At an average of $230,000, are AFL players underpaid?
By Luke D'Anello, 20 Jan 2010 Luke D'Anello is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Ben Graham, Geelong Cats, Lance Franklin
186 Have your say
Related coverage

Jason Blake and Colm Begley of St KIlda collide with Grant Birchall of Hawthorn during the AFL Round 19 match between the Hawthorn Hawks and the St Kilda Saints at Aurora Stadium. Slattery Images
It may seem like a ridiculous question at first glance, especially to the blue-collar worker who battles for every dollar, but it is worth exploring. The average AFL wage is $230,000 per season. While appearing exorbitant – it is not a pittance either – the figure is hardly enormous when you compare it with other sports.
Players in the NHL, NBA and English Premier League, for example, all enjoy greater financial riches. It has always been the case. But why? They deserve it, too. Those players are at the pinnacle of their sport, playing in competitions followed by great numbers.
But if Australian Rules Football truly is the greatest game in the world (a view held by many), surely the players of the AFL should enjoy the benefits.They are playing at the highest level of their sport as well. Given the previous TV rights deal was worth $780 million, AFL clubs/players have reason, I think, to ask for a little more.
Yes, players, as we know, are already privy to a range of benefits. But everything costs more in today’s world, and the players need to be adequately compensated for the high-standard product they are showcasing to the world.
Many would think they earn too much already, but when you compare the average AFL players’ wage to other sports, there is merit in questioning the figures.
And just imagine if your every move was scrutinised by the media. What if everything in your life, outside of work, related to your job in some way?
Imagine if your employer put a booze ban on all members at work and away from the job? If you take a sip from a VB, does your employer know? Being an AFL player is a glamorous lifestyle when things are going well. But, behind the glamour, there is another side.
Lance Franklin, for example, has been targeted by members of the public in licensed venues. But he is not the only one, of course.
Then there are injuries, the times when you are on your own. All jobs have their ups and downs, but sport, especially, can be cruel.
Playing at the highest level does open up opportunities to work in the media and promote company brands. But only the AFL’s stars can take advantage of those.
Ben Graham can now spend a small time on the field in the NFL and, because of his punting talents, he can earn more than he ever did at Geelong. Some would say he missed a chance to play in the club’s 2007 and ’09 premiership teams, but you can understand why he left. It was worth the punt.
The numbers don’t lie, either.In 2009, the average NFL player salary was around $770000. In the NBA it is over $5 million.
Are our AFL players worthy of a wage increase? Should just the stars get paid more? Do they earn enough already?
It’s a topic worth considering.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
![]()
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- AFL, Ben Graham, Geelong Cats, Lance Franklin


January 20th 2010 @ 5:40am
Tifosi said | January 20th 2010 @ 5:40am | Report comment
“But if Australian Rules Football truly is the greatest game in the world (a view held by many), surely the players of the AFL should enjoy the benefits.They are playing at the highest level of their sport as well.”
Yeah but they are playing in a country with a small commercial base and population.
It can never get to a level like football in europe or sports in USA. Not in a hundred years. These guys make $230,000 a week.
Whilst i agree 230,000 a year isnt a lot, to the average aussie that sounds like a lot so they will get little sympathy from the public.
One aspect that the AFL has to look at and the NRL is in the same boat is
Will the next generation of kids be playing sport for money and if so they need to keep the wages up or else kids will drift to the more lucrative sports such as soccer(overseas)/cricket (IPL) or union.
January 20th 2010 @ 7:42am
Australian Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:42am | Report comment
I saw an interviewed some time ago with David Beckham, and the question put to him was. “What do the kids want to know about you when you conduct one of your football clinic? ” And he replied how much money I earn was his answer… Compared to the Australian National Football Team players AFL will continue to decrease not increase within 20yrs, if that has not already happened… There’s simply no future in AFL in Australia anymore for the youth..
