Third party payments must be controlled
Roar Pro
By Justin Rodski, 3 Mar 2010 Justin Rodski is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL free trade
Chris Bryan of Collingwood evades Bachar Houli of Essendon during the NAB Cup Match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Essendon Bombers at the Docklands Stadium. Slattery Images
The AFL needs to quickly take greater control of third party payments otherwise the league is in danger of becoming a clone of world soccer. The result is a two tier system that will have clear divisions between the rich and poor, allowing powerhouse clubs to dominate while the weaker clubs simply make up the numbers.
This will effectively turn the AFL into a “cheque-book” sport, to the detriment of the game.
All week we’ve heard the AFL and the players association ramble on about the integrity of a competitive and balanced competition, but the league’s reluctant disclosure of third party payments has exposed a complete violation of the values that the salary cap is supposed to protect.
The recent free trade agreement propelled the issue into the spotlight and invariably forced the AFL to reveal 114 players are currently receiving payments outside the salary cap.
We knew the payments existed but to this extent came as a huge surprise to many, Carlton skipper Chris Judd is the best example, his million-dollar deal is underpinned by a financial arrangement with club sponsor Visy.
Gary Ablett’s contract at Geelong will be directly affected because the Cats don’t have room in their salary cap to match any lucrative offer from the Gold Coast, but are openly chasing third party deals to make up the difference.
Obviously the players association is in full support of any third party payments as they provide greater opportunity for its members to earn money.
However, when AFLPA boss Matt Finnis said this week the payments are legitimate “particularly if that extra money is paid to promote AFL football.” Was he kidding himself? The promotion of the game is a tiny by-product compared to the marketing value for a company or the extra financial allure it helps provide to a player.
The growing concern has stretched far and wide too, Bulldogs chief executive Campbell Rose labelled it “mischievous” the great Ron Barassi said it was “absolutely pathetic” while Melbourne President Jim Stynes called for “total disclosure” to avoid total upheaval.
The draft and salary cap were introduced into the AFL for the very purpose of protecting the competition against what third party payments are now allowing to happen. Cashed up clubs will be able to manipulate the competition to the point where total player payments will simply become irrelevant.
Ambassadorial roles with club sponsors will be more a fait accompli than alternative, further exposing this flaw in the system.
However AFL boss Andrew Demetriou says he’s satisfied with the current level of regulation with any bona fide commercial deal ticked off by investigations manager Ken Wood.
But has the AFL been caught on the back foot on this? Are they naïve to think one man can effectively police such a serious issue that is threatening the fabric of the game?
Will we ever get full transparency?
I’m just not convinced the AFL even realise how big a problem this might already be.
Either way for some reason, the thought of third party payments is giving me a nostalgic feeling the AFL is no longer the healthy home grown competition it used to be. How can Manchester United fans be so happy to win a title when they buy premierships?
For me, this adds an element of illegitimacy to any team sport that achieves the ultimate success.
The AFL is better than that and need to quickly act to preserve the integrity of the competition.
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.
The Crowd Says (15) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
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)
- 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 Tigers need to step up, says Cotchin
- 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, AFL free trade
Marshall said | March 3rd 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
It’ll cause a two tier divide beyween rich and poor to a great extent. I’m convinced we are already seeing signs of the poorer clubs going nowhere already
Ben said | March 3rd 2010 @ 10:02am | Report comment
To be fair, Manchester United are a rich club but in alot of debt and don’t really buy trophies. They’re more of a club of excellence with a culture of demanding success.
But anyway, I do agree with you Justin on the AFL third party payments, it is an issue which seems to be overlooked (or conveniently ignored) for some reason.
Redb said | March 3rd 2010 @ 10:06am | Report comment
“I’m just not convinced the AFL even realise how big a problem this might already be.”
Nor do they have a clue about how to police it given individual player sponsorships are every players right.
James said | March 3rd 2010 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Exactly. How could you police it?
