AFL’s massive tax break won’t stop them crying poor
Roar Guru By ItsCalledFootball, 12 Jan 2012 ItsCalledFootball is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, Eddie McGuire, Jeff Kennett, pokie reform
292 Have your say
AFL Draft hopefuls will tonight find out their fate. Slattery Images
Related coverage
Andrew Demetriou and Eddie Maguire recently came out in the press to declare war on the Federal Government’s proposed mandatory pre-commitment legislation for poker machines.The main concerns for the AFL is the growing revenue that comes from club-owned poker machines.
Victorian AFL clubs run over 2500 poker machines, which currently generate about $50 million per annum in revenue, and this number is set to double in the current financial year.
No doubt why the AFL oppose the legislation.
“To suddenly, out of nowhere, without any consultation, to have what looks like being a footy tax imposed, is going to absolutely hit football clubs right between the eyes,” declared Collingwood President Eddie Maguire.
Tony Abbott, the Liberal party’s federal opposition leader, understandably agrees with Maguire and condemns the Gillard “footy tax disaster”.
Hawthorn AFL president and former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett argues that “the Gillard government is going to wipe out AFL clubs right throughout the state.”
AFL chief Andrew Demetriou did agree that the government needed to help raise awareness around problem gambling and actually tackle that issue, but not at the expense of AFL clubs. Andrew would like someone else to pay for the problem and not in the AFL’s backyard, if you don’t mind.
There are two galling aspects to the AFL’s stance on poker machines.
Firstly, the AFL is not particularly in need of any money, nor likely to go broke any time soon because of any government initiatives, especially ones aimed to help reduce problem gambling.
The AFL has annual revenues of over $300 million, and recently signed a $1.3 billion media rights deal to make sure that its bank balance will continue to fatten.
The claims by Demetriou and other AFL figures that the government’s initiatives will harm AFL are ludicrous and quite frankly insulting to its membership, which would certainly contain a number of problem gamblers.
The second exasperating aspect of the AFL’s ridiculous complaints is that the AFL and AFL clubs pay no taxes. That’s right, not one cent of any AFL revenue goes back to the government or taxpayers. Every cent of every dollar they earn is spent on AFL, including poker machine revenue.
The AFL isn’t a charity, it’s a business. It certainly pays its executives like a business, with bonuses for increased revenue.
So why doesn’t it pay any taxes like a business?
As its annual report explains, the AFL is exempt from income tax because its activities “are solely the promotion, administration and development of Australian Rules Football”.
How are poker machines classed as solely the promotion, administration and development of Australian Rules Football? I find that hard to swallow. Poker machines are installed at AFL clubs to provide revenue for the AFL, pure and simple.
The AFL executives increased their payouts to over $5 million, based on their ability to derive increased revenues, of which poker machines played a part.
Andrew Demetriou signed off on a $200,000 cash pay rise for himself, which took his package up to $1.8 million. The charitable tax-exempt AFL sporting organisation now pays its CEO five times more than the Prime Minister bringing in the pokie legislation receives.
Certainly businesses will structure their organisations to minimise their tax outgoings, but how much longer should the federal government allow a business like the AFL to pay no taxes? And how can the AFL claim that it is hard done by when its tax arrangement would be the envy of any business?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, Andrew Demetriou, Eddie McGuire, Jeff Kennett, pokie reform
January 12th 2012 @ 11:42am
Jaceman said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:42am | Report comment
The AFL would be interested in a pokie tax I think because it would cruel Sydneys league clubs more than it would hurt AFL. And of course it would cruel soccer clubs as well. This has to rank as the poorest researched article, no quotes etc of the year – close nominations now – the competition is over..
January 13th 2012 @ 12:13am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:13am | Report comment
AFL clubs typically run at 20% if thier total income derived from gaming AND social club hospitality. Collingwoods seems abnormally high for a victorian club.