~~~~~~~
AF
January 20th 2010 @ 8:00am
MattRusty said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
You heard it here first people, the youth of Australia no longer see any value in AFL – the only reason the youth play sport is to make money. Next you’ll be telling us that players from all over the world will one day come to Australia to play in the A-League…
January 20th 2010 @ 8:30am
Australian Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Yep indeed they will—-within 20 years… With already two thirds of the world’s population living in the fastest growing economy of the world its in inevitable—it’s going to happen; the 2018 Football World Cup in Australia will be the great turning point… Even the Aussie gals will earn more dough than the average AFL player. So get out there you AFL folks and buy your son and daughter a round ball…
January 20th 2010 @ 10:10am
Simmo said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
silly comments AF.
January 20th 2010 @ 11:56am
Australian Football said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
With respect Simmo, I wouldn’t tell Frank Lowy it was a silly comment… FL deep down sees that as a real possibility in years to come; or he would not want to be wasting his time and money in securing the 2018-22 Football World Cup for Australia… Otherwise what would be the point if you didn’t have a greater dream for Australian Football (of course he won’t be around to see it happen)…
January 20th 2010 @ 9:00am
Mr cheese said | January 20th 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
I look on Australian sports with a bit of envy. Obviously I don’t understand Aussie Rules, but I know that it is enormously popular. Over here in England, the footballers suffer from the disease of supernatural greed. I think one or two of them actually eat wads of cash. They just stuff it into their mouths and then demand a pay rise.
The Australian way is better: sports that are not popular outside Aussie but very popular within the country. That means that you have great entertainment and none of the sheer insanity of the greedy association footballer.
They’ve been reading Oliver Twist, you see:
“Please, Sir, can I have some more ?”
January 20th 2010 @ 1:16pm
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
thus far – Australia is a nice example of competition being good – as, it’s keeps the buggers honest. ANd spreads the wealth more evenly across multiple codes and more teams and more players in more cities – and pretty well more sustainably as a business model too!!!
January 21st 2010 @ 2:07pm
True Tah said | January 21st 2010 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Mr cheese
horses for courses, the English and their futbolers are a reflection of their culture, and they’re not really that greedy they are being paid whatever the boss wants to pay them. One thing about the UK is the whole celebrity culture that has arisen, and futbol is a reflection of that.
If English futbol players werent being paid so much, then think of all the luxury care dealers, casinos, nightclubs, high end jewellery stores who would be out of business. Im sure in some parts of London, multimillionaire futbol players singlehandedly prop up the real estate market and keep real estate agents wealthy. Economically the UK is pretty much in decline, apart from the EPL, the only real cash cow is the City of London financial scene.
Lets face it, most English futbolers or AFL players (most sportsmen) are not academically smart or skilled tradies, they probably dont have to be, although I find it somewhat ironic that for all the ‘working class’ backgrounds of English futbolers, they certain lead the lives of the landed gentry!!
January 20th 2010 @ 6:24am
MattRusty said | January 20th 2010 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Very interesting article Luke – nice work.
If anything (in my opinion) they’re underpaid at the benefit of the suits that are running the show. Anyone who says they are overpaid doesn’t understand economics. The public is crazy about sports, our city of Melbourne is obsessed with these guys, teams, the competition; they are valued very highly, so with high value comes a high price tag. If 40,000 people were turning up to watch you work, you’d be on more money too.
Luke, out of interest, how did you research the figure of $230,000pa? Do you know how many games the average AFL player has in their career.
I believe that the average NRL player plays between 40-50 games, not sure what their average wage is, anyone?
January 20th 2010 @ 7:44am
Dogz R Barkn said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I would say it’s the salary cap divided by the average number on a list (not sure if it would include rookies).
$230,000 x 40 = $9,200,000. That must be pretty close to the salary cap (not sure).
January 20th 2010 @ 8:51pm
Sam el Perro said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
40-50 games? Where on earth did that figure come from? Let’s try and max it out, and see how many we can get in the worst case scenario…
21 home and away games (Origin players miss a round before the game)
4 finals games
1 city-country
3 state of origin games
4 tri nations games
3 pre-season games
That’s 36 games if you are the lucky superstar who wins the comp and plays every representative match on offer in a normal year and through some miracle doesn’t miss a single game through injury. You would have to be far from average.
How on earth did you calculate an average player getting 40-50?
Indeed, how did you calculate any player getting 40-50?
