOT reflect recommendations for the project. The anecdotal feedback acts as one input into any recommendations.

4

1. Volunteers

2. Women's game

3. Players

4. Development and pathways

5. Coaching

6. Leagues

1) How do you embed the growth in the women’s game and address the coaching, umpiring and facilities challenges?2) What time and day should women’s games be played? What is the right timeslot?3) Should there be an alignment between male and female competitions and rules? If so, how do you close the gap?

1) How do you get more junior and youth players into the game? 2) How do you stop a drop off in players in the youth age bracket as other time demands grow?3) How do you recruit more players from junior to senior football?4) What do you need to do to manage the competition from other sports? 5) Can you work more broadly with other sports and the government to drive greater sports participation?6) Are there alternative slots to appeal to players currently not playing? e.g. religious players or those with work

commitments1) What is the right competition hierarchy structure for Tassie footy?2) How does the pathway act to keep players in the system?3) Do we have the talent/ player base/ resources to be able to support a state league competition?4) Can we get alignment between senior and junior clubs?

1) Do you need to shift to a standardised structure, governance model and rules across leagues?2) How do you manage and limit the competition for players between the different leagues?3) Is divisional football possible in a geographically spread region?

1) How do you retain and attract more volunteers?2) How do you give volunteers the support that they need?3) How do you ensure that there is long term sustainability in the volunteer model?4) Are there broader initiatives that you could consider around volunteering outside of just football?

1) What more can be done to deliver coaching education and coaching development?

Some Questions to Consider


5

AFL Tasmania

Development and pathways

Clubs/ Leagues

Umpiring

• Act as an advocate to the Tasmanian government for football (e.g. facilities support, access to school clinics etc.).• Take a stronger role in setting the policies and rules for footy in Tasmania with leagues coming into line underneath the

central body.• Provide more equipment (e.g. provide footballs for finals series).• Reintroduce the Volunteer of the Year award, potential for league, regional and state level of awards.• Help clubs and leagues to deliver more wellbeing programs – anti-bullying, mental heath, social media etc, both in season

but also as a way to stay engaged outside the footy season.• Promote Australian Rules not just the AFL as the elite platform – grassroots promotion.

• Location of any VFL/VFLW/ NAB League team is important as the travel means getting everyone together is impacted.• A coordinated state-wide model for development could replace current TSL model.• Greater volume of interregional representative footy to replace a state wide competition. Opportunity to expand the age

brackets.• Clubs to support game development in schools, draw the link back from the school programs to the clubs around the school,

and attract more people to play.

• Clubs to revisit life membership model to support volunteers and female football.• Merge clubs in regions that don’t have sufficient playing stocks to support all teams.• All clubs should have a junior program to feed the senior competition, with everyone accepting the responsibility to develop the

next generation of footballers in the state.• Ensure that there is a clear hierarchy of football across the regions, for all levels of skill to participate.• Introduce licensing agreements across the state with clubs having to meet minimum standards to participate in their competition.• More night football and league gala days to be explored

• Introduce a state-wide umpiring strategy, with coordinated retention, recruitment, development and training plans.

General Opportunities Identified During Consultation


6

Recruitment and retention

Pathways and talent

Umpire abuse

Make up

• Recruiting and retaining umpires, with the recovery from COVID slower than seen with players.• This challenge is greatest at the field umpire level and there isn’t sufficient supply to meet demand.

• Where there have been targeted campaigns in place to recruit umpires there has been success in this model, but there is need to look broader than just footy clubs for recruitment pathways for long term umpires.

• Recruitment of junior players has been successful, but this leads to challenges when they progress through their football to play at a senior level.

• Competition in a single region is inefficient (North West).

• To support attracting umpires into the system there should be a clear pathway and development structure, for those who want to pursue higher levels.

• Associations indicate the implementation of strong coaches, development, induction has led to more engagement and believe this should have a benefit of greater retention after year one.

• Greatest challenge with umpiring is still the level of abuse that is received from players, coaches and supporters across all grades and levels.