■Collingwood – $19,201,114 (inc. Social Club)
■Brisbane – $12,641,070 (inc. Social Club)
■Geelong – $10,083,082 (inc. food and beverage)
■Hawthorn – $10,057,704 (inc bar and bistro)
■Port Adelaide – $6,822,171
■Carlton – $4,504,537 (gaming only)
■Western Bulldogs – $3,770,594 (hospitality only)
■Melbourne – $3,594,013 (inc. social club)
■Richmond – $3,410,144 (inc Social club)
■Essendon – N/S
NRL Leagues clubs can run as high as 81% of their income from pokies.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:48am
clipper said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
I don’t really see the point of this article.
Is it saying it is unfair for the AFL to have not for profit status – most sporting bodies do, so why single them out.
Is it to say AFL clubs shouldn’t have poker machines – most NRL clubs have far more and are more reliant on them, as are many other sporting clubs.
Is it to say the executive gets paid too much? – many other not for profit organisations pay a lot for the top guys, and if they deliver is it worth it?- maybe a topic for another post.
Is it to say Eddie and Jeff talk a lot of rot? -well we all know that, but they don’t speak for everyone.
If you could compare where you think the AFL have an unfair advantage over other sports with tax breaks and pokies, then you could have an interesting topic, but not this article does not do that.
January 12th 2012 @ 4:02pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Its not just AFL or NRL clubs, its surf life saving clubs. I was in the SLC at Kurrawa on the GC over New Years, guess what?…. pokies.
For the life of me I don’t understand the attraction or level of interest of pokies beyond about 1 minute before I’m bored, but many people seem to like them.
January 12th 2012 @ 4:18pm
JVGO said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
I don’t know that we should judge people. Certain things are just addictive I guess. Mostly entirely pointless, but to each his own. It seems harmless enough but you get lured in and before you know it it’s taken over your whole life, suddenly….you’re bankrupt, your family doesn’t recognise you, you have no friends…..maybe the Roar should have mandatory limits.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:48pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
In your case that would be entirely appropriate.
January 12th 2012 @ 12:08pm
Ben Carter said | January 12th 2012 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Hi ICF – firstly, please try to ignore those who simply tell you not to write anything at all. You are as free as anyone else to air an opinion on a sporting matter here on The Roar.
Second – if as has been noted among these posts sports clubs generally are run tax-free, that’s an interesting and valuable point to debate.
Third – Equally, I hardly think that any poker machine-related payment would actually spell the demise of every Victorian Aussie Rules club. They’ve survived for years without needing any money from pokies, etc.
All sports fans have opinions, most often on more than one sport, so to imply that one person cannot write about more than one (presumably favourite) sport is hardly conducive to meaningful banter.
January 12th 2012 @ 12:16pm
The Cattery said | January 12th 2012 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Ben
the key point is that all sporting leagues and clubs are tax free – so what’s the point of focusing only on the AFL? (and as others have mentioned, AFL actually pays payroll tax, GST and FBT – so we are only talking about an exemption from income tax, not all taxes, it would be helpful if there was a bit more accuracy on that front).
Also, it’s a myth that the AFL relies on pokies – it derives none of its revenue from pokies – so it’s a pretty poor article all round.
January 12th 2012 @ 12:18pm
Ben Carter said | January 12th 2012 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Fair play Cattery. Nice response and thanks for clearing things up.
January 12th 2012 @ 10:42pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
The AFL doesn’t get any revenue from poker machines – really?
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breaking-news-blog/afl-relies-on-poker-machine-cah/20110926-1ks6s.html
That’s a pretty poor comment all round!
January 12th 2012 @ 10:58pm
The_Wookie said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
for what seems to be the hundredth time. The AFL (the league) makes no money from Pokies, it has no venues that support Pokies, owns no pubs, clubs or other venues where pokies would be found. ALl of these are independently run by clubs. Hell even the article that you’ve linked says that
January 12th 2012 @ 11:31pm
The Cattery said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
ICF
get your facts right if you want to have a serious discussion.
