A Giant question: What should GWS be named next year?

Whenever he gets in an Uber in Sydney’s sprawling west, Richard Griffiths asks the drivers if they’ve heard of the Giants, or, indeed, of the competition known as the AFL.

“They look at you like you’re from another planet,” said Griffiths, the former chief operating officer of the Greater Western Sydney Giants, who has lived in The Ponds, near Blacktown in Sydney’s west, for nearly a decade and in the inner west for four years beforehand.

Griffiths’ survey of locals isn’t scientific, but one does not need to be a market-research expert to know that the GWS project, successful on the measure of wins and losses and football, has not flourished in the more critical strategic objectives of winning converts to the code in the most AFL-averse territory in the nation.

The stands at their home ground, Engie Stadium, at the old showgrounds, are seldom more than half full. If they are, it’s a safe bet, as Griffiths said, that the visiting team’s fans, such as Carlton’s (round 15), account for the majority.

Despite the team’s excellent performances since 2016 (albeit without a flag), there has been little uptick in attendances or interest in GWS, which would sound more like a liquor or supermarket chain to some of the sprawling populace in Giants “territory.”

Of the important situations vacant at AFL clubs, the most challenging job isn’t senior coach of the fallen giants Carlton and Essendon. It’s chief executive of the Giants.

Is there a harder ask than converting the multitudes who show scant – or zero – interest in not only the Giants, but the sole Australian-grown football code?

The role of GWS CEO might be less stressful than satisfying Carlton’s impatient masses and money men, or coaching a club that’s been mired in politics and the nostalgic past (Essendon). But inept as they’ve been, the Blues and Bombers have incredible support, garnered over 140-plus years.

Once they get rolling, the money rolls in. Players come, and they don’t leave.

The task of winning hearts and minds in the 14 local government areas that are supposed to be the GWS heartland is far harder – it might be beyond the capacity of the code.

But under new chairman Craig Drummond, who is close to his GWS counterpart Tim Reed (Reed is on the Transurban board that Drummond chairs), the AFL has made plain that it is willing to throw more resources – and adopt a revised game plan – for the floundering GWS project.

As Griffiths says, the club has delivered a decent team that regularly plays finals and plays attractive football. The inability to create a fan base is a shared responsibility with the AFL. It will require a rethink and major investment.

So, the Giants are about to do what corporations do when their market share dips – or, in their case, doesn’t record sufficient growth: consider re-branding.

The Giants have put on record that they are willing to explore a change of name. The AFL, obviously, will have a say in whether the Giants dump the wordy “Greater Western Sydney” or stick with the status quo.

The nickname isn’t seen as the issue. But the geographic nomenclature is up for debate.

Within the AFL and Giants people, opinions vary on whether a) the name should go, and b) what it should be.

As a local living in a suburb in which the overwhelming majority have an Indian background with no interest in either the code or club, Griffiths is one of those pushing for a name change.

“No one refers to themselves as residents of Greater Western Sydney,” he said.

It does not seem feasible that the club could adopt a specific suburban or the relevant LGA name, eg Homebush or Parramatta. This likely leaves the AFL and the club three options:

1. Drop the “Greater” and call the club “Western Sydney Giants”.

2. Follow the (original) Big Bash League concept of “Sydney Thunder” – who share GWS’ Engie Stadium – and re-brand them simply as “Sydney Giants”.

3. Stick with the status quo, and use other mechanisms to sell the club and code.

Griffiths says he would be happy with either “Western Sydney ” or “Sydney Giants”.

Option No.2 would inflame the Swans, whose chairman Andrew Pridham has questioned the Giants’ very presence in the Sydney market, suggesting they should stick to their secondary base of Canberra (where they upset Fremantle yesterday, in their best performance of 2026) and the Riverina.

If the Swans are, understandably, not keen on the Giants using the SCG for a game during the first six weeks of 2027 (when Engie is out of action again, due to the royal show), that will be mild compared to the red-and-white reaction (red with anger, white with shock) if the Giants are permitted to become just “Sydney Giants”.

“The Swans will jack up big time,” said Griffiths, who contends that GWS and the AFL should focus their efforts on the four or five LGAs where conversions to footy are easier, instead of trying to win the whole west.

The easiest choice would be a one-word reduction: removing the “Greater”.

Hiring the next CEO to replace David Matthews is arguably more important, and retaining Toby Greene, who is flirting with joining his mate Jeremy Cameron at Geelong, is another short-term priority for the sake of club culture and soul.

Ex-GWS senior staffer James Avery and former boss of Australian football (round ball, then Football Federation Australia and now Football Australia), ex-North Melbourne president and former AFL executive Ben Buckley are among the mooted candidates for the CEO role.

A change of name won’t necessarily change the game, if you believe that it’s the tenets of the faith – not the packaging – that creates followers.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.