Restricted free agency in the AFL is a cop out
Roar Pro
By Justin Rodski, 24 Feb 2010 Justin Rodski is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFLPA, free agency AFL
AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou addresses the media during an AFL Media Conference at AFL House, Melbourne. Slattery Images
While it’s a historic agreement, the AFL’s free agency model is also very complicated and has overlooked its most important function. It still fails to allow big name players to move freely between clubs.
For such a professional sport I would have thought a more professional outcome would have been achieved. How hard is it for unrestricted free agency to be implemented?
If the clubs are smart when free agency is introduced at the end of season 2012, they will easily be able to retain they’re elite players because of the restricted component to the agreement.
Let’s take a quick look at some of the fundamental elements.
The agreed model will see delisted players, and players with 8 years service to one club as unrestricted free agents, allowing them to move clubs if uncontracted. But only if they’re outside the top 25% of paid players at the club.
Players of 8 years service who fall inside the top 25% will be restricted. Meaning before the most highly paid players can move, their original club first has the chance to match any offer made by another club in order to retain them. If the player is still adamant on leaving they then must nominate for the national draft.
This is how the free agency model is failing as it gives the clubs too much power over players who have worked so hard to be at the top of the money tree. Free agency is designed to allow a player his choice of destination but this model is doing the opposite, if a player wants to leave but the club matches the offer, they have to enter the national draft which is a complete lottery.
It’s important to remember clubs are also restricted by the salary cap and the draft. But the AFL believe they’ve reached a balance between increasing the choices available to players, greater flexibility for clubs to manage their lists, all whilst taking into account the interests of members and supporters.
The AFLPA originally wanted just four years service at a given club before free agency kicked in, now they’ve agreed on 8 years and with a restricted component.
What kind of a soft negotiation by the player’s body is that?
Clubs losing a player will be compensated with national draft picks, under a formula taking into account the player’s salary, age, best and fairest record and position they were initially
drafted. The exact details of just how this will be formulated though are still to be determined.
Another problem is going to be adjudicating the top 25%. The AFL is yet to finalise the details of exactly how this will be done either. But I can guarantee you the player agents will argue their players are outside the 25% while the clubs will be arguing the player is inside the 25%.
Two clubs have already been granted a temporary form of free agency with the Gold Coast able to lure up to one uncontracted player from each existing club this year and Western Sydney both next year and in 2012.
This opens the door to yet another dilemma for the AFL.
2010 is set to become a poaching frenzy for the Gold Coast franchise as it attempts to lure uncontracted players to the club. Other football codes readily accept player movement mid-season, but the AFL has until now been able to avoid such an attack on its moral fibre.
By all means players should have the right to move clubs at seasons end when uncontracted, and now to some degree are able to do so through free agency, but jumping ship mid-season is in my mind a form of treachery.
Making matters worse, the specific players are unknown to the media and the football public. Speculation is rife the league’s 17th team is not only talking to potential recruits but has drafted a document of consent for players to sign if they choose to pledge their allegiance at seasons end.
How many players have not only been targeted but secretly signed confidentiality agreements?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- More rugby league players to defect to the AFL? (160)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (106)
- Foxtel’s AFL coverage is nirvana for footy fans (89)
- AFL’s most hated club turns 120 years old (78)
- Israel Folau now ready for AFL (76)
- Optus ruling actually a good thing for AFL fans (52)
- Ling holds hope for club loyalty in AFL
- Andrew Krakouer given four weeks leave from Collingwood
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (32)
- Malthouse not fazed by assistant issue
- Richo says look out for the Tigers in AFL
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- Who’s to blame for the Majak Daw beat-up? (32)
- AFL clubs’ leadership groups getting out of hand (15)
- AFL divisions are the way of the future (107)
- Crows changing, but will this AFL preview change your life? (2)
- Is Heath Shaw the right leader for Collingwood? (11)
- Could a female coach succeed in the AFL? (36)
- Demons’ two captain Jacks the right leadership choice (5)
- Mobile madness: Optus decision bad news for codes (153)
- Explore:
- AFL, AFLPA, free agency AFL
Tifosi said | February 24th 2010 @ 5:12am | Report comment
Not sure how “free” one is if they have to wait 8 years and by that time that player is probably over the hill and unlikely to gain any big contract again.
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:25am | Report comment
after 8 years given most players enter the system around age 18, they’ll be around 25-26 mark and generally at the peak of their powers – - the balance, I presume, is to ensure that the club that has invested in them and developed them get a reasonable ROI – - although, 8 years is a fair chunk of time re a return of service obligation.