• Need to have greater ability to de-escalate the situation, plus more done to prevent abuse as a first step.• Female umpires have been subjected to derogatory remarks, impacting the ability to retain these umpires.

• The current umpiring demographic mix is an issue.• Large volume of field umpires are older – with more looking to pull back. Injury increases challenges.• Haven’t been able to recruit female umpires into the game at the same ratio as players, view that some of

the environments may not be conducive to attracting female (attitudes appear to be changing).

Other • Need for a ‘home base’ for umpire associations (TFUA).• NTFUA succession planning appears well organised with steps to bring people into roles based on capability. • Inconsistency in the support provided to leagues, with support dependent on the availability of umpires.• Looking for greater engagement from leagues prior to decision making e.g. switching fixtures/ times etc. to

ensure that they can meet the changing requirements.

Umpire Specific Challenges - Feedback


7

• The structure of the competitions poses a challenge for clubs and leagues.• Four competitions at a senior level competing for players, with the role that each competition

plays in the footy landscape becoming more clouded.• This is seeing greater “poaching” of players between clubs, greater churn.

• Salary caps across the leagues in the region don’t mirror the competition tiers. There is also a concern that when salary caps are in place they are not being policed.

• Poaching of players between leagues is occurring as a result of high signing bonuses/ fees.• Player points are not consistently managed and policed between leagues with similar issues.

• Misalignment across the competitions is seeing players shift clubs to play in different age brackets.

• Competitions that have an U18 format find this challenging to retain players.

• There are too many senior clubs recruiting from a smaller base of junior clubs.• This sees senior clubs benefiting from the work performed by other clubs to acquire, develop and

retain junior players in the system.• Junior clubs without alignment are also missing out on development from senior players.

Role of each of the competitions

Misalignment in salary caps and player points

Structure of the under 18s vs under 19s

Alignment of junior pathways, senior and junior clubs

Southern Region - Feedback


8

School football

Competitive balance

Women’s football

Volume of clubs to players

Exposure of junior players

• Concerns that the current population and penetration of football into the community cannot support the number of clubs that participate in the region, this includes saturation of clubs within towns in the region.

• This is also reflected in the number of junior clubs feeding the senior sides in the region.• Shifts to 16 a side football in some competitions have helped to address in the short term.

• View the lack of football at primary school as a major driver of lower participation.• Want a greater focus on getting back into schools, they have pursued this independently from AFL Tasmania to

little success at this stage, non-league people appear more willing for AFL Tas to take a leading role.• Senior school football is also viewed as a concern, with lower numbers and participation.

• Stakeholders both in and outside the region highlighted the challenges with competitive balance in the North West competitions and the ability for clubs to be able to compete.

• A merger of the Darwin and NWFA competitions was not positively received with regional football preferred.• Leagues have started looking to use player points to try to manage the unevenness – will take time to correct.

• Participation in women’s football is significantly behind the rest of the state – with most clubs not having sides.• The ability of facilities to support the game was one of the major points that people raised, impacting their ability

to field sides, need to understand how to address this challenge.• Girls football is growing at a faster rate than womens – need to sustain participation through to women's

competitions.

• Concerns about the lack of exposure that players from the region receive in development and pathways. Junior players were specifically called out in the Circular Head competition.

• Seen as a major challenge with the current base for football in Hobart, including if there was a VFL/VFLW team, with the view that this would mean people from the North West couldn’t participate due to travel.

North West Region - Feedback


9

Northern Region - Feedback

Structure and model

Players

Relationship with AFL Tas

Women’s football

• The transition of the region to a single senior league (with two divisions) and a junior competition has been very successful and made for a more sustainable structure.

• Both the junior and senior leagues discussed the need for greater collaboration and alignment, junior league noted that the biggest obstacle would be the governance model in place and by-laws.

• This level of alignment should occur at both a league and club level, with each senior club either formally as a single club or through an agreement have a pathway from junior to senior football.