You are either ignorant, or being mischievous, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it must be ignorance.
January 12th 2012 @ 1:38pm
The_Wookie said | January 12th 2012 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Ben its not us telling him not to write stuff here, its his fellow soccer followers telling him not to lol. Me I dont care where he writes stuff, i have lots of free time to spend arguing about nothing on sports forums.
January 12th 2012 @ 10:43pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
Which “fellow soccer supporters” are telling me not to write AFL articles?
January 13th 2012 @ 12:45am
TomC said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:45am | Report comment
Me!
January 18th 2012 @ 12:40pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 18th 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Really?
You have a lot more AFL posts.
January 12th 2012 @ 3:14pm
TomC said | January 12th 2012 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Not one person on this thread has told ICF ‘not to write anything at all’.
I suggested that he lays off the AFL for a while. It looks like cheap code-war-baiting to me. It doesn’t help anyone.
Of course we are all free to write whatever we like, but that doesn’t mean it’s a smart idea to use cross-code sports websites to repeatedly attack one particular sport. Particularly when you’re using a pseudonym that implies you’re representing a rival sport.
January 12th 2012 @ 10:49pm
Ian Whitchurch said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
Its not that ICF writes cheap code-war-baiting articles.
Its that he writes cheap code-war-baiting articles poorly.
January 13th 2012 @ 11:24am
Jaceman said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Brilliant
January 17th 2012 @ 11:45am
ItsCalledFootball said | January 17th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Such as . . .
I seem to be the only one with enough courage to write about the real issues with AFL.
The other “soccer” bloggers are probably banned from blogging on AFL and maybe me too eventually if I don’t start writing such nice fluff pieces about AFL soon.
January 17th 2012 @ 12:19pm
The_Wookie said | January 17th 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Most of this article is flat out wrong or based on assumptions proven false elsewhere in thsi thread.
January 18th 2012 @ 12:41pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 18th 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Please outline what is “wrong” in the article.
January 12th 2012 @ 3:31pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Well thanks Ben. I guess you read the article and thought it was all truth. Lucky you read the replies.
January 12th 2012 @ 3:54pm
Ben Carter said | January 12th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Hi Redb – I never thought the entire article was the absolute truth in-and-out. There’s always more sides to a story and more discussion to be had on the issues presented within…
Equally, I was talking generally when I suggested to ICF his response to those who might suggest he steers clear of writing about any particular sport (I know the feeling – I’ve written a couple of times about the world game and had people reply by telling me to stop writing about something I know absolutely nothing about and never will understand, which sounded a tad petty to me).
There’s nothing wrong in and of itself with a world game supporter having something to say about Aussie Rules footy or a rugby league fan having something to say about union, etc, etc. Whether pseudonyms such as ICF’s always help the readership is another matter.
January 12th 2012 @ 4:08pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Ben,
It’s transparent nonsense.
The arguments are invalid, in fact making deliberately false accusations that the AFL is somehow benefitting from tax exempt status and pokies whilst “crying poor”. Its rubbish. There’s a long history of muck raking, ICF’s just being called on it.
January 12th 2012 @ 4:21pm
Ben Carter said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
As said to Cattery earlier, fair play Redb. Certainly a reminder here that the AFL (as the acronym stands) means the organising body of the national competition whereas pokie placement/use tends to be a club-by-club matter (in-house, presumably, so to speak). As for the “crying poor” part of the headline, I’m not sure always whether that’s the author or the Roar editors.
I still believe whole-heartedly in the fact that ICF should be free to have a say. Equally, people are free to disagree. So long as we avoid personal abuse and stick to the topic.
I am not standing up for ICF in terms of the style he may choose to write in. Merely his chance to write something. Otherwise, if we all based our best writing on posts in response, I might never try putting together anything ever again for the Roar on any sporting topic aside from cricket. Which might well suit my fan leanings, but would deny me the opportunity to have a say on other topics of interest…
January 12th 2012 @ 4:30pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
I think you’ll find the title is ICF’s little chestnut. Check out the URL, its usually the article’s original title, when its different you know the editors have changed it.
