“It’s quite evident to us that the program wasn’t ready to launch,” Skaltsounis said.
None of the people whom this masthead spoke to for this story disagreed with the premise of PlayFootball 2.0, why it has been brought in, or said their organisation wouldn’t use it at some point in future.
Indeed, there are many good reasons for a national platform, from the many administrative efficiencies it creates to the ease with which it will enable transfer regulations, suspensions and other rules to be enforced, to the removal of financial risks for volunteers in handling what amounts to tens of millions of dollars in fees, to the many opportunities it will create for the whole of the game to have the data of its 1.9 million participants housed in one system for the first time. FIFA also mandates that all amateur players are to be registered through a single national registration system.
The issue for the holdouts is the execution, and the punitive measures being enforced for those who don’t adopt it. These associations say they had foreseen issues arising with the platform as early as June 2024 and warned FA about them, and are only taking a contrary position to not pass the burden onto the ordinary people who make the grassroots game tick, or discolour the overall soccer experience for players and parents.
Amid the peak period for registrations before the commencement of the grassroots season, social media is littered with examples of participants struggling with the platform, which was piloted in Victoria and Tasmania last year. Complaints include a confusing interface, freezing websites, dysfunctionality on mobile devices or particular web browsers, and duplication of profiles. Technical support is available, but users have reported long delays or, in some cases, no response. Many other technical issues are at the back end of the system which club volunteers have to deal with.
“It’s difficult and there’s challenges. We’ll get there because our members are very resilient.”
Bill Owen, chair of the Blacktown association
Alex Burgin, the chief executive of CCF, once worked at the then-Football Federation Australia during the rollout of MyFootballClub, a previous attempt at a national registration system.
“It was my first job out of uni after doing sports management, and I was the kid answering the phone, resetting passwords … we’ve tried for 15 years and no one’s got it right,” he told this masthead.
CCF created its own software some years ago to handle registrations and competition management, Burgin said – and the view of his organisation’s board is that it doesn’t make sense to switch until FA provides a system that is equal to or better than what they have, and doesn’t saddle participants with a bad experience at what is, for some of them, their first touchpoint with the game.
“Volunteerism is already dying,” Burgin said.
“We don’t need to do that when we’ve got a system that works, they know how to use it, we’ve got no issues, we’re still providing the data and everything that FNSW and FA wants. We’ve sort of led the charge in saying that we weren’t going to adopt this system. We’ve seen it happen before, where they said, ‘It’s different this time, we’ve got the rollout right,’ and we just knew that that was not going to be the case.
“Currently, year on year, we’re up 26 per cent in our registrations, so we’re flying along. Most of the Sydney associations are down 10 to 20 per cent. Whether that’s attributable to the bad experience they’re having with this player football system … it seems weird that we’re up, and they’re down, right? But we’re feeling somewhat justified in our decision at the moment.”
There are other challenges aside from the platform itself, including payment methods. Only debit and credit card payments are now accepted, and all registrations incur a 1.3 per cent surcharge.
There are also massive cash flow implications for clubs.
In the past, clubs would receive the full amount of registration fees from players early in the year. Weeks or months later, they would receive invoices from FA and FNSW for their portion of the fees – FA takes $15 for juniors, $35 for seniors and $70 for ‘senior professionals’, while FNSW’s segment varies up to $157.25 this year – and then forward it on once they had received other revenue.
Now, the money is split at the moment of payment. In and of itself, that is not a problem, but the transition is proving jarring for clubs that had depended on that earlier income to cover seasonal expenses like jerseys, balls and equipment. To address this, some say they have been told to get credit cards.
Leanne Millar, the general manager of the BDAFA, said her organisation had flagged that many volunteers were on breaks or holidays in November, which is when FA and FNSW wanted to hold training and onboarding courses for the new system.
“We said, ‘This isn’t going to work, this is too quick’ … you’ve got clubs that hear that it’s coming, but their volunteers change, so it doesn’t matter how many times we’ve told them,” she said.
Loading
“We’ve got to keep remembering our clubs are run by volunteers. They’re not business people who are employed full-time. We’re not doing this in order to be problematic or to cause trouble or to go out on our own. There were multiple reasons why we wanted to delay it one year. We were trying to find solutions that would be good for the volunteers and everyone else, and essentially, we were just told, no, it’s all or nothing.”
Bill Owen, the chair of the Blackdown District Amateur Football Association, which reluctantly voted to switch to PlayFootball 2.0 despite concerns, said: “It’s difficult and there’s challenges. We’ll get there because our members are very resilient … our registrars in community football are second to none. But what people forget is that before anyone can be a Sam Kerr [or] a Tim Cahill, you’ve got to be a five or six-year-old on a community park, run by volunteers. We lose sight of that, and Football Australia lose sight of that. Without that community, you have nothing.”
The FA and FNSW view, according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity to enable them to speak frankly, is that the transition would involve teething problems no matter when it was done and that it was a case of “ripping off the Band-Aid” and accepting that some short-term pain would be worth it for long-term gain for the whole of the game. A further delay, they said, could not be considered for regulatory reasons and would create ongoing data security risks. Last year, FA was the victim of a high-profile data leak.
Sources also suggested that some associations and clubs had, in the past, used the previous payment structure as a form of political leverage over state or national bodies, and would not forward on fees until their ends were achieved. They also said some detractors did not participate in the two-year consultation process which pre-empted the switch, contributing to the confusion.
Loading
A spokesperson for FA said: “We acknowledge that system transitions come with challenges, and Football Australia has been working closely with member federations, associations, and clubs to provide training, support, and solutions to ensure a smooth transition. The system has already had more than 200,000 registrations, demonstrating its importance in delivering a nationally integrated approach to football governance.
“The PlayFootball system is designed to improve transparency, security, and efficiency across the football ecosystem. The integration with FIFA systems ensures compliance with international standards, enhances player pathways and simplifies financial transactions for clubs and administrators. We remain committed to working with all stakeholders to support the implementation of this system and continue to provide assistance where required.”
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