• Relationships between clubs in different leagues are stretched as they compete for a diminishing player pool.• There is a high volume of clubs unable to field full sides each week, with some players needing to double up.

This has been reducing this season but is still high.• A state-wide player payments cap/ points system should be used to manage this conflict – belief that getting the

tiers of the competition right would also help to address the challenges.

• Is the strongest that it has ever been (outside of TSL clubs), with the region looking for them to continue to provide more support for all of the regions and greater involvement.

• There is a high volume of girls coming through the junior and youth system, need to ensure that there are appropriate structures at the senior levels to retain them in the system.

• The NTJFA is starting to see a plateau in girls football.• View that loss of TSLW has seen a reduction in the standards of the elite female players/ consolidation of the

talent into one to two sides, leading to uneven competitions.• Need an appropriate female pathway to sustain interest from the top players.


10

Tasmanian Demographic Data

11

20–24

30–34

0-4

25–29

5–9

15–19

35–39

6.1%

40–44

6.4%

5.5%

45–49

70–74

50–54

6.3%

55–59

60–64

65–69

75–79

80–84

85 and over

6.1%

5.2%

6.0%

5.8%

5.0%

5.6%6.1%

5.6%

5.9%

5.6%

5.5%

3.9%

6.2%

2.5%

7.3%

6.9%

7.5%

6.0%

2.2%

7.1%

10–14

7.1%

6.5%

6.5%

6.6%

6.2%

6.3%

5.7%

5.6%4.4%

3.1%

2.7%

2.8%

TasmaniaAustralia

6.0%

6.5%

6.4%

1.9%

6.3%

6.4%

6.5%

6.6%

5.6%

6.8%

6.1%

6.0%6.0%

1.9%

6.2%

6.3%

6.9%

7.5%

6.0%

6.2%7.4%

5.8%7.1%

5.5%

1.6%

6.2%

6.2%

2.4%

6.8%

5.5%

6.1%4.8%

4.2%5.5%

3.7%2.9%

Under-indexation in age brackets 20-39 driven by movement to mainland for work / study

Male Female

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021

Over-indexation in age brackets 45-85

Tasmania is under-indexed in key senior playing age brackets compared to the rest of Australia

12

The population of junior and youth age players has stayed flat over the last 15 years, while there has been a growth in the number of people in the senior playing age bracket

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

Tasmanian Population by age (2006 to 2020)Thousands

80+0-19 20-39 40-59

125

60-79

116

26

127 131137 136

78

122

19

-0.1% +0.9%0.0%

+3.3%

+2.2%

20062020

13

Participation Summary


14

3,294 3,290 3,195 3,258

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

20212017

185 4604513,741

2018

4883,683

2019

-0.3%

+25.6%3,479 3,718

+1.7%

Participation – North West

3,518 3,340 3,238 3,409

973 1,076

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

4,211

2018

596

-0.8%

571

2017

+17.2%

20212019

4,089 3,936 4,485

+2.3%

5,347 4,969 4,878 4,912

1,264 1,353 1,556

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

+10.9%

20192017 2018 2021

-2.1%

6,375 6,233 6,231 6,4681,028

+0.4%

109,681 110,340 111,153 112,143

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

2017 2018 2019 2020

+0.7%

142,858 144,069 145,276 147,019

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

20192017 2018 2020

+1.0%

267,322 271,301 275,526 279,002

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

2017 2018 2019 2020

+1.4%

Participation – North

Participation – South

Population – North West

Population – North

Population – South

Note: Participation represents number of individual registered participants in a given calendar year

MaleFemale

Female participation growth is outpacing Male participation. Overall participation is slightly above population growth in North West and North and below in South.