Also your defence of free speech assumes an honourable intention to raise an issue and offer both sides of an argument before concluding with your own assessment. There is a long standing agenda with the author, I guess you just haven’t noticed it.
January 12th 2012 @ 6:14pm
amazonfan said | January 12th 2012 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
Ben, just to put in my 20 cents. There are quite a few anti-Aussie Rules obsessives who, whenever an Australian Football fan posts on a soccer thread, tells us to leave. QSAF & Fussball have both done so numerous times. Yet these same people not only post on Australian Football threads, but criticize Australian Football or the AFL every chance they get. ICF has every right to post on whatever thread he wants. However, if I or another Australian Football fan started three anti-soccer threads, can you imagine the outrage from the likes of QSAF, Fussball, & ICF etc….?
ICF can write whatever he wants. However since he is a soccer fan writing an anti-AFL piece, I and other Australian Football fans have the right to call him on it.
January 12th 2012 @ 10:44pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
Please outline the “false accusations”.
January 12th 2012 @ 10:45pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
It’s not my original title – the moderator’s changed it.
January 12th 2012 @ 12:50pm
Nathan of Perth said | January 12th 2012 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
And yet again its worth pointing out that none of the Western Australian clubs are supported by the foul pokie lucre. It won’t be as bad as some of you guys think…
January 12th 2012 @ 2:29pm
Fitzy said | January 12th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
ICF always a one for a one eyed view and like I continually say, why dont they talk about the problems of the world game and the entrenched corruption at the top level, rather than negatively focus on AR to make themselves feel better. Leave rcomment to people that know what they are talking about and even handed. Before you bring HAL hating into the equation I attend Melb Vic games and like the game, dont see the need to put it down or the HAL admin.
January 12th 2012 @ 10:48pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t say I have a one eyed view, more like a balanced view which is shared by many other people as well.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-26/gambling-expert-dismisses-pokies-opposition/2941872
Part of the problem is that Victorian AFL fans are so used to hearing only glowing praises about AFL, that they think that if anyone challenges them then its treason and un-Australian.
This is an important social issue and the AFL are as guilty as anyone in having double standards and not being genuinely interested in trying to work on a solution, because it will affect the profitability of their clubs, which pay no tax on the pokie revenues.
January 13th 2012 @ 11:24am
Fitzy said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
ICF I never hear you talk about positive initiatives that the AFL do, the charity work done by them or collectively the clubs as a whole, the Auskick programe which allows kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to get involved regardless of the future gaon, their programs aimed at Aboriginal Aust’s to reduce racisim and give kids a chance and pathway to play, there initiatives at social problems and domestic violence….etc I never hear any positives only negatives, then when ur criticised we here the same old mantra that ur being accused of being unaustralian. I accused you of being one eyed and biased, which you didnt prpvide and article didnt present any signs to the contrary. It is intetesting that Wookie has just placed an article showing how small the revenue from pokies is compared to other sources, yet you didnt include this in ur article, by definition that is a calculated not to give all the information and as such is underhanded. Lastly there has been a lot of noise from the NRL about this issue far more than the AFL and a matter which will severly affect their revenue streams. Yet you dont take pot shots at them. Its just a continual stream of misinformation and baised accounts then when challenged you fall back on the old mantra. I love the fact we have 4 codes in this counrty that my son can play indoor football Fridays and Footy on sundays. It is apparent you dont!
January 17th 2012 @ 11:48am
ItsCalledFootball said | January 17th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
I don’t need to, you guys sugar coat AFL enough for all of us.
Why don’t you guys write an in depth article on AFL that explores the real issues, not how many members GWS is going to sign up or how much money the AFL makes.
January 17th 2012 @ 12:21pm
The_Wookie said | January 17th 2012 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
you wrote an article that regurgitates several articles on the matter at hand, throw in facts that arent actually facts, and you want to lecture us on article writing? You havent read this thread at all have you.
