GROWING CRAZY

Football is awash with expansionism. All codes, that is, and I don't quite get it.

Why the need for what seems to be excessive growth?

Now, this may sound like a question of naivety, posed by one without an appreciation of sporting micro-economics. I'm sure, the answer will come loud and clear, is that growth is important to secure the lion's share of consumer dollars, and participation. But why?

America's NFL recently played a match at Wembley Stadium in London. The Wallabies and the All Blacks played in Tokyo. Rugby League has been to Perth and Adelaide and back, in its attempt to truly Australianise its domestic competition. Soccer's A-League has gone from eight to 10 and soon 12 teams marching around Australia (though, to be fair, that is to be expected in a fledgling competition). And now, we hear that the AFL has its eyes not only on Western Sydney and the Gold Coast, but China!

And no-one's quite explained why. Except to say that one code does not want to be eaten up by another. But is that a realistic threat?

Let's look at the way it has been in 2009. Sixteen AFL teams, spread across five States and with premiership matches also played in Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. A healthy, vibrant competition. The NRL has teams in 3 States plus New Zealand. Rugby union teams in Perth, Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra. Soccer is truly national.

Most of the AFL teams are operationally financially-sound, if not healthy. With an inferior broadcast rights deal, smaller memberships and crowds, NRL teams are not as flush with funds. Same with the A-League, while rugby union benefits from a small number of franchises and a big TV deal.

Is the public purse big enough to stretch any further? That's where the footy cannabalism takes root. The idea is to impose a bigger footprint, hopefully at the expense of cross-code rivals.

But surely this is a lot of chest-thumping nonsense. The AFL is run by some very astute administrators, but the push into rugby league's heartland is a momumental challenge. And rugby union's inclusion of a Melbourne team will do little to dilute AFL teams of corporate and public dollars. After-all, the Melbourne Storm has played in the past 4 NRL grand finals, winning two of them, and still run at an annual loss of around $5 million. It will simply spread the available dollars more thinly.

Of course, the theory is that the bigger the footprint, the greater the revenue from broadcast rights, as television stations can demand greater advertising revenue. But, again, the advertising pool is only so big.

So I ask why? The custodians of each of the codes are duty-bound to protect their games. But is too much growth necessarily beneficial?

Call me a dinosaur, but I believe enough is enough. Concentrate on securing what we have. At least for the time being.