15

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

SA Metro

North West

No. of players

South

Participants as % population

North

SA CountryVic Country

The North West region has the highest percentage of the general population playing football; however, all three regions are lower than our Victoria and South Australia benchmarks

The North West region has a broadly similar player base compared to North (3.7k vs 3.9k), despite its comparatively smaller population size (113k vs 148k)

Vic & SA country both have higher population participation rates than North West and North

Players per region and players as % population (registered players, 2021)

100,000 population

South has a broadly similar (slightly higher) population participation rate than SA Metro (2.0% vs 1.8%)

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020 & 2021 16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 No. of players

Participants as % population

South

North West

North

Vic CountrySA Country

SA Metro

The North West region has a broadly similar player base compared to North (3.7k vs 3.9k), despite its comparatively smaller population size aged 12-39 y.o. (36k vs 49k)

Vic & SA country both have higher population participation rates than North West and North

Players per region and players as % population aged 12-39 (registered players, 2021)

50,000 population

South has a broadly similar (slightly higher) population participation rate than SA Metro (5.7% vs 4.8%)

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020 & 2021

The North West region has the highest percentage of general population aged 12-39 playing football; however, all three regions are lower than our Victoria and South Australia benchmarks

17

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000500,000550,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

No. of State League Teams

Population per State League Team

TSL - benchmarkWAFL

SANFL

VFL

TSL - actual

The TSL has the lowest population per State League team – 77k people per team

16 Teams(VIC only)

10 Teams

10 Teams

7 Teams

2 Teams

The average population per team is 287k – using this as a benchmark, the Tasmanian population could support 2

State League teams

250k – 450k population per team, minimum 6 team league

Benchmarked against population per State League teams in Victoria, SA and WA, Tasmania’s population would support 2 State League teams

18

Competitive BalanceAssessment


19

33

46

55 53

25

Below 20% 80% and above20% to 39% 40% to 59% 60% to 79%

Win rate distribution by team, % (average of 2016 – 2020 season performance)

League Team Ave. Win RateNTFA – Women’s George Town 0%NTFA – Women’s Meander Valley 0%SFL – Women’s New Norfolk 0%CHFA – Seniors Redpa 3%OSFA – Seniors St Virgil’s 4%NWFA – Reserves Rosebery Toorak 6%NWFL – Reserves Burnie Dockers 6%NWFA – Reserves West Ulverstone 8%NFA - Seniors Yolla 8%

League Team Count % of LeagueCHFA 2 25%TSL 8 25%NWFA 4 22%NWFL 4 17%SFL 4 13%NTFA 8 13%DFA 2 13%OSFA 1 8%ODFA 0 0%

Of the 212 teams identified in Tasmanian senior (Men’s & Women’s) competitions, 33 teams (16%) have a win rate below 20% (2016-2020 season average*)

*Average between 2016-2020 where 1) data is available 2) where leagues played.20

21

4450

34

63

220% and above30% to 79%Below 30% 80% to 119% 119% to 159%

Ladder percentage distribution by team, % (average of 2016 – 2020 season performance)

League Team Average %SFL – Women’s New Norfolk 1%TSL – Women’s Lauderdale FC 2%NWFA – Reserves Rosebery Toorak 9%NWFA – Reserves West Ulverstone 13%NTFA – Women’s George Town 13%DFA – Senior’s Yolla 21%

League Team Average %SFL – Women’s Brighton 1,061%NWFA - Reserves Wesley Vale 727%SFL – Women’s Lindisfarne Blues 716%SFL – Women’s Claremont 706%NTFA – Div 1 Reserves St Patrick’s 589%NWFA – Seniors Motton Preston 530%NWFA – Seniors Wesley Vale 497%

Of the 212 teams identified in Tasmanian Senior (Men’s & Women’s) competitions, 63 teams (29%) have a ladder percentage above 220% (2016-2020 season average*)


294%

CHFA DFA OSFA

96%

236%

NTFA NWFA ODFANWFL TSL

136%

SFL

114%

208%

151%

59%

111%

King Island

75%

Driven by SFL Women’s league – standard deviation in ladder percentage distribution of 471% between 2018-2020

NWFA Seniors and Reserves leagues have equally high standard deviation in ladder percentage distribution