January 17th 2012 @ 12:32pm
The_Wookie said | January 17th 2012 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
h and taken from my post on the other thread. Pokies make up about 20% of an average clubs income. If you take out collingwood and hawthorn the average drops to about 10%. They are required by law to pay 8.33% pokie tax OR the equivelant in a somewhat nebulous community benefit.
The assertion that the clubs are entirely tax free – particularly according to all the literature you’ve read on that matter – is flat out wrong.
Further research indicates clubs pay the following taxes:
- Goods and Services Tax
– PAYG tax
– Fringe Benefits Tax (a huge $2 million tax bill for this was presented to all clubs in 1998)
Finally the AFLs own community club site contains the following concerning club taxes
“Clubs may have obligations for GST, Pay As You Go (PAYG) and Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT). These and other taxes can apply irrespective of whether the organisation is exempt from income tax”
ref:
http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1433/1/Foreman.pdf
http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=252
For the pokie tax in Victoria, Hotels and clubs are required to pay 8.33% of the income in tax OR show that they’ve spent the 8.33% on direct community benefits. There are some clubs currently working through loopholes, these include AFL, RSL and other clubs.
”
An analysis of documents lodged with the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority show that 5 per cent of club revenue went to direct community benefits.
This includes donations to charity, maintenance of club sporting amenities and subsidised food and non-alcoholic drink for members.
About 1 per cent of pokies revenue was directed to external charitable causes.”
ref:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/victorians-losing-300000-an-hour-on-pokies/story-fn7x8me2-1226149873510
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/clubs-spend-200m-meant-for-community-benefit-on-expenses/story-fn6bfmgc-1226060202783
January 12th 2012 @ 4:20pm
TomC said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
‘The second exasperating aspect of the AFL’s ridiculous complaints is that the AFL and AFL clubs pay no taxes. That’s right, not one cent of any AFL revenue goes back to the government or taxpayers. Every cent of every dollar they earn is spent on AFL, including poker machine revenue.’
The significance of this line only just occurred to me.
I think what ICF is suggesting here is that the revenue AFL clubs earn from pokies is entirely tax exempt. This is of course not true. All states and territories have gaming taxes which not-for-profit clubs have to pay the same as anyone else. In Victoria, the rate of taxation is one-third of all revenue.
ICF, I stand to be corrected if you meant something else.
FWIW, there is a somewhat controversial rebate (up to 8.33% of revenue) in Victoria if clubs (including sporting clubs) can show that they provide community amenities.
January 12th 2012 @ 4:25pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
I think ICF’s more unhappy that funds are being put into developing Australian football (AFL) at all.
Pokie revenue is just another form of fund raising for the club, along with social club, raffle tickets, membership,etc.
There is just a basic lack of knowledge around what a proper sporting club is. A League clubs are just franchises with no base.
January 12th 2012 @ 4:43pm
TomC said | January 12th 2012 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
That’s a bit unfair. There are plenty of soccer clubs that have proper grass-roots funding activities like raffles, and faciltiies like social clubs. They’re just not in the A-league.
Now I think about it, there must be quite a few soccer clubs that operate pokies as well. I’m pretty sure Green Gully does.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:04pm
The_Wookie said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
hell there are AFL clubs out there rattling tins, and i wouldnt be surprised if they do raffles too…
January 12th 2012 @ 5:10pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
I said A League clubs not all soccer clubs and yes Green Gully does indeed have its own little pokie palace.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:16pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
Geez redb, even if you took the $50M pokies revenue away from the AFL,they’d still have enough to buy out the rest of Australia.
The issue is more about the spirit of why AFL clubs were given tax free exemption status in the first place.
I think all gambling revenues should be excluded from the the tax free component of the deal.