The assumption is that guys of high quality will be able to move as per has happened in the trade period – - i.e. guys like Chris Judd have been able to effectively dictate and put a price on their head and effectively choose which club they’ll move to.
They aim at making it more possible for the lower tier of players to move around – - as the trade week has invariably been stalled becuase of the desire to get a small handful of major moves achieved – the minor moves have tended to fall thru the cracks.
How well it all works is another question – -
and what will be the unintended consequences?
and what is this a first step towards?
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:46am | Report comment
BK -
firstly – Karmichael Hunt was not contracted beyond 2009, he had already stated his intention to quit the NRL and RL and it was assumed he would head to RU, it was only at that point that AFL scouts (who had noted him in his junior/school days – - but, were unable to lure him as he WAS ‘contracted’ as a 15 yr old) thought it worthwhile contacting his management. It’s a bit rich to complain that he was ‘poached’ by the AFL (as you effectively are) given that he’d already decided to jump ship and at that point, the AFL had zero to do with it.
secondly – re the restrictions in the AFL FA plan ….. I tend to agree. Presently it looks like a ‘half pregnant’ scenario. I’m not sure I like the idea of full free agency as that would lead back to ‘buying’ clubs and ‘selling’ clubs with EPL style clubs establishing a mortgage on the top 4-6 positions.
thirdly – correct about Denis Tutty and that case had flow on implications.
Freedom is a double edged sword – however, the AFLPA has been pushing for this for sometime and Demetriou himself was head of the AFLPA about 10 years ago,…pushing for this. The balance of the ‘good of the game’ is generally applied and the recognition has always been that the AFL and AFLPA agree on a compromise that would NOT survive a courtroom appeal – - but, is necessary to maintain some form of dynamic equilibrium in the real world.
Probably out of the shadow of the Tutty case, in the early ’70s, the then VFL had a short lived 10 year rule – - effectively free agency – and North Melbourne (my club) saw club chiefs mortgage their homes to fill suitcases with cash to lure firstly Ron Barassi (super high profile coach), and players like Barry Davis (Ess), Doug Wade (Geel) and John Rantall (SthM) – - – and, along with some up and coming kids like Wayne Schimmlebusch, David Dench and Keith Greig managed to win the clubs first ever premiership in 1975.
The rule was short lived. North was an innovative club that saw the potential and jump in bodily (i.e. weren’t ‘half pregnant’) and maximised the benefit.
Since then – there’s been the usual June cut off on transfers, with players moving sometimes from one club to another over a given week, there were court cases in the early 80s with Silvio Foschini and Paul Morwood.
The main question now is where will this all end up. A regulated labour market has thus far provided certain limitations, but, likewise provides certain assurances.
Jay said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment
“secondly – re the restrictions in the AFL FA plan ….. I tend to agree. Presently it looks like a ‘half pregnant’ scenario. I’m not sure I like the idea of full free agency as that would lead back to ‘buying’ clubs and ’selling’ clubs with EPL style clubs establishing a mortgage on the top 4-6 positions.”
thats why you have a salary cap. thank adam smith for the philosophy that every player should act in his own self-interest. thats how it works in the NRL. The salary cap has caused many problems re players moving overseas or playing different codes, but it has produced such an even competition.
Just look at the bulldogs for proof. Wooden spooners in 08, 2nd in 09. How long will it take Melbourne/Richmond to achieve a similar result. And for the top 4-6 positions comment – this years AFL (correct me if im wrong) looks like being contested between the cats, saints and possibly the pies and dogs. brisbane are also a bit of an underdog.
Crosscoder said | February 24th 2010 @ 7:57am | Report comment
MichaelC
Different to what I understood.K Hunt wanted X amount from the Broncos(who offered him X minus ,and it dragged on for some time,as the club wanted to get Lockyer’s decision/contract bedded down first.If Lockyer had decided not to continue but retire,the money would no doubt have been available for Hunt.
The salary cap,and the salary cap alone,were the mitigating factors in Hunt’s decision.the money from the GC came out of left field ,when it was known he was looking elsewhere because the money he wanted was not avgailable to him at the Broncos.
This “new challenge” response is the stock standard excuse (to evade the real determinant :money),when a player moves to another club or code.He goes to union in France to top up the coffers,then tootles back to AFL,and it is all a “challenge”,not about money LOL>
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Not sure where BK’s comment went – he had a couple of half valid comments.
but whatever drove Hunt’s decision in the end – - his initial playing of the market was not the doing of the AFL (or it’s ‘agents’). That’s the main point – the AFL (i.e. club talent scouts – Scott Clayton was it??) were opportunistic after that fact. Certainly not the initiators which is how some people like to portray it. Had the AFL not come along – would Hunt have settled down back into RL? found a permanent home in RU (here or abroad)? who knows.