Average: 147%

CHFA – a four team league –has a significant disparity between the top two and the bottom two teams

Men’s and Women’s - Standard Deviation of ladder percentage* by Club, % (2016-2020 season average**)

Variability in ladder percentage differs greatly by league / competition – CHFA has a variability in ladder percentage that is double the Tasmanian average, where NWFA is 1.6x greater

*Standard deviation of percentage is a measure of the dispersion / variability of ladder percentage. A standard deviation of 200% indicates that roughly the top 16% of clubs has a ladder percentage that is 200% higher (or greater) than the bottom 16%**Average between 2016-2020 where 1) data is available 2) where leagues played.

22

OSFANTFAKing IslandDFA

136%

NWFLNWFACHFA ODFA

127%

SFL TSL

96%

52%

88% 89%

236%

59%

93%

58%

NWFA Seniors and Reserves leagues have equally high standard deviation in percentage distribution

Average: 104%

CHFA – a four team league –has a significant disparity between the top two and the bottom two teams at both a Senior and Youth/Junior level

Men’s only - Standard Deviation of ladder percentage* by Club, % (2016-2020 season average**)

The Senior Men variability in ladder percentage is less pronounced than overall – however, pain points still remain, particularly NWFA, DFA and CHFA


23

NWFLWNTFAW SFLW TSLW

174%127%

471%

170%

Average: 236%

Women’s only - Standard Deviation of ladder percentage* by Club, % (2016-2020 season average**)

Women’s competitions – the variability in ladder percentage of women’s competitions is more pronounced than overall, particularly SFL


24

% Distribution by Club – Men’s Seniors, % (2016-2020 season average*)TSL – Seniors

Laud

erda

le91%

Hob

art C

ity

N. L

aunc

esto

n

Burn

ie D

ocke

rs

81%

Laun

cest

on

Gle

norc

hy

Dev

onpo

rt

Cla

renc

e

Tige

rs

N. H

obar

t

67%

99%

180%

142%121% 119%

82%56%

-124%

SFL – Seniors

56%

Cyg

net

Cla

rem

ont

Lind

isfa

rne

New

Nor

folk

H’v

ille L

ions

Dod

ges

Ferry

181%

Hob

art

Brig

hton

108%

Sore

ll

152%133%

119% 114%

77%54%

-127%

Cam

pani

a

Tria

bunn

a

Both

wel

l

C’b

ell T

own

Mt P

leas

ant

103%

Oat

land

s

157%

Swan

sea

T’m

an P

enin

sula

279%

226%

82% 82% 64% 58%

-221%

ODFA – Seniors

145%

Uni

vers

ity

OH

A

Ric

hmon

d

142%

St V

irgils

DO

SA

Hut

chin

s

165%

112% 105%

35%

-130%

OSFA – Seniors

*Average between 2016-2020 where 1) data is available 2) where leagues played.

Ladder percentage distribution by Senior League (1 of 2)

25

Fore

st/S

tanl

ey

Irish

tow

n

67%Sc

otch

tow

n

Red

pa

275%241%

31%

-244%

CHFA – Seniors

% Distribution by Club – Men’s Seniors, % (2016-2020 season average*)

DFA – Seniors

Wes

ley

Vale

M’to

n Pr

esto

n

Forth

Spre

yton

E. U

lver

ston

e

39%

455%

Turn

ers

Beac

h

W. U

lver

ston

e

Shef

field

R’b

ery

Toor

ak

60%

497%

378%

118% 107%70%

24%

-473%

NWFA – Seniors

Roc

herle

a

Del

orai

ne

Sth

L’ce

ston

Long

ford

Hillw

ood

Brac

knel

l

Brid

geno

rth

Scot

tsda

le

Geo

rge

Tow

n

162%

131% 125%115% 110% 106% 103%

61% 58%

-104%

NTFA Premier Division – Seniors

NWFL – Seniors


Ladder percentage distribution by Senior League (2 of 2)