The AFL’s complaints ring very hollow to a lot of people, especially Jeff Kennet’s comments as the patron of Beyond Blue, who have to talk a lot of problem gamblers out of their problems and depression or even trying to do themselves in.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:29pm
The_Wookie said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:29pm | Report comment
The tax exemption doesnt just apply to sports clubs, RSL clubs profit hugely from pokies. The legislation doesnt ban certain types of income so long as the primary interest of the club or association is followed as listed in its constitution.
For AFL clubs this amounts to 10-12% of their income on average, but is not anywhere near the primary activity of the Collingwood or Hawthorn football clubs for instance.
January 13th 2012 @ 12:14am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:14am | Report comment
that should say 20%
January 12th 2012 @ 11:10pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Tom
I haven’t come across any articles that support your view that the AFL has to pay gaming taxes as well as other taxes that people have mentioned.
All the articles I’ve read refer to the AFL as Tax-Exempt, but would be interesetd to read anything saying otherwise.
January 13th 2012 @ 12:34am
TomC said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:34am | Report comment
As has been stated many, many times ICF, the AFL does not pay gaming taxes for the simple reason that it has no gaming revenue.
As for AFL clubs, here’s an article from the Age earlier this year about the controversy around the concession for clubs.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sports-clubs-accused-of-rorting-tax-concessions-20110505-1ea5b.html
January 12th 2012 @ 5:05pm
Bend it like Barassi said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
Me thinks the OP is seriously butthurt about the Big Bash league smashing the A-league in TV ratings & crowds, so has taken a swing at an easy target and one sockah supporters always blame for their codes woes.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:12pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:12pm | Report comment
Les Murray is ropable, tweeted something about media conspiracy and the ol’ sheilas, w, p…… line.
January 13th 2012 @ 11:40am
JamesP said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Here’s Les having a sook
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/les-murray/blog/1088873/A-League-Big-Bashed
January 13th 2012 @ 12:10pm
Tony said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Maybe he should check BBL crowds – more in Hobart than A-league average!
Love the comment “other codes”……” for effect
January 13th 2012 @ 1:54pm
JamesP said | January 13th 2012 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Yep I noticed that too…
January 13th 2012 @ 3:48pm
Redb said | January 13th 2012 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
bhahaha… that’s always their answer. Its just not a mainstream sport once you remove the parochial factor of the national team. Unlike cricket.
January 17th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Jaceman said | January 17th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Les is complaining about Big Bash coverage vrs soccer and then says he doesnt know the Big Bash TV figures because he doesnt want to know – it would embarrass – he works at SBS and only has to walk upstairs to find out. If Lowy didnt fund the SMH coverage of soccer then he would complain. This paranoia from Les and his ilk Fos is hardly the way to get accepted in the mainstream. Its the world game Les but its not the big game here yet – get over it. Accept that its a good product and a competitor without dissing it – the FFA guy in the AFR the other day said A league ratings were still holding up after a Kewell/Emerton spike early so FFA should be pleased.
January 17th 2012 @ 3:31pm
Bondy said | January 17th 2012 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Jaceman.
You win again , you’ve dragged the ratings out to p off the associates .We have a national competition with validity thats now delivering players for The National Team if thats not a league than what is ., i dont know what there really selling with The Paddle Pop Punch ( T20 ) is it international cricket or just strap them in Intra Venus them with Rum and good luck. Test Match Cricket a thinking mans sport .
January 19th 2012 @ 4:34pm
Jaceman said | January 19th 2012 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
My latest look at the Pay TV ratings for Soccer or Association football are in the low 60Ks even before Big bash started although the marquee games get in the low 100K. With the soccer TV (association football is too long to write) rights up for renewal and the Socceroos probably going back to FTA under anti-siphoning and the fact that soccer nuts are unlikely to give up their Pay Tv because the EPL, Serie A, La Liga etc are there then the local soccer fear is palpable…
January 19th 2012 @ 9:05pm
Bondy said | January 19th 2012 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
Jaceman.
