Tony Pignata: Explaining the Decisions That Shape Tasmanian Football

Photo credit: Nikki Long

A Coffee, A Conversation… and a Different Perspective

Part One of this interview was about getting to know Tony Pignata the person.

Part Two is about Tony Pignata the football administrator.

Before we go any further, I need to deal with the reaction to Part One.

More than a few people asked whether the interview had changed my relationship with Tony Pignata.

Some even joked we'd become best mates.

No.

Nothing about spending an hour and twenty-two minutes over coffee changes my willingness to challenge decisions that deserve scrutiny.

If Football Tasmania makes a call tomorrow that I disagree with, I'll still write about it.

What that interview changed was my understanding of how Tony thinks through the biggest issues facing football in this state.

Twenty years in this game, as a volunteer, a club president, a tournament director, a business owner and now a writer, has taught me one thing.

Football administration is rarely black and white.

It's easy to criticise a decision when you don't understand how it was reached.

It's just as easy to defend every decision simply because you know the people making it.

Neither approach serves our game.

So here's what I actually did.

I asked difficult questions.

I listened carefully to the answers.

Then I tested those answers against my own experience.

Before we sat down, I gave Tony every question in advance. He accepted them all.

Afterwards, I sent him ten follow-up questions where I wanted greater detail.

He answered every one of those too.

In a climate where it's increasingly normal for people to dodge hard questions, that's worth noting.

It doesn't mean I agree with every answer.

Some of what follows I remain unconvinced by.

Some of it genuinely shifted my thinking, even where it didn't change my mind.

Respecting someone's willingness to explain a decision is not the same as endorsing it.

If we're prepared to publicly criticise the people running our game, we owe them the same willingness to genuinely hear why they made the call.

That's what this is.

Not a verdict.

The beginning of a better conversation.

FIFO Leadership: Can Tasmanian Football Be Led From Melbourne?

One of the first issues I wanted to raise with Tony was also one of the most frequently discussed across Tasmanian football.

Can the Chief Executive of Football Tasmania effectively lead the game while living interstate?

It's a question that has been debated in clubrooms, committee meetings and around football grounds across Tasmania since Tony returned to live in Melbourne around eighteen months ago.

Rather than speculate, I asked him directly.

His answer wasn't about football.

It was about family.

"I lived in Tasmania full-time for the first eighteen months of my tenure," he told me.

"Around eighteen months ago, I made the decision to move back to Melbourne to be closer to my children and my ageing mother. I have lived away from Melbourne for nineteen years through my previous roles and it came at a great personal cost to me and my family. That needed to change."

He was also keen to address what he believes is a common misconception.

"I pay my own travel costs to and from Melbourne," he said.

He explained that he travels to Tasmania regularly, generally every second week, while also travelling around Australia for meetings with Football Australia and other national stakeholders.

"I understand there may be a perception among some people that the arrangement affects my leadership," he said. "But I don't believe it has diminished my contribution or commitment to Football Tasmania. I remain closely connected to our staff, clubs and stakeholders, and I believe I should be judged by the work I do and the outcomes we achieve."

I found it difficult not to sympathise with Tony's personal circumstances.

After spending almost two decades living away from Melbourne, wanting to be closer to his family is something most people would understand.

But understanding why someone made a decision isn't quite the same as deciding whether it is the right arrangement for Tasmanian football.

Football Tasmania is the governing body responsible for leading the game across an entire state.

That naturally raises another question.

Should Tasmanian football expect its Chief Executive to live in Tasmania full-time?

Tony's position is clear.

He believes he should be judged by his work and the outcomes Football Tasmania achieves.

I can understand that argument.

Equally, I can understand why clubs, volunteers and participants might believe leadership is about more than outcomes alone.

Visibility matters.

Relationships matter.

Being present matters.

Some leadership happens in boardrooms.

Some happens by turning up to local grounds on wet Saturday mornings, attending club functions, having conversations that never appear on an agenda and simply being part of the football community.

Those things are difficult to measure.

But they matter.

This is also bigger than Tony's personal decision.

The Football Tasmania Board has evidently determined that this arrangement is compatible with the responsibilities of the role.

The football community is entitled to decide whether it agrees.

Tony gave me a thoughtful and honest explanation for why he made the decision.

I understand it.

Whether it is the arrangement Tasmanian football needs or deserves is a different question altogether.

Rugby Park: Why Stay?

Our discussion about where Tony lived naturally led me to another question about place.

This time it wasn't the Chief Executive's home.

It was Football Tasmania's.

Tony had been remarkably candid about Rugby Park.

Rather than defending the organisation's headquarters, he criticised them.

That immediately raised another question in my mind.

If the offices were as poor as he was describing, why was Football Tasmania still there?

So I asked whether the organisation had considered renting commercial office space while continuing to pursue its long-term vision for a Home of Football.

He didn't hesitate.

"I rang Bob Gordon on my first day," he recalled. "I said these are the worst offices I've ever been in."

He then explained why.

There was mould in the boardroom.

Around twenty staff shared a single toilet.

One staff member had even received an electric shock while turning on a heater.

It was one of the most candid moments of our interview.

Having painted such a bleak picture, my original question became even more relevant.

If Rugby Park was really that bad, why not move?

He explained that Football Tasmania had investigated other premises.

The problem wasn't finding office space.

It was paying for it.

Suitable commercial accommodation, he estimated, would cost somewhere between $120,000 and $150,000 a year in rent.

For him, that was a difficult expense to justify.

His view was that football's money should be invested in developing the game rather than paying substantial rent for what would only ever be a temporary solution.

He also explained that Football Tasmania works differently today than it once did.

Staff work flexibly.

They spend significant time with clubs and stakeholders across the state.

They're often out in the football community rather than sitting behind office desks every day.

I found the financial argument easy to follow.

For a sporting organisation, an additional annual expense of more than $100,000 is a significant decision.

Then one thought struck me.

Tony wasn't asking Tasmanian football to settle for Rugby Park.

He was asking it to endure Rugby Park a little longer.

Whether that is the right decision is a different question.

Every organisation has a responsibility to provide its staff with a workplace that is safe, functional and fit for purpose.

If Rugby Park really is as inadequate as Tony described, is continuing to work there the right choice, even if it saves football money?

People will answer that question differently.

But one thing became clear during our conversation.

Rugby Park and the Home of Football are not separate discussions.

They are the same discussion.

Tony sees the shortcomings of Rugby Park not as a reason to spend heavily on temporary offices, but as further evidence that Tasmanian football needs a permanent home of its own.

That naturally led me to my next question.

If Rugby Park is no longer the answer, what exactly is the Home of Football?

And why does Tony believe it could transform the game in Tasmania?

More Than Bricks and Mortar

If Rugby Park explained why Tony believed Football Tasmania needed a new home, our conversation naturally moved to what that home might actually look like.

One thing became clear very quickly.

Tony wasn't talking about replacing an ageing office building.

He was talking about something much bigger.

When I later asked him to expand on the idea in writing, he described a Home of Football as a central base for Football Tasmania's administration, coach and referee education, player development programs, representative teams and community football.

He wrote that it could also provide better facilities for women and girls, support major events and give football a stronger public identity.

"The long-term value is not just a building or pitches," he wrote.

"It is the infrastructure, connection and sense of belonging that would support generations of Tasmanian players, coaches, referees and volunteers."

During our interview he also spoke about a precinct with multiple pitches capable of supporting development programs and representative football.

Whether people agree with the vision or not, it's certainly ambitious.

The obvious question, though, is how it becomes reality.

Football Tasmania doesn't own the land.

He told me Wentworth Park remained Football Tasmania's preferred location because of its size and because it is already used for sporting purposes.

That immediately led me to another question.

Wentworth Park is already home to Touch Football.

I asked what would happen if football pursued the site.

He said Football Tasmania had already begun discussions with Touch Football and acknowledged that any proposal would require further work with both Touch Football and Clarence City Council.

As we continued talking, I found the discussion becoming less about one building and more about football infrastructure across Tasmania.

I raised South Hobart's long-running efforts to improve the lighting at D'Arcy Street and the challenges clubs often face when dealing with local councils.

