- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou (R) addresses the media. Slattery Images
The AFL’s new tax proposal has naturally left clubs divided with self-interest taking over. But if it does go ahead, the tax will lump a heavy responsibility on the AFL’s shoulders to make it worthwhile in the long-term.
The proposal has already attracted controversy for its Robin Hood-like ‘take from the rich and give to the poor’ ideals. It’s also been criticised as it’s essentially a tax on supporters to fund rival clubs and it’s being proposed at a time when the AFL’s investing heavily in expansion.
But there is some merit to the proposal.
The AFL system does have inequalities which naturally leave richer clubs better off and poorer clubs worse off which warrants some form of financial rectification.
The obvious inequality is in fixturing, where the AFL appear to prioritise revenue over fairness, meaning stronger clubs who can attract bigger crowds get the blockbuster matches and stand-alone games, which equates to larger attendance figures and more revenue from the gate.
And AFL chief operating manager Gillon McLachlan admitted as much at the release of the 2010 fixtures earlier in October last year. He said: “I think this year, while not walking away from having football fairness, we’ve worked very hard on creating these big fixtures that our fans and our supporters love.”
There’s also other inequalities which ensure making a smaller club profitable is even more difficult such as stadium deals.
The situation right now is the weaker clubs get propped up the Annual Special Distribution (ASD), but with five clubs in multi-million dollar debt, the AFL is looking to increase that fund.
So the proposal to do just that, is to alter the $2 per head levy which currently exists for all clubs and is directed towards the ASD. The levy would be increased for rich clubs and be decreased for weak clubs.
As the AFL’s fixturing focus is more towards blockbusters these days, this makes some sense.
So there’s no doubt some form of assistance is required, although figures will be disputed. The question here is who should foot the bill?
If it’s to be the richer clubs, then the AFL must expect a duty or responsibility to make it worthwhile.
The stronger clubs won’t just hand over their money. They’re entitled to question the AFL and what they’re doing with their money towards the long-term financial sustainability of the weaker clubs.
That’s an important issue, here. There’s no doubt, the weaker clubs have their place. Their existence is good for the game and the image of the league.
But there’s more to their financial plight than just simply having less supporters.
The way these clubs are run is crucial. Look at Port Adelaide’s reported half-a-million-dollar payout of dismissed coach Mark Williams (re-signed a year before) or North Melbourne’s decision not to move to the Gold Coast a few years ago.
There’s plenty of reasons why strong clubs are strong and weak clubs are weak, but good management and wise board decisions play a big role. So, the strong clubs shouldn’t just be asked to prop up the rest blindly.
Brian Cook, CEO of Geelong (one of the strong six), said yesterday: “The question is should you reduce the debt in order for their operations to be more solvent? Or should you use the money to instead improve the structures at those clubs to help them be more sustainable?”
He continued: “Do you give them the fishing rod or the fish? I would much prefer, if the AFL were going to spend a large sum of money that they put it into the clubs to improve their structures and allow them to generate more revenue.”
Wise words.
If the AFL are going to ask them to provide the assistance, they’ll need to justify it.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.