All the futbol is on the net for free this mornings Kings Cup 8.00 Am Eastern (Esp) Real vs Barca no form of F.T.A. or cable platform was showing it “or i simply couldnt find it anywhere”, i watched an enthralling match between the two best club sides in the world for free on the net .
If there was no H.A.L. theres simply no need for me to have the cable platform simple, if your interested which you are there were 19 streams of that match from English to Arabic you name it’s there and thats just one of about 10 sites that stream live futbol and other sports .
The world is a small place .
January 18th 2012 @ 1:34pm
Redb said | January 18th 2012 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
The week 2 Foxtel ratings will bring Murray & ICF no joy either.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:27pm
Titus said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
So are you saying when the AFL gets a $1.4 billion TV deal, they don’t pay any tax on it?
Sheesh, The Wookie would be a bit concerned that that Tax at…what, 40% could pay for a few hospital beds.
And then the AFL uses this warchest to destroy other sports and expand its business empire. Something not quite right there.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:32pm
Tony said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Did FFA pay tax on their $70 mill grant for their failed WC bid? I don’t think so!
January 12th 2012 @ 11:19pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
Since when did the WC bid become 70M?
This was money spent on a WC bid and is not income, so is an expense and not subject to taxation, if you knew anything about taxation.
Money from TV rights is income to the AFL and yes Titus, they pay no tax on it.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:40pm
The_Wookie said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
Actually if the FFA was handed 42.25 million, its income no matter what the source is or what its spent on, as is every cent obtained from the government every year. Grants are typically not taxed though.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:56pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:56pm | Report comment
It was money to pay for a WC bid on behalf of Australia and the Australian Government – how can you paint that as FFA income?
January 13th 2012 @ 12:18am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:18am | Report comment
money recieved = income. It doesnt matter what it was spent on or who it was spent on behalf of. I guarantee you its on the FFA annual report for that year as income.
January 13th 2012 @ 11:41am
Fitzy said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Didnt they get a Fed grant for bid monies, thats taxpayers money after all! Same principle
January 13th 2012 @ 12:12pm
Tony said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
I want my tax back!
January 18th 2012 @ 1:34pm
Redb said | January 18th 2012 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
me too.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:33pm
The Cattery said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Titus
Isn’t the correct question: do any sporting bodies pay income tax on their TV rights and other income?
Or do you single the AFL out simply because they happen to make a lot?
Let us not forget that all of the AFL clubs are community owned, whereas there are football clubs out there which are privately owned.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:46pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
What a load of emotive tripe. Please spare us further comment.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:25pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:25pm | Report comment
Maybe, but its true.
January 13th 2012 @ 12:14pm
Tony said | January 13th 2012 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Truth is barely evident when ICF attacks AFL. Pontiffs Pilate had an appropriate comment once
January 13th 2012 @ 11:31am
Jaceman said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:31am | Report comment
All money goes back into AFL spending and therefore is non-profit as are all sports. This is the most stupid article which hasnt been pulled.
Roar is owned by the ten Network incl Packer and Murdoch who have dumped AFL and now want the NRL Monday night game on FTA so people can bet on it live to suit Packers purposes…Murdoch is a known NRL fan and packer sponsored the Storm thru Crown casino when they were friendless which will get him some fans at NRL headquarters..
January 13th 2012 @ 4:40pm
Titus said | January 13th 2012 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Hold on, I’ll just grab my tinfoil hat!
January 13th 2012 @ 4:45pm
Jaceman said | January 13th 2012 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
I was drawing ridiculous assumptions to try to catch up with ICF
January 12th 2012 @ 5:50pm
amazonfan said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
“The AFL isn’t a charity, it’s a business.”
Actually, it’s not a business. While charity may not be the appropriate way to describe it, it is however a not-for-profit. The AFL does not exist to make profits or to increase the value of its shares (which it doesn’t have). It exists solely to promote and develop the game of Australian Football, and to run & grow the Australian Football League. If the best way to do it was to enlist a volunteer group of former players to run the game, then that is what the AFL would do. However obviously that is not the best way to do it.
