Riverside Walks Away: ‘The Current Model Is Not Sustainable’

Riverside Olympic will not renew its NPL or Women’s Super League licences for 2027.

And according to club president Stuart McCarron, this is not a decision made because Riverside has lost its ambition.

It is a decision made because the club wants to survive.

For a club with around 600 players, significant facilities at Windsor Park and a pathway stretching from juniors through to senior football, walking away from Tasmania’s highest men’s and women’s competitions is enormous.

McCarron describes the decision as “soul destroying”.

But after months of discussion, Riverside’s board unanimously decided the club could no longer justify the financial, administrative and volunteer burden of operating NPL and WSL programs under the current model.

The decision was unanimous at board level and, McCarron says, received majority support when presented to the club’s general membership.

“The major thoughts from the current board are to ensure that the club continues,” McCarron said.

“It is always our intention to play football at the highest levels but the survivability of the club has to be the main goal.”

The Cost Of Playing At The Top

The numbers are confronting.

McCarron says the direct cost of providing a competitive WSL program is more than $65,000 a year.

For the NPL, including the club coach, he puts the figure at more than $160,000.

And he says that still does not account for all of the costs associated with running the program.

“This doesn’t count ground rentals, electricity or coaching costs that are compulsory for NPL clubs,” he said.

The direct revenue generated by the senior programs does not come close to covering those expenses.

“Direct revenue doesn’t come anywhere near covering these costs and like a lot of Australian football, junior fees and academies tend to be a major contributor to revenue,” McCarron said.

At the same time, he says attendances at games have fallen significantly.

“There has been a massive drop in the attendance at games and thus a significant drop in gate, canteen, bar, sponsorship and general fundraising because of this.”

That creates a fairly simple problem.

The cost of operating at the highest level continues to rise while some of the traditional ways clubs generate money from senior football are shrinking.

Too Much From Too Few

Money, however, is only part of Riverside’s decision.

The other currency football clubs constantly spend is time.

McCarron has previously spoken publicly about the enormous administrative burden associated with NPL licensing and compliance.

This time he is even more direct.

“Volunteers, whether they are players, administrators or coaches, are an integral part of the club and the demands are immense,” he said.

“At times we are asking too much from too few.

“Unfortunately I believe that the volunteer culture in society is reducing and our football club is no different.”

That matters enormously at a club the size of Riverside.

There are around 600 people wanting to play football.

The NPL and WSL programs represent only a relatively small percentage of them.

When I asked whether the board had ultimately decided its resources would be better directed towards the broader membership, McCarron’s answer was simple.

“Yes. The continuity of the club is the paramount priority.”

What About The Players?

Of course, there is another side to this decision.

Players who grew up at Riverside believing the pathway led to NPL or WSL football will no longer have that opportunity at their own club in 2027.

McCarron acknowledges that concern.

“We will always encourage players to play at the highest levels that they can and still enjoy their football,” he said.

But Riverside believes removing the financial and administrative burden of NPL and WSL football may actually allow the club to invest more heavily in player development.

“We believe that we can enhance the player development offerings as we will be able to divert more resources to this area without the distraction of the WSL and particularly NPL programs.”

That raises an interesting question.

Does a strong development club necessarily need an NPL or WSL team at the top of its pathway?

Riverside is about to test that proposition.

The Women’s Game Has Its Own Problem

While many of the pressures are common to both programs, McCarron believes the WSL faces an additional problem.

Player depth.

He says clubs wanting to be competitive increasingly need to recruit from interstate or overseas because the Tasmanian player pool, particularly in Launceston, is simply not large enough.

“Unfortunately, to be competitive the use of imported players, overseas and mainland players, has become essential as the Tasmanian and in particular Launceston player pool is too small.”

That should concern anyone interested in the long-term health of the women’s game.

If clubs need to bring players into Tasmania simply to remain competitive, what does that tell us about the depth underneath the competition?

‘The Current Model Is Not Sustainable’

This is where the Riverside story becomes much bigger than Riverside.

I asked Stuart a fairly simple question.

