So is the article saying that basically any national Association Football competition in Australia is a lost cause? Association Football may not be the 'most followed' code in Australia, but it has a following, and this following deserves a competition.

I agree that overall the strategy of the FFA after its initial couple of years was not well targeted. However there are ways to make a 'minority' code to be successful. One example is the MLS in the USA. The majority of the teams now play in their own boutique stadiums, with the capacities fitting their fan base (most are 15,000-30,000 capacity), 15 years ago MLS clubs were playing in 60,000-80,000 stadiums, that were 80% empty and the clubs were being bled dry by the insane rental costs, with business owners paying for it and then later pulling out of the club, which is what is happening in Australia.

We are not going to match the AFL in states like Victoria, Western Australia or Rugby League in NSW (and that is what it is happening) we need to be more strategic and smarter.

North Queensland Fury were a foundation club were they?

"A-league is clearly a loss leader" with no mention of the history of or potential for growth in advertising, TV rights and crowds? Which parts were undervalued? Which parts have seen increase or decline? Which parts looks set to grow soon? Is the entire league a loss leader for the game or were the first X seasons structured as loss leaders for the league long term? Does it just need more support (crowds + viewers) or can current levels of support be leveraged to a sustainable model in the near future. Will each team need X support to survive, or will centralised revenue eventually reach levels required for survival?

This article is not Conversation standard.

GCU has 2 problems: an owner who doesn't understand football and who seems to neither run his club to maximise profit nor on field success although you could make a reasonable case that GCU has performed above expectations on the field. Remember this team beat Fulham FC in a practice game before they'd even played their first HAL game. Palmer has been unable to capitalise on this and has driven fans away with his understandable efforts to save money. This leads to the second issue.
Skilled Stadium is difficult to get to with limited public transport options. Stadium costs are outrageously high and this resulted in Palmer capping crowds at 5000 to avoid higher stadium and traffic management fees. How on earth did due diligence by Palmer and FFA think that this would be viable?

I agree, this article is not of a very high standard. The general message is: "you're going die anyway, so best not to get out of bed and save everyone the inconvenience".

The author gives himself away when he drops the names of 2 AFL players compared to 0 A-League players (and who on earth if Karmichael Hunt???), and forgets (or perhaps never knew) that Gold Coast has attracted many quality players, including several international players, not to mention Jason Culina, who was previously playing in the Dutch league.

The author also gives away his ignorance when he fails to refer to the fact that several weeks ago Clive Palmer insisted that a 17 year old player play his first match ever against Melbourne Heart, as captain. The coach at the time, Miron Bleiberg, tried to make light of this bizarre intervention, and was promptly suspended. This then resulted in the coach's resignation, and then he was sacked just to rub salt into the wound. These events alone brought Gold Coast into grave danger of bringing the game into disrepute, and later events have confirmed that this was no accident.

For the author to suggest that 'the Victory and Heart' are basically keeping the game afloat is questionable, considering that Heart only has an average attendance of 8000-10000 per match. If the author had attended a single one of these matches, he would be better placed to make an informed comment. I would prefer to read an analysis of why Victory and Heart are in such good shape, or alternatively what Heart should do to increase numbers (and they are already doing remarkably well in this regard, for a 2-season club, so they don't need the advice of our good Professor).

I think the Conversation would be better served by commissioning Les Murray or Craig Foster to write an opinion piece, regardless of whether they are senior academics or not.