26

Wyn

yard

Dev

onpo

rt

114%

Burn

ie

East

Dev

onpo

rt

Circ

ular

Hea

d

Ulv

erst

one

Latro

be

Peng

uin

188%169%

156%144% 134%

82%55%

-133%C

upro

na

Som

erse

t

Q’to

wn

Cro

ws

Sout

h Bu

rnie

Nat

one

Yeom

an

Rid

gley

Yolla

123%

281% 278%259%

133%

78% 62%21%

-260%

S. L

aunc

esto

n

Hillw

ood

Roc

herle

a

Brac

knel

l

Scot

tsda

le

Brid

geno

rth

Long

ford

Geo

rge

Tow

n

Del

orai

ne

75%64%

59% 56% 56%

19%

53% 48%

17%

-58%

Spre

yton

E. U

lver

ston

e

Shef

field

M’to

n Pr

esto

n

Wes

ley

Vale

Forth

88%

R’b

ery

Toor

ak

Turn

ers

Beac

h

W. U

lver

ston

e

86% 81%

54%44%

31% 27%15% 13%

-75%

Win % Distribution by Club – Men’s Seniors, % (2016-2020 season average*)

Hob

art C

ity

54%63%

N. L

aunc

esto

n

Laun

cest

on

Laud

erda

le

Gle

norc

hy

Burn

ie D

ocke

rs

Dev

onpo

rt

Cla

renc

e

Tige

rs

47%

Nor

th H

obar

t

86%

62%

45% 42%

28% 23%16%

-70%

TSL – Seniors NWFL – Seniors

NTFA – Seniors NWFA – Seniors

Win % percentage distribution by Senior League (1 of 2)


East

Dev

onpo

rt

Burn

ie

17%

Wyn

yard

Ulv

erst

one

Dev

onpo

rt

Peng

uin

Latro

be

Circ

ular

Hea

d

86%78%

63%52%

46% 45%36%

-69%

Tria

bunn

a

Oat

land

s

Cam

pani

a

Both

wel

l

T’m

an P

enin

sula

Mt P

leas

ant

Cam

pbel

l Tow

n

Swan

sea

27%

79%81%

66%

44%

26%35%

29%

-55%

Cla

rem

ont

Lind

isfa

rne

Brig

hton

New

Nor

folk

H’v

ille L

ions

Cyg

net

39%

Dod

ges

Ferry

81%

Hob

art

Sore

ll

60%65% 61%

54% 51%

21%12%

-69%

Irish

tow

n

Scot

chto

wn

Fore

st/S

tanl

ey

Red

pa

82% 78%

29%

11%

-71%

Win % Distribution by Club – Men’s Seniors, % (2016-2020 season average*)

DO

SA

OH

A

Ric

hmon

d

Hut

chin

s

St V

irgils

Uni

vers

ity

69% 65%

47%

63%

51%

4%

-65%

Sout

h Bu

rnie

Q’to

wn

Cro

ws

Yolla

57%

Rid

gley

Som

erse

t

Nat

one

56%

Cup

rona

Yeom

an

84%76% 75%

29% 25%8%

-76%

ODFA – Seniors SFL – Seniors

DFA – Seniors CHFA – Seniors OSFA – Seniors


Win % percentage distribution by Senior League (2 of 2)

28

Future of Football Survey Overview

29

Source: Future of Football Survey Industry Survey conducted July 2021 – Tasmania n=1,001

35%

18%

14%11% 11%

6%2% 2%

Club Employee

Parent Club Admin.

Player UmpireCoachSupporter League Admin.

9%

19% 19%

22%

19%

12%

30-39 < 18 19-29 40-49 60+ 50-59

49%

34%

17%

One Role Two Roles Three or More

Number of Respondents: 1,007

Age ProfilePrimary Role

Number of Roles Performed34%

22%

43%

North WestNorth South

Regional Breakdown

Overview of the Survey: who participated?