If a club of Riverside’s size, with its player numbers and facilities, decides NPL and WSL football are not sustainable, what does that say about the model?

His answer was unequivocal.

“The current model is not sustainable.

“NPL in particular, the cost both in time and dollars is too much for clubs to bear.

“We burn out too many.

“To have the same compliance regime as multi-million-dollar clubs is just not sustainable.”

For McCarron, the answer is a model built specifically around Tasmania rather than applying the same compliance expectations faced by much wealthier clubs.

“There has to be a Tasmanian way with our diverse population,” he said.

I put the broader sustainability question directly to Football Tasmania CEO Tony Pignata when we spoke on Tuesday.

I asked him whether the current model in Tasmania was unsustainable.

Pignata did not frame it that way, but said clubs and Football Tasmania needed to work together to make sure the model works.

He also told me that Member Federations around Australia are discussing whether they should have greater control over their own NPL structures because of the significant differences clubs face from state to state.

That is an important point.

An NPL club in Tasmania is operating in a very different environment from a club in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, in terms of population, revenue, travel, player depth and volunteer capacity.

The question may therefore be less about lowering standards and more about whether the structure can be adapted to the very different environments in which NPL clubs operate.

Is Riverside Alone?

McCarron does not believe so.

“I believe that most clubs are in this discussion but are too concerned about ramifications to openly discuss the issue.”

That is perhaps one of the most significant comments in this entire conversation.

Because if he is right, Riverside’s decision is not an isolated event.

It is simply one club saying publicly what others may be discussing privately.

The Conversation With Football Tasmania

McCarron says Riverside sought an in-person meeting with Football Tasmania earlier in the year over a range of concerns.

When I spoke with Football Tasmania CEO Tony Pignata on Tuesday, he said he had been willing to discuss the issues by phone but did not believe a trip to Launceston for an in-person meeting was appropriate.

Pignata also agreed that getting volunteers was becoming increasingly difficult.

There was also an important difference in understanding around Riverside’s position.

Pignata told me on Tuesday that Football Tasmania had not, at that stage, been formally advised that Riverside would withdraw its NPL and WSL licences for 2027.

He said Football Tasmania had instead given Riverside an extension of time to meet the relevant criteria.

Of course, that was the position when Tony and I spoke on Tuesday and discussions may have moved on since then.

That does not alter Riverside’s reasons for making its decision, but it does show that at the time of my conversation with Tony, the club and the governing body were approaching the situation from different places.

McCarron remains critical of the current competition review process.

He describes it as “half hearted” and believes it needs more time and a broader range of input.

He is careful, however, to separate that criticism from the four NPL presidents involved in the review.

“This is not a reflection on the four NPL presidents that have been chosen but on the process established by the CEO.”

Riverside Accepts Its Own Mistakes

What I found interesting was that McCarron did not attempt to absolve Riverside of responsibility.

He readily acknowledges the club has made decisions that have contributed to its present position.

“Riverside have made mistakes that haven’t helped the situation,” he said.

But he believes those mistakes sit within a broader structure that has become increasingly difficult for clubs to carry.

He is particularly critical of fixturing and the way the game is marketed in Tasmania.

He described the rostering system as a “disaster” and said it had helped bring the situation to a head.

He was even more blunt about the promotion of the game.

“The marketing of our game is the laughing stock of all sporting codes in Tasmania,” he said.

Strong words.

But they come from someone who has spent more than 50 years involved in football and around 40 years as an administrator.

This Isn’t Goodbye

Perhaps the most important thing Stuart McCarron told me came right at the end.

Riverside is not abandoning elite football forever.

“Riverside will be back playing at the top level in Tasmania but only when the model is sustainable for the club and the game in general.”

There is disappointment in his answers.

There is frustration.

There is also pragmatism.

Riverside Olympic has decided that maintaining an NPL or WSL licence cannot come ahead of maintaining Riverside Olympic.

And perhaps that leaves Tasmanian football with a much bigger question.

If a club with around 600 players, significant facilities, decades of history and an ambition to play at the highest level decides the price of doing so has become too high, should we really be asking what is wrong with Riverside?

Or should we be asking what is wrong with the model?