Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Embarrassment about Australian football pitches only tells half the story

By Chris Lewis - posted Monday, 6 June 2016

Following Australia's 1-0 win against Greece at Sydney's ANZ stadium, coach Ange Postecoglou again criticised the standard of pitches serving as Australian venues for international competition. While noting "we keep talking about being the sporting nation and sporting capital of the world", he stressed the need to "understand our game needs a good surface".

I am also disappointed. For those of us viewing overseas football matches on television, most field surfaces outside Australia do indeed look like carpet with their lush green colour, often made more impressive by attractive chequered patterns.

But wait a minute. Australian football leaders choose to use Australia's large stadiums that are also utilised by other codes, stadiums that would probably not exist if public funding had not been allocated on the basis that they prove cost effective through widespread use.


In other words, given that football is less popular than Australian Rules and rugby league, football would have less capacity to attract international teams without adequate world class large-capacity stadiums that attract the necessary crowds.

The simple truth is that Australian governments, perhaps already overly committed through their funding of stadium in these difficult budgetary times, are hardly in a position to fund stadiums that allow sparse use to ensure immaculate playing fields.

While we do need to ensure that our playing fields are in the best possible order, an aspect our world-class curators may already consider, the simple reality is that Australia is unique given the various football codes that play at our major sporting venues.

Most large world class stadiums throughout the world, including those used by the major football leagues of Germany, England, Spain and Italy, rarely host more than one match per week.

For example, typical of all large British stadiums (all codes), Arsenal played just 27 matches at London's 60,000 seat Emirates stadium between August 2015 and May 2016 (2.7 matches per month).

In contrast, the major stadiums of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane often host more than one football match (all codes) per week. For example, Sydney's ANZ stadium, scene of the recent controversy, hosted 8 matches in just two months since 7 April 2016, including three games between May 15 and June 1. Similarly, Melbourne's Etihad stadium, which will host the second international between Australia and Greece (7 June 2016), has been the venue of 22 AFL matches since 26 March 2016 (2 per week).


So, if key players of any Australian football code are not happy with the situation, they need to promote alternative ideas.

It may be that artificial fields are the answer, although it remains to be seen whether non-grass fields prove suitable for the much more physical codes of Australian rules and rugby (both league and union).

They can even propose to build their own stadiums, as the French rugby union has with its plans to move its base from the Stade de France due to rent pressures and playing surfaces concerns. The new 82,000-seat stadium, featuring a retractable roof and slide-out pitch, will be built on a former horse racing track 25 km south of Paris at an estimated cost of €600 million.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Chris Lewis, who completed a First Class Honours degree and PhD (Commonwealth scholarship) at Monash University, has an interest in all economic, social and environmental issues, but believes that the struggle for the ‘right’ policy mix remains an elusive goal in such a complex and competitive world.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Chris Lewis

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy