Why a Competitive Process Is the Best Path to a National Home of Football
Australian football stands at a pivotal moment.
For years, discussions about a National Home of Football have centred on the need for a permanent base for the game, a place that brings together Football Australia, the national teams, coach education, referee development, high-performance programs, and community engagement under one roof. The case for such a facility is compelling. As Australia’s largest participation sport and one of the few football nations to have qualified for multiple FIFA World Cups without a dedicated national football centre, the absence of a true home for the game is increasingly difficult to justify.
But while there is broad agreement that Australian football needs a National Home of Football, there is far less discussion about how the location should be determined.
Too often, the conversation begins with the assumption that the facility should be located in Sydney because Football Australia’s headquarters are already based there. Yet this approach risks putting geography ahead of outcomes. If the objective is to create the best possible facility for the future of Australian football, then the process should start not with a predetermined location, but with an open question: which proposal delivers the greatest benefit for the game?
The answer may well be Sydney. But it should be earned through a competitive process rather than assumed from the outset.
A national, merit-based bidding process would allow state governments, local councils, universities, sporting institutions, and private-sector partners to present their strongest vision for hosting the National Home of Football. Such a process would encourage innovation, unlock investment opportunities, and ensure that decision-makers have a clear understanding of the options available across the country.
Importantly, it would also create healthy competition between jurisdictions.
Rather than Football Australia approaching governments seeking support for a predetermined location, governments would be challenged to demonstrate why their state is the best place to host one of the most significant football infrastructure projects in Australian history. States could compete on funding commitments, land availability, transport connectivity, commercial partnerships, integration with education and research institutions, and long-term development opportunities.
Football Australia, in turn, should be willing to accept the strongest proposal regardless of where it originates, even if that ultimately requires relocating its headquarters.
That may sound controversial, but it reflects a simple principle: the National Home of Football should serve the interests of the sport, not the convenience of an existing administrative structure.
Sydney has undoubtedly played an important role in Australian football’s history. It has hosted Football Australia for decades and remains a major football market. However, historical precedent alone should not determine the future location of a facility that is intended to serve the game for generations.
If another state can offer a superior package through greater public investment, stronger institutional partnerships, better infrastructure, or a more ambitious long-term vision, then that proposal deserves serious consideration.
A competitive process would also provide transparency and accountability.
Rather than decisions being made behind closed doors, stakeholders across the football ecosystem could understand the criteria being used and assess proposals against clearly defined objectives. This would help build confidence that the final decision was made in the best interests of the game rather than influenced by politics, tradition, or organisational inertia.
Some of the key criteria could include:
● Government investment and long-term funding commitments
● Availability of suitable land and supporting infrastructure
● Partnerships with universities, research institutions, and commercial organisations
● Accessibility via public transport and major transport networks
● Capacity to support elite high-performance programs
● Opportunities for fan engagement and community participation
● Economic impact and broader social benefits
● Potential for future expansion and development
Evaluating proposals against these measures would allow Football Australia and funding partners to identify the option that delivers the strongest overall outcome.
There is already a successful Australian example of what can be achieved through collaborative investment.
The Home of the Matildas in Melbourne was delivered through substantial investment from the Victorian and Federal Governments alongside a partnership with La Trobe University, which provided the land and broader precinct integration necessary for the project. The result is a world-class facility that supports elite performance, strengthens pathways, increases participation, and generates meaningful community outcomes.
That project demonstrates what is possible when governments, educational institutions, and football stakeholders align around a shared vision.
A National Home of Football presents an even greater opportunity.
Done properly, it could become the centrepiece of Australian football’s future, a facility that supports national teams, develops coaches and referees, drives innovation, hosts major events, and inspires the next generation of players.
The significance of that opportunity demands a process that is ambitious, transparent, and genuinely national in scope.
Rather than deciding where the National Home of Football should be built and then seeking support, Australian football should invite the country to compete for the right to host it.
The strongest proposal should win. Sydney may well be the right answer. But for a project of this scale and national significance, the process should test that proposition properly.
And wherever that proposal comes from, Australian football should be prepared to follow it.