“It certainly pays its executives like a business, with bonuses for increased revenue.”
Yes, however you will find that quite a few not-for-profits are run like businesses. Ultimately, it comes down to the purpose for the organization, and the AFL does not exist to make money.
January 12th 2012 @ 5:59pm
joe blackswan said | January 12th 2012 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
I don’t think pokies are a moral way to raise funds for a club (esp a very big club). Legislation is introduced to protect the more vulnerable members of the community from the more opportunistic members……this is same for all laws and regs. To argue the banal line of “where turning into a nanny state” is lazy at best. WA clubs don’t have pokie machine revenue (or pokies in pubs for that matter) and the community is NOT demanding it either.
Also, I don’t understand how the AFL and it’s registered clubs that operate in a PROFESSIONAL league can be exempt from income tax and get govt contributions in the form of stadia funding….and the clubs/AFL have perverse affiiliations with betting agencies which goes against community standards. Very ordinary indeed.
January 12th 2012 @ 6:05pm
The Cattery said | January 12th 2012 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
jb
is your concern about the AFL or all sporting bodies? I would suggest to you that the AFL pays more payrolls tax, GST, FBT and other taxes than any other sporting body in Australia.
Does the AFL actually receive Governemnt funding, or is that your imagination running away with you?
And for the 10th time, the AFL does NOT own any pokie machines, and has not argued against pokie reform.
January 12th 2012 @ 6:10pm
Redb said | January 12th 2012 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
It seems the AFL is an easy target for misinformation its called Tall Poppy Syndrome.
January 12th 2012 @ 6:43pm
Tony said | January 12th 2012 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
Actually the first time I encountered anti-Aus Football sentiment from a soccer fan was 40 years ago. He was an immigrant from the UK (I hesitate to say winging pom) who just hated the fact that when he came to Australia there was already an Aussie code that we called football. He naturally assumed that the English version was superior & hated the fact that we Aussies had our own game. Poor bloke was living in the heart of Port Adelaide!
January 12th 2012 @ 7:44pm
Titus said | January 12th 2012 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Amazing how things have changed hey Tony? Now that same guy could go and watch Adelaide Utd play Football with 10-15 000 passionate Aussies, could easily find a place to play Australias most popular participation team sport, and he could watch Football from all around the world on TV, including the English leagues.
You must admit, there is a lot that is good about a globalised world.
January 12th 2012 @ 8:32pm
Tony said | January 12th 2012 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
He would still be a winging pom hating Aussie Rules!
January 12th 2012 @ 6:26pm
joe blackswan said | January 12th 2012 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
all professional sporting bodies. i did not say AFL gets pokie revenue, I said it’s affiliated clubs do…re govt funding it comes in the form of stadia grants, the most recent examples being gold coast and the proposed perth stadium but agree you could argue it is not direct to the AFL but does serve affiliated clubs of AFL and it is not as if Demetriou doesn’t push this agenda for the benefit of the AFL.
i love me aussie rules and rugger…so am not code bashing here.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:22pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
Where’s any evidence that the AFL pay any of those taxes TC, all the literative I have read states that the AFL is tax exempt.
January 12th 2012 @ 11:40pm
The Cattery said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
ICF
Once again, you are either being ignorant or being mischievous – I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that you are ignorant.
Tax-exempt status must be associated with a particular type of tax, of which there are many.
Sporting bodies and clubs are generally exempt from income tax – they all fall into this category, not just the AFL.
They will generally be subject to FBT (as are Government departments).
There might be some circumstances in which sporting bodies and clubs are not required to collect GST, although they will definitely be required to pay GST on all purchases of goods and services, apart from those categories that don’t attract GST, e.g. education expenses.
The AFL and clubs have been subject to payroll tax for decades – this issue came to a head in the mid-70s when the then VFL was still semi-professional (that’s a state by state matter).
January 12th 2012 @ 11:57pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 12th 2012 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
Where is your evidence TC?