January 20th 2010 @ 7:10am
Justin said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Oh to be average
January 20th 2010 @ 7:10am
macavity said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:10am | Report comment
If AFL players are underpaid, NRL players must be considered virtual slaves.
January 20th 2010 @ 7:45am
Dogz R Barkn said | January 20th 2010 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Yes!!
Both NRL and A-League players woudln’t mind being at that average.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:13am
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:13am | Report comment
For most top athletes – money is the consequence – not the motivation.
It’s a pretty hollow motivation,
and is why so many sports people retire because they lost the ‘enjoyment’ rather than the dollars ran out.
but – again – it takes alsorts, and certainly some dollar chasers are out there.
We did see a couple of years ago – Willie Mason led a group of NRL players to see David Gallop, agitating for a pay rise – and Gallop indicated that the NRL players (less of them compared to AFL) were getting access to a larger slice of NRL revenue (as a percentage) than the AFL players (more of them) were of the AFL pie.
Primary issues for codes and ability to sustain a stable wage and labour model – is the global/international influences. Rugby L and U have the aditional ‘cross-code’ movement issue internally let alone external factors.
Avg of $230,000 is not bad – the top liners do alright over a career – there’s some factors able to put some monies outside of the salary cap as well (re promotional income and back ended contracts for players on the veterans list). And there’s a fair media/coaching/development ‘footy’ industry that has developed as well.
Thus far – the greatest benefit for Australia is the fragmented nature of footy codes – as if AFL were solely dominant, then, the players would be wealthier. But – good for Australia is that the wealth generated by NRL and AFL is spread over 2 pools of players/officials/media etc across the nation. That’s good – I’d've thought.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:22am
Jay said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Word homeboy.
NRL current salary cap is $4.1m for 25 players.. you do the maths. And they are only talking about increasing it to $6m when the new tv deal is completed.
January 20th 2010 @ 3:04pm
Al said | January 20th 2010 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
It is a shame that doctors, engineers, computer scientists, paremedics and people that actually contribute something positive to society don’t earn $230,000 per year whilst thoroughly contemptible and uneducated individuals such as Lance Franklin of Brendan Fevola earn close to a million.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:01am
Lu said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
I think Aussie Rules is considered the greatest game in the world because it is played and supported by passion and the love of the game. Rarely do you have AFL players moving to another team for money (not to say it doesn’t happen), it’s usually to move back home etc.. Examples: Jonathan Brown
It’s because of this passion and possibly loyalty that players would accept whats on offer and don’t really go shopping for the money.. which inturn keeps the salary price down.
Although we shall soon see about all this when the cashed up Gold Coast and Western Sydney teams start shopping around.. But still it would take some money to break loyalty.. thats the Australian spirit (look away Lucas Neill, joel Griffths, sonny bill williams, luke ball)..
Also the salary cap has a large part to do with it too..
January 20th 2010 @ 8:19am
Jay said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
There no need for free agency if there is that much passion. Yet the players would love to have it… Even this year – why did Luke Ball (the captain of KFC) go to Collingwood and not Melbourne? Was he never passionate about playing for them.. and give they are both melbourne teams, the returning home excuse is poor. i understand that you mentioned him as a special case, but Im sure there are more like him that would go if it was easier.
Its professional sport and loyalty to a particular team is going to be rare these days. Similar for clubs, if a player isnt performing, they can trade him despite any passion he has for the team.
Also – I dont think it was passion that brought Karmichael Hunt to the AFL.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:30am
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Luke Ball was unusual but probably an indication of growing trade movement or a form of free agency.
Karmichael Hunt came from a rugby league background/culture.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:31am
Lu said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Yeh but the NRL have a long and distingished history of players not only jumping teams for money, but entire codes..
Sonny bill williams, sailor, tuquri etc.. it’s nothing new for League..
January 20th 2010 @ 8:47am
Jay said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Most elite NRL players go to rugby for the money.. its like gaelic players going to the AFL.
January 20th 2010 @ 9:10am
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Jay – the Gaelic is a good example.
If money were the sole motivation – the GAA would no longer exist???
The AFL would be floody with GAA convert hopefuls???
Clearly not so. And, we’ve seen factors such as home sickness play a larger role in stay/go decision making than money alone.