Jay said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
No NRL club would pay him the reported $1m he is reportedly on in the AFL under current circumstances.
It wouldnt surprise me if Hunts tenure in AFL is cut short prematurely once they find out they recruited a lemon and the novelty wears off. I rekon he’ll be back in rugby or league within 2 years with a nice payout.
LK said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Is Free Agency actually needed? How many players end up at at their non-preferred club? Luke Ball eventually made it to the club of his choice in the last trading period.
The AFLPA has been pushing for FA for awhile, and the AFL has been resisting, so it’s not really surprising that the proposed system is compromised or “half pregnant”. I wonder what else, if anything, the AFLPA have to give up to get the scheme over the line? Hmmm…
Justin Rodski said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Yep, all good points Michael C. The system is no doubt catered for the second tier players being able to move clubs so they can prolong their careers.
But not all high profile players have been able to move. Ryan O’keefe ended up staying in Sydney. Luke Ball was forced to enter the national draft and Chris Judd was lucky the Eagles were happy to make the deal happen.
Brissie I agree with you, the AFL had the chance to open the door on free agency but through the restrictions have only left it slightly ajar. Its complicated nature will tear at the fabric of the game..more questions will be asked of a players loyalty, a players price tag and a players motives when signing a contract nearing 8 years of service at a club.
Also, its important to remember the AFL is not only bound by salary cap but also the draft…this restricts movement even further.
Another point, the pre-season draft as we know it will inevitably be abolished by 2012.
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
I only have to think of how hard it was for Jade Rawlings to exit Hawthorn to North……Hawthorn didn’t play ball – he ends up was the Doggies before finally getting to North but, too late she cried!!!
Redb said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
How did this become an article about Karmichael Hunt? Regardless of tutty, the AFL has crafted a competition that pays more on average than the NRL in Australia! Free agency is only part of the equation for a closed competition like the AFL.
IMO… when you look at the situation currently, free agency will offer a sizeable chunk of players access to look for other clubs if they want than ever before. I think the AGE website has the list of names in each club that would be eligible for free agency, some restricted some unrestricted. That list has a lot of big names and good players in the AFL who could go on to play for several years at another club.
The part I disagree with is the top 25% of earners having restrictions after 8 years. That reeks of the foul interference from a few clubs (Hawthorn anyone?) and leaves it open to exploitation as clubs will just pay better players more coming up to the period to the detriment of others.
If a player makes it to 8 years then no matter his salary he should be free like everyone else to move on if desired.
It is a progression from the current situation but I doubt this will be last of it from the AFLPA in future deals.
Redb
Jay said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Redb – not being an AFL person, do you know whether the salary cap for afl clubs will go up (and by how much) if they land the reported $1bn rights deal?
The NRL forecast their salary cap to $6m under the proposed new deal, which equals roughly to the average salary that afl players are on now.
Redb said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Jay,
I’d assume that in line with previous increases of TV revenue the AFL will negiotate with the AFLPA (players assoc) and clubs on increases in the salary cap.
Without speculating on how much the TV rights will or wont be, my read of the past has been the clubs on one side telling the AFL to keep the salary cap ‘affordable’ and the AFLPA on the other pushing for a bigger slice of the pie.
Redb
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:22am | Report comment
on behalf of Redb I can assure you the salary cap would go up.
I’ll try to find some figures i saw recently.
okay – from the AFLPA :
“The salary cap or Total Player Payments (TPP) is the total amount a club can spend on players on the playing list of the club. The cap is in place to assist in maintaining a competitive balance across the league, preventing more wealthy clubs from stockpiling the best talent. The 2010 salary cap is listed at $7,950,000, an increase of 3.2% on 2009. The final year of the agreement, 2011, will see the cap rise to $8,212,500. The total TTP across the competition for 2010 is set at a maximum $127.2 million across 16 clubs. ”
No doubt, a new CBA would be negotiated going forward were the broadcast deal to increase significantly.
btw – previous AFLPA paper on restricted free agency,
Titled “A more flexible market for AFL players”, the proposal argues that the introduction of a limited form of free agency will be a win for fans, the code, clubs and players.