Sven man said | March 3rd 2010 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Yep its garbage, and is only going to get bigger.
Lazza said | March 3rd 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
How satisfying is it to win a Premiership when you’ve tanked your way to the best draft picks, been rewarded for failure and the top clubs have been handicapped by not allowing them access to the best new talent? The EPL has become the richest, most watched sports league in the world in the last 20 years so while this model may not be suitable for the AFL it works pretty well in Soccer.
Adelaide Utd have a budget of less than $3m while the top Asian teams have budgets in excess of $50m. Adelaide has made it to an ACL final and just defeated the reigning champions? Obviously, it doesn’t have as much impact in Soccer because the scoring system tends to even up the contest by itself. Over the course of a 10 month season the rich teams will rise to the top but on any match day incredible upsets occur regularly.
That’s the real problem for the AFL because the scoring system always allows the rich, powerful teams to win. When AFL teams play VFL or SANFL sides they ALWAYS win and by huge margins. That’s why you can’t have anything like the FA Cup or why State of Origin games died – the big boys always win and people aren’t interested in watching one sided ‘contests’. If the same thing happens in the AFL as European Soccer leagues then the top sides will NEVER lose to the bottom teams.
The solution is to allow free agency, get rid of the American draft system and have a strict salary cap with no 3rd party agreements. Players will be free to move, clubs will be free to recruit and the salary cap restrictions will keep the competition even. You may want to play for your home state team but if they can’t fit you in under the salary cap you’ll go interestate and no one will be able to stack their team with all the best talent.
Michael C said | March 3rd 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
A couple of problems here -
last 17 EPL league champions have been shared amongst …. 4 teams,
Man Utd 11
Arsenal 3
Chelsea 2
Blackburn 1 (way back in 94/95).
last 17 AFL premiers – - 10 different clubs,
Bris 3
Geel, WCE, Ess, NM and Adel 2
Haw, Syd, Port, Carl 1
and this year we can readily anticipate StKilda, the Doggies and Collingwood giving it a real fair shake.
and off wiki :
One of the main criticisms levelled at the Premier League is the increasing gulf between the Premier League and the Football League. Since its split with the Football League, many established clubs in the Premier League have managed to distance themselves from their counterparts in lower leagues. Owing in large part to the disparity in revenue from television rights between the leagues,[56] many newly promoted teams have found it difficult to avoid relegation in their first season in the Premier League. In every season except 2001–02 (Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers and Fulham) at least one Premier League newcomer has been relegated back to the Football League. In 1997–98 all three promoted clubs were relegated at the end of the season.[57]
I won’t claim the AFL to have always got it right (if ever)….certainly the priority picks in such volume and priority – was dodgey and seemed to encourage especially StKilda and Melbourne to ‘bottom out’ over consequtive seasons…..StKilda presently is seeking to reap the rewards, and MFC perhaps in about 8 years time (after all – it’s not an immediate fix – far less so than cheque book recruiting).
Main thing though is that you can hardly present the EPL as some paragon of sporting virtue. The EPL is not a solution in itself – - far from it.
btw – no 3rd party agreements is basically impossible – - that would be dictatorial and too restrictive – as, that would be to control all public appearance and marketing activity from AFL HQ. Players have the right to promote themselves in the market place – and thus develop post footy career opportunities.
Sam said | March 3rd 2010 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
A couple of problems here – the EPL is the most lucrative football league in the world – seem to be doing ok, so might wanna leave it out of these arguments. Second prob – quoting wikipedia is not always great, it’s pretty unreliable, I could have written that article this morning (anonymously too i might add). You can still police 3rd party deals, just requires more work, not easy but doable. The AFL already restricts trade with a draft and salary cap, so including 3rd party deals in there should be no problem.
Lazza said | March 3rd 2010 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
It’s crazy using the EPL as some kind of ‘negative’ model when it’s so rich and popular. It works for them but won’t work for the AFL so try using a different argument.