30

25% 20% 27%6%

38%32%

36%

12%

20%

16%

18%

18%

16%28%

17%

36%

28%

Competition structures are unsustainable and need to

change

Strongly Disagree

Agree

100%

Currently statisfied with competition structures in my region

Currently statisfied with all competition

structures

Neutral

Disagree

100%3%

100%

Competition structures are

sustainable and should be maintained

Strongly Agree

100% 100%2% 4%

Percentage of Respondents

Overview of the Survey: View on existing competition structures

31Source: Future of Football Survey Industry Survey conducted July 2021 – Tasmania n=1,001


Overview of the Survey: Environmental ChallengesNumber of Respondents

155

297

122 13288 64 41 48 6

175

117

152200

78 100

50 59

18297

185126

82 73

86 59

Losing talented players to interstate

competitions

Recruitment and retention of volunteers

Decrease in population in some areas

Balancing work and football demands

Cost of running a club

Travel demands due

to broad geographical

area

Competition from other sports and

recreational activities

Changes to work hours for senior

participants

#2

98

#3

Increase in population in some areas

#1

512 511

459 458

248 237

177 166

23

32

1) Other includes: Number of competitions (117), Hierarchy of competitions (115), Sustaining growth in female football (86), Coaching standards (73), Recruitment and retention of coaches (65), spectator behaviour (60) Source: Future of Football Survey Industry Survey conducted July 2021 – Tasmania n=1,001

Overview of the Survey: Football Challenges

295

191

102 72 7337 40 22 28

94

76

151

10692 102

57 5347 55

206

9589

65105 87

67 61 76 42

216

Evenness of competitions

431


of umpires


of players

Excessive player

payments

Number of teams (too many / too

few)

Recognise talented players

Competition between leagues

League and club

governance

Inconsistent rules and

regulations

125

#3

Other1

#2

#1

466

273 269 262

161 154 145

516

Number of Respondents

33

1) Other includes Player points systems, improving coaching, sustaining increased female participationSource: Future of Football Survey Industry Survey conducted July 2021 – Tasmania n=1,001

Overview of the Survey: Opportunities for Football

258

113 117 8950 38 44 40 33

172

140

112 7986

79 73 76 66 81

145

158

119

5152

76 87 64 74 61

143

Sustainable competition structures

School football competitions

Higher profile representative

football

Consistent rules and regulation

Improving umpiring

184

Differentiated salary caps

198

Streamlined governance

Consistent age groups for

junior competitions

Competitions that are more

local

180

#3

556

#2

#1

344

247227

205175

Other

460

Number of Respondents

34


Overview of the Survey: Innovation Opportunities

54%

1%100%

Flexible scheduling of matches

5%3%

5%One Team

Club

5%

4% 7%12%

24%

4%

N/A

8%

37%

Midweek Matches

12%

8%

20%

5%

18%

21%

League Gala Days

34%

Location Based Fixture

31%

100%

8%

100%

31%

5%

14%

10%

6%Reduced

Playing Time

9%

Probably Won’t

Neutral Venues To

Reduce Travel

23%

Definitely Won’t

Probably Will

38%

18%

24%

Social Competitions

23%

5%

3%

Reduced Rounds

100%

Players On The Field

100%100%

Definitely Will

Not Sure

100% 100% 100%

10%

29%

44%

100%

12%

27%

11%

10%

23%

51%

5%

10%

36%

24%

15%

5%

15%

19%

5%

10%

22%

19%

15%

29%

5%

14%


35


21%4% 6% 5% 5% 8%

36%

12% 8%11% 8% 12% 10%

25%

29%28%

27%24%

28% 24%

15%

29%29%

27%30%

24% 28%

25% 32% 28% 33% 31% 30%

100%

Regional Focus

Not important at all

Slightly important

Promotes competitive

balance

Talent focused

100% 100%

Important

100%

Relegation/ Promotion

Representive model

Development focus

History and tradition

Very Important

Fairly Important

100% 100% 100%3%

3%

100%


Overview of the Survey: Key priorities for the design of competition structures

36

Documents

Preliminary Findings Report