FOMO Isn’t Development: The Small State Pathway Problem

In a big state, a pathway program can be an option.

In a small state, it becomes a verdict.

And that is the beginning of the problem.

Tasmanian football has spent years living in the tension between club football and Federation programs. The tension isn’t personal. It’s structural.

In a small state, there isn’t enough “air in the room” for competing priorities, competing calendars and competing identities.

We don’t have the scale.

So the minute a Federation program expands, club football feels the pressure.

Not because clubs fear standards.

But because clubs fear becoming second best in the system they built.

Big States and Small States Are Not the Same

A one-size-fits-all pathway model doesn’t work in Australian football.

Not because small states lack ambition, or talent.

But because small states don’t have scale.

In Victoria and New South Wales, a pathway program sits inside a crowded ecosystem. There are huge player pools, many clubs, multiple development environments and multiple chances to be seen.

In Tasmania, the ecosystem is tight.

When one program is elevated, everything else is pushed down.

In a big state, missing one camp is inconvenient.

In a small state, missing one camp feels like a risk.

And that changes everything.

FOMO Is Not Development

One of the most damaging effects of small-state pathways is the pressure it places on children and families.

Kids should not have to live in a permanent state of football anxiety.

They should not have to agonise over every decision, wondering:

Will I be overlooked if I don’t go?

Will I be seen as not committed?

Will I fall behind?

Will I be quietly crossed off a list?

That isn’t high performance.

That is fear, pressure, and FOMO dressed up as opportunity.

It can quietly drain the joy out of football, and joy matters, because joy is what makes children return.

The Communication Gap Is Where Trust Breaks

The relationship between Federations and clubs in small states is fragile. It needs care, respect and communication.

Clubs plan training. Coaches volunteer their time. Parents organise work and family life around sessions.

Then suddenly a pathway event appears.

Not always with meaningful notice. Not always with coordination. Not always with a shared calendar that respects club environments.

Club coaches turn up to training and discover half their players are missing.

It doesn’t feel like partnership.

It feels like clubs are expected to comply.

Small-state football cannot survive on assumptions. It needs genuine two-way communication and planning that treats clubs as part of the solution, not an afterthought.

Clubs Aren’t Even Kept in the Loop

As a club President, I was often asked by parents simple, reasonable questions.

When are the TSP trials?

When are the Academy sessions?

What do we need to do to be considered?

And I would have to answer honestly.

I had no idea.

Not because I wasn’t paying attention and not because the club didn’t care. I didn’t know because Football Tasmania did not share that information with clubs.

That is not a minor communication gap.

That is a relationship gap.

It forces clubs into an awkward position, standing in front of families with no information about a program that is clearly influencing selection and opportunity.

It makes clubs look uninformed.

Worse, it makes clubs look irrelevant.

And in a small state, that matters.

Secrecy Creates Suspicion

Football Tasmania may be trying to improve communication now and if they are, that is welcome.

But when key information is kept quiet, the message it sends is not neutral.

It tells clubs that this information is not for them.

It makes it feel secretive, like something clubs shouldn’t know about, just in case clubs tell kids:

Don’t bother.

It’s a waste of time.

That may not be the intent, but it becomes the perception.

And perception shapes trust.

Acronyms Come and Go, Clubs Remain

Then there’s the churn.

We had SAP licensing requirements and then SAP disappeared.

So what will be next?

What will be the next acronym?

What will be the next “must do” program?

And when it vanishes, what happens to the kids, the parents and the clubs that rearranged everything around it?

This constant cycle of programs and terminology might look like progress from the outside.

But from inside a small-state football ecosystem, it often feels like instability.

Clubs need clarity, consistency and partnership, not the next vanishing pathway.

If Clubs Feel Second Best, The Whole System Weakens

Clubs are not the lower tier.

Clubs are the foundation.

Clubs are where habits are built, confidence is built, resilience is built, belonging is built and love of the game is built.

In small states, weekly club football is not separate from development.

It is development.

So when clubs feel like the second-best option, the culture deteriorates.

And once you lose culture, you don’t build it back by running another camp.

Do These Programs Actually Improve Results?

This is the question nobody likes being asked.

When I first came to football, the process was simple.

A coach would pick their squad. They would train together in the six weeks leading into National Championships, then they would go away and play.

It wasn’t perfect.

But clubs weren’t constantly inconvenienced.

Kids weren’t forced into a permanent cycle of fear of missing out.

Families weren’t juggling endless competing commitments.

And the results?

From where I stand, the results were similar.

So the question is fair, and it is unavoidable.

Do the current Football Tasmania programs lead to better results at National Championships than the method used back then?

If the answer is no, or even “not much”, then the next question matters even more.

If outcomes are broadly similar, why is the cost to clubs so much higher?

The Spreadsheet Would Tell the Truth

If we really want to understand why big states dominate national championships, we should put the politics aside and open Excel.

Make a spreadsheet.

One column is the number of registered players in each state.

The next column is national championship performance.

The pattern will not be surprising.

Bigger states have bigger talent pools. More depth. More competition. More specialist coaching environments.

They will almost always produce stronger squads, because they are drawing from a larger pool.

This is not an insult to small states.

It is the mathematics of scale.

Which leads to an honest question.

If a small state cannot out-number the big states, why are we pretending it can out-program them?

Small States Improve By Multiplication, Not Extraction

This is the heart of it.

In small states, the most powerful development tool is not selection.

It is coaching.

One expert coach can mentor ten club coaches.

Those ten coaches can improve hundreds of children.

That is the multiplier effect.

And it exposes a flaw in the current way we think about “development”.

If we funnel time, energy and resources into centralised programs for a small group of selected players, we might improve those players.

But we do not lift the system.

We do not lift the clubs.

And clubs are where most children will spend most of their football lives.

Imagine If That Funding Went Back Into Clubs

Imagine if the funds spent administering and delivering repeated pathway programming were redirected into club support.

Not symbolic support.

Real support.

Support that makes clubs better at what they do every week.

Support that invests in the people doing the work.

Support that reduces volunteer load rather than adding to it.

For example:

• embedded technical mentoring for club coaches

• subsidised coaching licences

• structured curriculum support

• coach education delivered inside clubs

• practical planning and administration support

• coordinated calendars that respect club training environments

That is how you lift a small state.

Not by creating parallel programs that compete for the same children.

Football Tasmania’s Most Important Job

In a small state, the Federation’s job is not to become the biggest and most important provider.

It is to strengthen the clubs who carry the game.

That is not glamorous.

It doesn’t always photograph well.

But it is the only strategy that works.

Because small states don’t have room for competing pathways.

They have room for one ecosystem.

And the clubs are not an optional extra in that ecosystem.

They are the system.