Even for Marty Clarke who had taken great strides at Collingwood. However – - at what point would potential (is it not yet enough?) riches out-weigh a decision to return to Ireland, to family and to become a teacher???
There’s also the aspect of the ‘security’ of potential riches. That’s illustrated via the AFL to NFL punter pathway. There’s seriously good money – but, stuff all security ……….. and less challenge for the tuned athlete. Thus – we are yet to see AFL players heading off until they feel their AFL days are numbered rather than at the peak of their powers.
January 20th 2010 @ 9:41am
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Karmichael Hunt is interesting though -
because, he was not approached (by AFL club interests) until AFTER it was known that he intended finishing up at the NRL (and all assumed he’d then go to RU somewhere or something like that).
Was this a case of a ‘loss of passion’??
because – at that point – there was no money on the table? Certainly not from the AFL.
The money alone in he choosing to have a crack at AFL I’d reckon is more of a career insurance factor – as, it’s a huge challenge that he faces and that is probably what is probably driving him more so. I suspect.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:31am
M1tch said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
SBW isnt australian lol
January 20th 2010 @ 8:39am
Lu said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:39am | Report comment
I knew something wasn’t right about him.. freaking greedy kiwi’s lol
January 20th 2010 @ 8:06am
Brian said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:06am | Report comment
They’re definately underpaid. I mean the entire salary cap is under $200m whilst the league sells the TV rights for $780m??
I think Demitriou is paid more than nearly any player yet the league could much more easily afford to lose him than a Judd or Brown.
Basically the AFL is a cartel which gathers all 16 employers and places restrictions on what they can pay their employees, worse the restrictions are only on players so the coaches and administrators end up being the highest paid. Great for them
January 20th 2010 @ 8:09am
Justin said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Players can always be replaced Brian. I dont like AD but he has taken the AFL to a new level and I think he would be much more difficult to replace than any player in the comp.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:23am
Art Sapphire said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Brian – the TV deal is over five years – 780m divided by 5 = $156 Million per year
Wages paid to AFL players is around $110 – $120 million per year
January 20th 2010 @ 8:25am
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Andrew Demetriou’s pay is factored on several criteria,
one includes the market forces,
such as the FFA (with Govt funding to their OpEx) who’ve gone poaching sports exec’s such as J.O’Neill (ARU), B.Buckley (AFL) and A.Fraser (AFL-StKilda).
and Storm came and poached Brian Waldron who has now been poached by RU.
The AFL would be negligent to under pay their CEO.
Also – the AFL broadcast rights is $780 million over 5 years. Brian – check out Roy Masters article from Aug 2009. Not a bad one for Roy.
The AFL’s $780 million five-year broadcasting contract assigns about 95 per cent to clubs, ensuring the code can pay the stars that $800,000.
Of the $780 million, $87.5 million is contra, meaning the AFL receives $693 million in cash, or $138 million a year and, according to the 2008 annual report, distributed $132 million to its 16 clubs, or $8.25 million a club.
So – you’re point is wrong. You compared an annual salary cap vs a 5 year broadcast figure (that includes non-cash contra components).
January 20th 2010 @ 8:27am
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Brian,
Some simple maths.
The total salary cap estimate you’ve used is an annual amount. Albeit 16 x $7.5M = $120M.
The TV rights of $780M is a 5 year deal which also includes elements of contra ie: $156M annually.
Redb
January 20th 2010 @ 9:40am
Art Sapphire said | January 20th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
redb – you just repeated what I said. But, thats not a bad thing. At least us Essendon supporters are numerate
January 20th 2010 @ 10:04am
AJ said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:04am | Report comment
a surprising thing indeed
January 20th 2010 @ 12:46pm
Brian said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Sorry I was way off with the comparision as Art & Michael C correctly pointed out.
However $138m just from TV and only $120m to player salaries. That means all the AFL’s other revenue (crowds, merchandise etc) is not enough to support the administrators and coaches etc. I dont think their grossly underpaid but they definately deserve a bigger slice of the pie. After all isn’t it the 3rd most attended league in the world, yet the players wouldn’t be anywhere near 3rd in the payments ladder
January 21st 2010 @ 6:35am
VooDoo said | January 21st 2010 @ 6:35am | Report comment
There are a lot of AFL-funded programs that benefit the game as a whole (the “grassroots”) that are factored into their budget. Auskick is one example. The other revenue streams aren’t being funneled into administrator salaries.