He said Football Tasmania would continue supporting clubs through meetings, advocacy and letters of support while also pursuing the longer-term vision of a Home of Football.

I then asked what he hoped football infrastructure across Tasmania might look like over the next twenty years.

His answer wasn't really about one facility.

He said he wanted every NPL club to have quality pitches, lighting, drainage and facilities capable of supporting players, coaches and volunteers.

That struck me as important.

Throughout our conversation he kept returning to the same theme.

Not one project.

Not one building.

Football infrastructure.

We also found ourselves talking about government investment.

Football is one of Tasmania's largest participation sports, yet much of our discussion centred on how difficult it has been to secure funding for football facilities compared with other sports.

I came away understanding Tony's vision more clearly.

He believes Tasmania needs a permanent home for football.

But he also believes clubs need better facilities.

The challenge isn't identifying what football needs.

It's finding governments prepared to invest in it.

Whether a Home of Football eventually becomes reality is a question for governments, councils and the football community.

Tony's role is to make the case.

Whether others are persuaded is another question altogether.

Player Pathways: Whose Job Is It to Develop a Player?

Home of Football led naturally into a question I'd been wanting to ask for a while.

Where do clubs actually fit into all of this?

I've written before that clubs are the heart of community football.

I've also questioned whether Football Tasmania's pathway programs risk pulling talented players away from their clubs instead of supporting them.

So I asked Tony directly.

He pushed back straight away on the idea that pathways exist to replace clubs.

"The intention is not to replace or duplicate the work of clubs," he told me. "Many clubs already provide very good coaching, and that work should be recognised and supported."

His argument was that touchpoints - extra sessions run outside a player's club - serve a different purpose.

Exposure to different coaching perspectives.

Specialist support.

Higher intensity environments.

Connections to national pathways that a single club often can't offer on its own.

"The club should remain central to a player's development," he said, "with Football Tasmania adding value around it."

On paper, it's a convincing answer.

I've spent twenty years in clubrooms, not boardrooms, and I know how this can feel from the other side.

When a talented fifteen-year-old is selected for a representative session, the club coach who has worked with that player for three years doesn't always feel like something is being added.

They can feel like they're being overlooked.

His answer suggested he recognised that tension.

"We need to communicate with club coaches, be clear about what each session is designed to achieve and carefully manage player workloads," he said.

Communication.

It came up more than once during our conversation.

It will come up again later in this piece.

A good intention on paper is not the same as a club coach feeling they were genuinely consulted before losing a player for a Saturday.

That's the gap Tony needs to close.

Not the policy.

The practice.

Coach Development: More Than a Certificate

Pathways raised questions about players.

Naturally, our conversation turned to the people coaching them.

Tasmania has never had a shortage of people willing to coach.

What it has struggled with, by Tony's own admission, is the number of qualified coaches and the ongoing support they receive.

"Our biggest priority is increasing both the number and quality of coaches across Tasmania," he told me.

That means making coach education more accessible, more affordable and more relevant, particularly outside Hobart.

I asked what that actually looks like over the next five years.

He spoke about stronger coaching pathways from community football through to the advanced levels.

More mentoring after courses finish, not just during them.

A greater focus on developing female coaches.

Then he said something that stayed with me.

"Qualifications are important, but coach development cannot simply be about completing a course. It must involve practical support, observation, feedback and continuous learning."

It's difficult to argue with that principle.

It's also one of the hardest things for any football organisation to deliver.

Running a coaching course is relatively straightforward.

Book a venue.

Bring in a presenter.

Hand out a certificate.

Ongoing mentoring is something else entirely.

It requires experienced people on the ground, week after week, observing sessions, offering feedback and building relationships with coaches who are all at different stages of their development.

Tony didn't present that as something Football Tasmania has already solved.

He presented it as the priority.

That's an important distinction.

Whether Football Tasmania has the people, the resources and the budget to deliver that vision, particularly outside Hobart where accessibility remains the greatest challenge, is the question that will ultimately determine its success.

Coming in Part Three

We've talked about leadership.

We've talked about infrastructure.

We've talked about player pathways and coach development.

In Part Three, the conversation turns to governance, communication and the future direction of football in Tasmania.

Some of the toughest questions are still to come.