The Radical Idea of Listening
Waiting For The Catch
I have spent enough years in football governance to become suspicious.
It is an occupational hazard.
When I read an announcement from a football federation, I often find myself looking for what is not being said as much as what is.
So when I read Capital Football's announcement this week about the election of a new Chair, I found myself waiting for the catch.
There wasn't one.
Instead, there was something far more surprising.
An invitation.
The newly elected Chair, Sarah Baker-Goldsmith, and Deputy Chair, Steve Rohan-Jones, announced an online community forum and asked a remarkably simple question:
"What do you think Capital Football should be working on this year?"
That was it.
No strategic roadmap.
No stakeholder engagement framework.
No future consultation process regarding the development of a consultation process.
Just a question.
I genuinely found myself reading the announcement twice.
Surely there had to be a complicated bit somewhere.
Just A Question
Where was the working group?
Where was the advisory panel?
Where was the steering committee overseeing the advisory panel?
Where was the stakeholder reference group providing guidance to the steering committee?
Where was the survey asking members whether they would like to participate in a future survey?
Where was the 47-page discussion paper released two days before the decision was made?
Instead, there was an email address.
Actually, there were two.
One to register.
One to submit questions.
There was a date.
There was a time.
There was an invitation to participate.
It felt strangely refreshing.
And perhaps that says something about football.
Because listening should not feel revolutionary.
It should be normal.
Yet somehow it increasingly feels like a novelty.
The Difference Was The First Question
The contrast between the two announcements last week is difficult to ignore.
In Tasmania, football elected a new President.
In Canberra, football elected a new Chair.
Both are important moments.
Both deserve recognition.
But what happened next was very different.
Capital Football almost immediately turned the conversation outward.
Before the congratulatory photos had even gone cold, members were being asked what football should be working on.
Think about that for a moment.
A newly elected board asking members what they think.
Not after the decision.
Not after implementation.
Not after six months of internal discussions.
At the beginning.
The first instinct appeared to be engagement.
The first instinct appeared to be listening.
What struck me most was not that Capital Football announced a new Chair.
Most organisations do that.
It was that almost immediately the conversation turned outward rather than inward.
Why Does This Feel So Unusual?
Consultation does not guarantee better decisions.
But refusing to consult almost guarantees cynicism.
Football people can usually tell the difference between a conversation and a conclusion.
One asks questions.
The other announces answers.
Most people do not expect to get their own way.
Most understand that leadership sometimes requires difficult decisions.
The frustration usually comes from something much simpler.
The feeling that the conversation finished before they even knew it had started.
The feeling that the decision was already made.
The feeling that consultation was something that happened somewhere else, with somebody else.
That is why the Capital Football announcement stood out.
Not because it promised anything.
Not because it solved anything.
Not because it launched a new strategy.
It simply asked a question.
And somehow that now feels unusual.
Leadership Or Distance?
This is not an argument for governance by Facebook comment section.
Boards still need to lead.
Administrations still need to make decisions.
Sometimes difficult decisions.
Sometimes unpopular decisions.
That is their job.
But there is a difference between leadership and distance.
There is a difference between consultation and announcement.
There is a difference between listening and broadcasting.
Too often football seems to skip straight to the final step.
The decision has been made.
The document has been written.
The media release is ready.
The implementation plan is underway.
Then somebody remembers to tell everybody else.
That is not consultation.
That is notification.
And football people know the difference.
Maybe This Is What Good Governance Looks Like
The cynic in me briefly wondered whether this is what happens when football elects a female Chair.
Women have spent generations being accused of talking too much.
Perhaps we also listen more.
Then again, that may be completely unfair.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with gender at all.
Perhaps it is simply what good governance looks like.
A board that understands it does not have all the answers.
A board that understands football knowledge does not magically begin at the boardroom door.
A board that is confident enough to ask questions before providing answers.
What struck me most about the announcement was not the election itself.
It was the assumption behind it.
The assumption that members might actually have something useful to say.
Imagine that.
Imagine That
What struck me about the Capital Football announcement was not the election.
It was the order of events.
Elect Chair.
Ask members.
It sounds so obvious when you write it down.
Which probably explains why it feels so unusual.
Imagine that.
A football organisation elects a new Chair and one of the first things it does is ask its members what they think.
Not after the announcement.
Not after the consultant has been appointed.
Not after the working group has met six times.
Before.
What do you think?
Four words.
No strategic framework required.
No governance review required.
No stakeholder engagement matrix required.
Just four words.
What do you think?
Perhaps the most revolutionary thing in football governance today is not a new competition, a new facility or a new strategic plan.
Perhaps it is simply the willingness to listen before speaking.
Who knew it could be so uncomplicated?