By Greg Blood

The recent passing of David Crawford AO made me reflect on four sport reviews that he authored or chaired that have impacted on sport in Australia.

For many of those that worked in sports administration from 1990 to 2011, the name David Crawford became synonymous with sport governance and the organisation of sport reviews.  Prior to the reviews, Crawford worked for consulting firm KPMG for 30 years and went onto to Chair major companies – National Foods, Foster’s Group, BHP’s mining spin-off South32 and property giant Lendlease.

Crawford’s reputation in sport governance was enhanced by his review of the Australian Football League’s (AFL) governance in 1990. He was subsequently commissioned by the Australian Government in 2003 to review soccer (football) and the Australian sport system in 2010 and by Cricket Australia in 2011.

The governance of Australian national sports organisations (NSOs) today can be traced back to Crawford’s AFL recommendations.

This article will look back at the four major reviews conducted by Crawford and his panels. All the review reports listed can be accessed through the Clearinghouse for Sport’s Australian Sport Publications Archive.

1. Independent Review of the AFL Administrative Structure commissioned by the Australian Football League in 1992.

Final report: AFL Administrative Structure Review Findings presented by David Crawford, March 1993. (PDF)

1.1 Background and Primary Terms of Reference

In the lead up to the review, the AFL was dealing with financial difficulties of Sydney Swans and Fitzroy Lions and poor long-term planning and strategic directions as it moved towards a national competition.

Three terms of reference:

• the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commission, Board of Directors and management of the AFL.
• the structure of the Commission, Board of Directors and management of the AFL
• the relationship between the Commission, Board of Directors, management of the AFL and the clubs.

1.2 Outcomes

Crawford recommended that club delegates/directors were to be no longer responsible for running the AFL competition. Instead the AFL clubs would vote for part-time Commissioners and there to be appointed Executive Commissioners. In addition, the Commission was to be given the power to admit, expel, relocate, or merge a Club without Clubs being consulted. The AFL accepted Crawford’s major recommendations.

The new AFL governance structure has had a mix of “football” people and those with business and community expertise. Interestingly the current Governor-General Sam Mostyn AC was appointed the AFL’s first female Commissioner in 2005 and served until 2016. She played a major role in the AFL’s Respect and Responsibility Policy and advocated for establishment of AFLW.

This landmark NSO governance development commenced the movement of NSO boards traditionally run by states or clubs with vested interests to the expansion of wider range of expertise and independence on boards.

2. Independent Soccer Review Committee commissioned by the Australian Government and Chaired by David Crawford.

Report: Report of the Independent Soccer Review Committee into Structure, Governance and Management of Soccer in Australia. 2023. (PDF available through the Clearinghouse for Sport)

2.1 Background and Primary Terms of Reference

In September 2002, the Australian Government through Minister for Sport Rod Kemp commissioned the review in the backdrop of Socceroos failing to qualify for 2002 FIFA World Cup, Soccer Australia’s financial problems and Four Corners expose of infighting and conflicts on interests in the Soccer Australia’s Board

Primary terms of reference:

1. a critical assessment of the existing governance, management and structure of soccer in Australia.
2. solution-based recommendations to deliver a comprehensive governance framework and management structure for the sport that addresses the needs of affiliate organisations and stakeholders. These recommendations may include adjustments to existing governance systems and/or integration of activities and operations.
3. identification of potential impediments to reform and strategies to overcome those impediments.

2.2 Outcomes

The Review recommended that an interim board of Soccer Australia be appointed for two years with Frank Lowy as Chair to carry out reforms recommended by the Review.

In September, the Australian Government provided Soccer Australia $15m over three years for the new board chaired by Frank Lowy carry out much needed reform. In particular, the Review recommended that Soccer Australia be governed by a board of six elected independent directors but I note that Football Federation of Australia’s Board now consists of up to six Directors are to be elected by the Members and up to three Appointed Directors.

Review recommended that Soccer Australia establish the NSL as a separate entity operating under a licence from Soccer Australia with a board comprised of independent directors elected by participating NSL clubs and with separate (to Soccer Australia) funding. In 2004, Soccer Australia announced the establishment of the A-League, replacing the National Soccer League.

Some key successes post the Review led by Crawford include: Australia joining the Asian Football Federation in 2006, Socceroos qualifying for every FIFA Men’s Football World Cup since 2006 and the Matildas now one of Australia’s favourite national sports teams after performances at World Cup, Olympic Games and Asian Cup.

3. Independent Sport Panel for Future of Australian Sport the Australian Government and Chaired by David Crawford.

Report: Future of Sport in Australia, 2009 (PDF)

3.1 Background and Primary Terms of Reference

The election of the Rudd Government in 2007, the first ALP Australian Government since 1996 and decline Olympic and Paralympic Games results since 2000 led to Minister for Sport Kate Ellis in August 2008 commissioning a review of sport in Australia. to be led by Crawford.