The paper has been presented to the AFLPA / AFL player movement working party, which was created to formally review the rules regulating AFL player movement following the successful conclusion of the 2007 – 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
At its heart, the paper strikes a balance between respecting the integrity and fabric of our game, whilst offering supporters, clubs, players and the code the first real prospect of improving competitive balance since the ‘ten year rule’ of the 1970’s.
and also an explanation on the collective bargaining agreement, and also comments suggesting a salary cap to the off-field spending of clubs .
Yadda said | February 24th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Ok, if you think it’s bad because movement of the top 25% is restricted, how would it be if this condition was not in place?
To understand what would happen, look at the current system. Currently a wealthy benefactor to a club can agree to setup a player with a well paid job or simply make undeclared payments, but the scope for actually getting that player is still limited because it requires the target club have a high draft pick or the player asks a high price on a front loaded contract that knocks competitors out of the running, but that itself is restricted because of the salary cap. We have seen two high profile instances of this kind of ‘cheating’ in recent times.
A free agency system *without* the restriction implemented by the AFL would allow experienced players to move to any club for *less* money, while actually receiving larger payments off book. This would in turn relieve salary cap pressure allowing clubs to make bigger bids for talent that *isn’t yet allowed free agency* on front loaded contracts. All the better players, even including those without free agency, would gradually drift to the clubs with the wealthiest supporters.
Eventually we would have a lopsided competition in which the smaller clubs never have realistic chance of winning anything. Those clubs would inevitably lose support, sponsorship and fold.
With this restriction, the best players are prevented from moving for less money, the salary cap stays in effect and the competition remains equitable.
Redb said | February 24th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Good comments, certainly a different way to look at the situation.
I beleive third party payments are still possible in this system as long as they pass the ‘commercial’ test.
I think the free agency model is a progresssion form the current situation as posted, but the restricted element is not required if the AFL have appropriate diligence in place with regard to 3rd party payments.
How do you stop clubs from simply upping the salaries of the borderline players at 7 years to just fit them into the 25%. It’s all open to exploitation by clubs no matter which way you go, so keep it simple would be better in my opinion.
Yadda said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:11am | Report comment
The problem with diligence is becomes an arms race of countermeasures. There will always be ways to avoid detection of illegitimate payments. If diligence was easy organized crime wouldn’t exist. It’s far better to have a system in place that negates the effect of outside payments.
You say clubs will up player payments at seven years, only with mutual agreement of course, but is it a bad thing for the player to get more money? I would say that is one of the better features of the system because it is counter inflationary. Players have an incentive to earn less in the short term and clubs have an incentive to pay their real worth, you’re far more likely to get fair salary outcomes from this approach.
Don’t forget that the original club still has to stay within their salary cap when matching an offer. A bottom club with room in their cap could easily make an offer to a player that the original club wouldn’t be able to match.
The more I think about it, the more I like this system. I think it will actually lead to a more even competition. Relying on the draft alone to help clubs is too much of a lottery, this system will help perpetual losers dig themselves out of their holes. Richmond fans in particular should rejoice.
Redb said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Very much agree that this change will only hasten more trades between clubs.
As we saw with the Nov 2009 draft, trading is becoming more common and clubs like Brisbane have gone for trades over development to hopefully open up their premiership window.
The downside is player loyalty will diminish, a valuable intangible for us AFL fans who get to see most players through a whole period of 5 to 8 years together.
The upside is perhaps spending less time ‘rebuilding’ through the draft.
The draft was becoming compromised due to the integrity of the priority pick. So diminishing the value of the priority pick as a rebuilding tool is a positive.
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
So long as that bottom club isn’t struggling along at 92.5% of salary cap and more likely to be in a position where they are likely to struggle to offer their top players the big money – - who are then lured to the clubs who are wealthier and more able to pay nearer to 98.75% give or take of their cap (whatever managed margin is worked with).
This I guess is the thing that is always a concern – we’ve had clubs forcibly operating at 92.5% even when doing pretty well……we’re also seen crap lists seemingly overpaid because of this minimum for that matter!!!!
We’ve seen clubs unable to afford rookies and that’s been exposed now as a major competitive disadvantage.
YEp – clubs have to work better, operate more efficiently…….and until the AFL fully owns Docklands, then, there’ll be a lot of hand holding still required in Victoria,……or, might the Vic Govt drag itself from the Myki disaster, jump around the Bubbledome roof fiasco – and build a 3rd AFL venue (first publicly funded in Melb) and help put more AFL generated money back in the hands of AFL clubs!!!! (hmmm, or buy out Docklands early for the AFL).