And attendance has little correlation with pay. The AFL are so popular because they’ve had the foresight and venue capacities to keep the cost of tickets relatively low, compared with other professional sports worldwide. I live in Canada, and our local hockey team charges $50 for nosebleed tickets, and $300+ for lower bowl seats for a midweek game, and we’re not even close to being among the most expensive in the league. NFL and EPL prices are higher again. For those sports, even low attendances guarantee a huge income.
January 20th 2010 @ 1:14pm
Michael C said | January 20th 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
ha ha, that’s funny…..careful though, those Essendon supporters believe there’s 4 of them so they’re sure they out number you.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:10am
Luke D'Anello said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Rookies are on about 40 to 50k I think per season. Then there is the veterans list to consider where half the payments (I think) aren’t included in the cap, so it is a bit less than the 9.2 million, but not much under that.
Matt, $230,000 has always been the figure reported and mentioned. It may be 229k or 231k, but 230 is very close to the mark. The average AFL career would be an interesting thing to look at – it’s not very long, I can assure you.
January 20th 2010 @ 11:36am
Gibbo said | January 20th 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
No i think you have this wrong:
“Then there is the veterans list to consider where half the payments (I think) aren’t included in the cap”
In fact it is half of the payments which ARE considered in the cap.
oh wait… nevermind.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:10am
Justin said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:10am | Report comment
I cant wait for someone to bring out the old chestnut – “players only have a certain amount of time in the game” line. Always makes me laugh that one.
January 20th 2010 @ 12:48pm
BigAl said | January 20th 2010 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Why ?! – I think it’s definately worth consideration.
However, when everything is considered, the bottom line is that they can only get paid up to what the market will bare.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:20am
reds fan said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
Surely the average wage stat is a function the size of your market and the penetration you have. This determines revenues from TV and the gate. One thing AFL has going against it is that it 18 blokes per team! thats gotta lower the average compared to the leaguies with only 13 on the paddock.
And dont forget that big crowds need big stadiums and these dont come for free. So some amount of revenue is always going to be handed over to the stadiums.
Unfortunately for AFL market saturation is a very real issue. And one would think its fast approaching.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:26am
Jay said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:26am | Report comment
I understand your point on market saturation, given the market is only Australia and there will be teams in each fesiable area soon. AD mentioned that the AFL may expand to Tasmania, North Queensland or another team in Perth some time after GWS… but I dont know why they dont consider NZ. Similar 30-50 year investment as Sydney is.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:29am
Redb said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
given the much vaunted 55% of population in NSW and QLD and only 2 AFL teams soon to be 4 out of 18, doesn’t look too saturated.
January 20th 2010 @ 10:27am
reds fan said | January 20th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
The context for my “saturation” comment is a long term view, more looking at the game as a 100+ year old entity. If the new teams in NSW and QLD are a success saturation might come in 30 years perhaps. Thats not a long time really in the scheme of things. And its certainly not a criticism! It will have been a expansion job well done!
Saturation also comes in another form which is TV viewers. You might get 30,000 in a new region showing up to support their new team but viewer numbers and the type of viewers also dictates saturation from a TV broadcast deal point of view. Regional viewers aren’t as highly prized by advertising types as they generally have less disposable income and there is less demand for advertising space from major firms. So a ceiling will also be met regarding broadcast dollars.
January 21st 2010 @ 10:23am
James said | January 21st 2010 @ 10:23am | Report comment
If the AFL saturates the market in QLD/NSW that would not be a bad thing for them. Just look at the NFL in the USA – number one sport – and probably “saturated” the market decaded ago. The AFL would love to saturate the easter seaboard. I give them about 50 years.
January 20th 2010 @ 8:30am
M1tch said | January 20th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
They are paid what the market can pay them..
Our sportsman in any code of footy wont match the USA or EPL due to population and sponsoring size and the fact our sports arent truly nationally popular
yes AFL is more popular but comes in a distant 2nd behind RL and vice versa for RL