Terms of reference: Broadly the Independent Sport Panel was asked to review all aspects of sport in Australia and to chart a new direction. Objectives of the terms of reference:

1. Ensure Australia’s continued elite sporting success
2. Better place sport and physical activity as a key component of the Government’s preventative health approach
3. Strengthen pathways from junior sport to grassroots community sport right through to elite and professional sport
4. Maintain Australia’s cutting edge approach to sports science, research and technology
5. Identify opportunities to increase and diversify the funding base for sport through corporate sponsorship, media and any recommended reforms, such as enhancing the effectiveness of the Australian Sports Foundation

Panel members and their background in sport included: David Crawford (AFL/Soccer reviews), Sam Mostyn (AFL Commission), Pam Tye (hockey), Colin Carter (AFL) and Mark Bouris (Sydney Roosters Rugby League). These members also brought a range of business and community expertise.

3.2 Outcomes

The Panel made many observations about the current state of Australian sport and numerous recommendations in the Future of Sport in Australia report. In many ways, the report was similar to Review in 1999 chaired by Ross Oakley that led to the Shaping Up report. Both the 1999 and 2009 reports are important document as the reflect issues in Australian sport at the time and possible directions.

The Panel’s report immediately drew the ire of the Australian Olympic Committee and Olympic NSOs as it recommended more funding to the most popular sports (football codes, cricket, netball) in Australia – most these sports had professional competitions and significant sources of revenue. The Panel was critical of sport funding aimed at meeting Olympic medal totals and ranking.

It also recommended “The Australian Institute of Sport should be removed from the Australian Sports Commission and amalgamated with state and territory institutes and academies of sport, into a single Australian Institutes of Sport (AIsS), funded by the Australian Government, and with the existing combined funding levels.” This ambitious recommendation was always going to prove difficult with the vested interests of states in high performance athletes and teams. Whilst this recommendation has not been carried out, there is now greater cooperation in high performance sport in Australia leading to The National High Performance Sports Strategy (NHPSS), a joint strategy of National Sporting Organisations (NSO) National Institute Network (NIN), National Sporting Organisations (NSOs), and other system partners.

Another recommendation was that “National sporting organisations should have primary responsibility for development of their own high
performance programs with assistance from the Australian Sports Commission as appropriate on a case-by-case basis”. In 2012, the AIS Winning Edge strategy led to the cessation of AIS sports programs and handed the responsibility to NSOs.

The Australian Government responded to Future of Sport in Australia report in the Australian Sport: the Pathway to Success policy and funding. In this document, the Australian Government notes Independent Sport Panel recommendations that it accepted, accepted in principle or rejected. In end, popular/ professional sports funding has not increased and Olympic sports are still allocated a high proportion of Australian government funding. Also the move to establish “one” institute did not prevail.

Possible reasons why the Australian Government to failed to accept Panel members recommendations regarding funding the participation of popular / professional sports and “one institute’ could be due:

• Panel members lack of understanding of the role of Olympic sports and their high reliance on government funding to operate. In addition, the AOC through John Coates has proved to be very effective at lobbying.
• State governments and their politicians like to be closely connected to their high performing athletes and teams. State institute athletes offer this opportunity.

4. Review Governance Structure for Australian Cricket commissioned by Cricket Australia and undertaken by David Crawford and Colin Carter

Report: A Good Governance Structure for Australian Cricket. December 2011. Part 1. Part 2. (Available for the Clearinghouse for Sport)

4.1 Background

The Review was commissioned at the time of great changes in Australian and international cricket – more professional leagues and the frequent movement of players internationally. In addition, Cricket Australia’s Board consisted of has fourteen non-executive Directors which made decision making difficult.

4.2 Outcomes

Cricket Australia Board accepted recommendations of Crawford and Carter – moving from 14 state nominees as directors to a board of nine non-executive directors who do not hold positions with State Associations or any of their entities. It was moving to a skills based smaller board rather than one representing the vested interests of state members.

5. Reflections

Crawford started the transformation of the structure and operation of NSO boards in Australia. His review and recommendations of the AFL can be credited to a large extent why the AFL is now the most successful NSO in Australia. It reduced the influence of vested interests of clubs to a national perspective. It is now a truly national competition (with the exception of permanent teams in the ACT & NT) and has significantly increased its revenue streams and programs including AFLW.

The success of AFL governance model first promoted in Australia by Crawford has assisted the ASC in promoting this model throughout NSOs in Australia. Several NSOs have taken fought against this model but the ASC has been able to encourage the change with financial incentives. There are some in the sport community that have concerns that “skill based” appointed board members often fail to understand the intricacies of sport in the community.

Crawford left a legacy of moving NSOs into the governance environment that can deal with the challenges and opportunities posed by the Australian and international sport environment.