Seatter said NZ Football stood to lose more than $200,000 on the fixture alone after FIFA today ordered that the North Harbour Stadium match be called off as the Government has stood firm on its decision to deny Fiji's first-choice goalkeeper Simione Tamanisau an entry visa into New Zealand.

That figure is set to balloon if the Oceania Nations Cup qualifier has to be played at a neutral venue although FIFA remains hopeful the Government will reverse its decision and grant Tamanisau a visa to allow the match to be rescheduled in New Zealand.

The All Whites will play the return leg against Fiji in Lautoka on Wednesday as scheduled while the postponed match is likely to be played in October next year although that decision will be taken by the 2010 FIFA World Cup organising committee.

Seatter said the worrying financial ramifications were only part of the equation as NZ Football may not be able to host future FIFA matches in New Zealand, including next year's inaugural FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup.

"The consequences of this decision are potentially dire for New Zealand Football," Seatter said at a hastily arranged media conference.

"We have significant costs associated with the fixture, most of those costs have been incurred, including, clearly, no revenue will come from this fixture as it's been cancelled

"A bigger concern is the potential on the future. This sets a precedent that New Zealand is not able to host international football matches. It is a scary prospect to think what may play out in the future with respect to future senior internationals and of most concern is our hosting position of next year's FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup."

Asked if there would be ramifications from FIFA with regard to next year's U-17 World Cup, Seatter said: "It's too early to say".

"But there is some doubt and that has been communicated to us by FIFA. The football world is a big world and FIFA are very keen that players are able to move freely within that world.

"Often players from two nations that are at war play each other because they're drawn to do that. Their [FIFA's] view is that there needs to be access, particularly in a World Cup situation. It's something we'd have to revisit."

Seatter agreed that the financial fallout was a blow for NZ Football and that the national body was likely to seek compensation.

"Yes, of course money is an issue for us, as it is for any sporting organisation," he said. "We've spent money on something that hasn't given us a return of any sort so we'll have some conversations about what we can do.

"Even if it is played in New Zealand, one of our biggest costs is bringing our European based players back to New Zealand. We thought we could complete this campaign with three such return visits with two games on each occasion...this is going to require at least one further return visit which does lift our costs significantly."

Seatter apologised to the New Zealand "football family" but reiterated NZ Football had no role in the unfavourable outcome.

"Clearly we're very disappointed with this outcome but unfortunately this situation has been out of our hands. We desperately wanted to host the game, we wanted to do that for the players, their families, for the NZ Football family and primarily for the fans."

Oceania Football Confederation General Secretary Tai Nicholas said FIFA had not taken the decision lightly.

"You can understand FIFA's view. If we didn't stop the match, we set a really bad precedent that would cause chaos within the football world," Nicholas said.

"Football is truly a global game and to have a match involving political interference sets a bad precedent, and therefore, Fifa, as custodians of the sport, have taken this decision.

"I want to take this opportunity to thank Graham Seatter and his colleagues at NZ Football for the hard work they have done to persuade the New Zealand Government to resolve this issue. More particularly to explain the implications for NZ Football and the football family of New Zealand if this match didn't take place."