The real problem as I’ve said is the AFL’s free scoring system which makes it impossible for underdog teams to ever win. The draft is a restraint of trade and the players want free agency so the only way to even up the competition is a strict salary cap which includes 3rd party agreements like Sam has suggested.
Pete said | March 3rd 2010 @ 11:46am | Report comment
I’ve very naive in matters of AFL, but I enjoy watching it. The salary cap sounds a reasonable idea. Its a hinderance in Rugby League because those wanting more money go to the UK or to Union. The AFL’s strength in this regard is that it is a local competition and the players skills are not readily transferable to another code. They’ve got a captive talent pool that can’t go anywhere.
Redb said | March 3rd 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Pete,
it’s certainly not as simple as some have posted here to just remove the draft. The EPL is not a valid comparison, in fact very few leagues are except perhaps the NFL. It’s no surprise the AFL rightly or wrongly has taken its lead from a similiar closed player market.
The addition of a latent (8 years) free agency option for players is really player driven not the AFL. The 3rd party issue has been around for ages in all codes and anyone who thinks it doesnt happen in their code is kidding themselves.
Wealthy benefactors have been ‘looking after’ the gun players of sporting clubs since the Ark sailed.
Unlike previous expansions which were either relocations or into AFL strongholds (WA/SA), the two new teams have to get their players from somewhere and the salary cap has forced clubs (indirectly) and more importantly player managers (directly) to pursue 3rd party deals as a way to keep their top players.
The AFL can’t stop all 3rd party payments and this is the issue as limited free agency and the raids on uncontracted player talent by GC & GWS is going to increase it’s frequency.
The existing rules around 3rd party payments stipulate that the club’s image cannot used by a player in their 3rd party connection. There also has to be ‘consideration’, eg: Chris Judd must be seen to actually do some work for Visy.
At the end of the day this may only manifest itself in that Geelong keeps Ablett but Selwood moves on or Hawthorn keeps Franklin but Roughhead goes. The number one player is always highly protected.
So it’s not as massive a problem across the whole system as not every player in every club is going to attract a 3rd party payment, hence the call to throw the draft out the window is not a creditable solution.
So your right its a captive player market but likely to be a much more fluid trading environment in the future and this is significant cultural change for AFL clubs and fans.
Sam said | March 3rd 2010 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
I agree. The NRL have a far superior system. The draft rewards losers and completely blights many of the games later in the season (if there is no tanking, it sure looks like it, and the appearance is bad enough). The NRL have a brutally strict salary cap and it works really well – you get a lot more player movement but that is not a bad thing. It’s not like the AFL have to look far – the NRL do it great – plus the AFL don’t have to worry about their players running off overseas.
Onceinawhile said | March 3rd 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment
I thought the real reasoning for salary caps was to ensure clubs financial viabilty by curbing excess spending, if third parties are providing funds for players then the clubs are not affected as they are not spending more than they earn, that’s my take anyway, it also get’s around restraint of trade.
Sam said | March 3rd 2010 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
The problem comes when a club goes to a 3rd party sponsor and says – rather than sponsor our club for X dollars, spend that money on a 3rd party sponsorship deal for Joe Blogs. This would mean that the club gets less sponsorship money than it would otherwise, but saves of salary cap spending. This doesn’t necessarily help keep a club viable as they could sacrifice income in order to secure a player a 3rd party sponsorship deal.
Onceinawhile said | March 3rd 2010 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
True, but for example Carlton and Judd, Visy are a Major sponsor, so to enhance thier marketing dollar they also pay Judd to entice him to join/stay, they are just investing in thier investment ( the sentence makes sense to me, probably just me though) so to just pay a player as a 3rd party would’nt make much commercial sense as there is no exposure, for me a mixture of the two would be more beneficial to the sponsor. And as I understand sponsor money does not go into salary cap, surely that comes from the Afl tv rights and tickets etc , does’nt it?