Brissie Kid said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Yadda – “A free agency system *without* the restriction implemented by the AFL would allow experienced players to move to any club for *less* money, while actually receiving larger payments off book”
So how come it works ok in the NRL? Or are you implying NRL clubs cheat? All the AFL just needs to have is a salary cap auditor.
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 11:49am | Report comment
it is true that in an ideal scenario – - with the salary cap and draft and trade process – that a limited free agency policy seems all well and good,
but that’s if everything were transparent,
and since simple simon knows it’s not – – there needed to be ‘real world’ mechanisms put in place. How effectively it can all be managed and run, who knows – - how much it still relies or not on the good will of all parties???
btw – I note in the AFLPA paper they spoke of Clubs at the bottom of the AFL ladder have no effective way of quickly making themselves more competitive. Teams finishing in the bottom two positions on the AFL ladder over the past 20 years have taken around 6 years to reach the top 4 and 12 years to play in a Grand Final.
At this superficial level – well, AFL over the 2000-2009 decade has seen every single club contest at least one Prelim final (i.e. just 1 week from a GF – granted 4 of those sides did it just once each) whilst no single club contested more than 4 prelim finals (Bris, Coll, Geel, Port and StK each with 4).
Compared to the NRL (with 15 sides for much of the decade) – Souths and Canberra failed to make the last 4, (Titans thus far not) and Wests only 1, whilst Parramatta and Brisbane both contested 5 Prelims.
SO, top 5 clubs in AFL have 20 Prelims, top 5 in NRL have 22, bottom five in AFL have 6 prelims and bottom 5 in NRL have 3 prelims.
ON that basis – you’d suggest the AFL system is working okay now that it’s getting bedded down. (back in the 90s, clubs like North Melb contest every prelim from 1994 on….into 2000…but, then, we know that they didn’t pay ‘overs’ for players – the players were taking pay cuts to stay).
So – I’m not sure you can just superficially present such sort of info and draw conclusions.
6 years to reach the top 4 from down the bottom……
well,….I guess we can ask just how much clubs have deliberately ‘bottomed’ out for successive seasons – such as StKilda to gain Goddard, Riewoldt and Kosi…..irony now is they could be vulnerable to losing them to limited free agency whilst their (the clubs bottoming out) policy produced an outcome that supported the position of the AFLPA in seeking limited free agency.
James said | February 24th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Question – the Adelaide press are suggesting Matthew Pavlich would be a prime candidate for this new rule to get out of Freo and go to the Crows or somewhere: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/two-way-deal/story-e6frecj3-1225833744820
But wouldnt he be in the top tier of Freo players and therefore restricted for free agency?
Dogz R Barkn said | February 24th 2010 @ 9:17am | Report comment
At least the AFL and players association are trying to work towards something that is acceptable to all parties – which is a big ask in its own right.
I would have thought a step in this direction would be better than nothing at all.
Michael C said | February 24th 2010 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Dogz -
ideally yes.
again – as Demetriou is a former head of the AFLPA and this was something he looked at as well – now then was the time to get it through.
How far will it all go? how many wrinkles will need to be ironed out?
for the time being – we’ve had enough potential for top players to move around at big dollars via the existing system – - – complicated and unassured as it is. It has though generally acted to put sand in the gears of the trade mechanisms – especially for other players who get caught up unneccesarily. It also has run the gauntlet of tampering with the draft.
So – - realistically, the status quo was impossible to retain – changes had to occur.
As Yadda speaks of, 3rd party payments is a major issue.
James – via the current ‘restrictions’ – has not Adelaide thrown everything already at Matthew Pavlich, rather as Vic clubs have thrown everything at Jonothan Brown and nieither has opted to ‘come home’. Will free agency inspire such a move at age 28-29?? or will they seek to stay as one club ‘champions’ which helps reaffirm their ‘standing’ in the football community especially with a view to future media roles? (although, for coaching, you’d be better off going somewhere else and sampling a different set up).
AndyRoo said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
25% seems very high, especially if they include rookies.
A quick look at Collingwood and they have 43 listed players plus 7 rookies. Thats 10.75 to 12.5 players protected. I am sure clubs will start employing cap strategies and their will be very few players who have been good enough to stay on an AFL list for 8 years and not be a restricted agent… until they get to that age (30 plus) where the clubs say they want to keep you but aren’t really that fussed (unless your a chance of a flag but then it’s unlikely a player would want to leave).
Pretty neat way of bringing in free agency but without affecting the status quo one bit. Some players will get offered a bit more in their 6th or 7th year to resign that’s all.