- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Last week it was said by Caroline Wilson that there were three potential changes to how free agency works in the AFL still on the table as the league works with the AFLPA to finalise a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The current system is that to become a free agent, a player must have spent at least eight years at their current club, but the proposed changes would make the rules a little looser.
For example under ‘free agency for life’, a player who moves to a new club as a free agent would still be considered a free agent when their next contract runs out, even if they haven’t yet spent a further eight years at their second club.
The provision would likely be only rarely used in the league as the vast majority of players who move clubs do so only once in their careers, and you could count on a single hand the number of three-club players currently going around.
‘Portable free agency’ would be a similar proposition – a player who has played eight years in the AFL, regardless of whether or not they have done so at a single club, would qualify for free agency.
Again, that seems unlikely to be used often.
These changes wouldn’t have much of an impact on the game and in some ways it is a surprising they weren’t already a part of the deal when the league first introduced free agency in 2012.
However, the mooted change that would have a truly enormous impact on how the game is played off the field would be ‘four-year free agency’, a ruling whereby any out of contract player with at least four years of service earning the median AFL wage or less would be an unrestricted free agent.
Now, before we descend into any fits of hysterics, it’s worth noting that this change seems unlikely to go ahead. Wilson said in her article that only one of the three changes described above was certain to happen, though all three potentially could.
Gillon McLachlan also recently said that any changes made to free agency eligibility would be “minor ones” – so here’s hoping he’s aware that this would be far from minor.
The biggest issue facing the AFL regarding player movement these days must surely be the fact that so many young players are leaving their clubs early, particularly from the direction of clubs in the northern states to those in the south.
Yes, it’s fair to say that AFL players should be allowed to make the decision to move clubs at some point during their careers, but for them to be able to hold their clubs at ransom after only two years is already threatening the integrity of the draft.
(AAP Image/Patrick Hamilton)
The obvious example of this is Brisbane, who have already lost six first-round draft picks to ‘homesickness’ in the past few years, and are looking increasingly likely to lose another in October this year.
Of course, the same thing is also happening to the GWS Giants, despite them having modern facilities, a strong club culture, and the prospect of immediate success just on the horizon.
Gold Coast too were hit hard by Victorian clubs looking to poach their players last year. Although the three clubs have their differences, they share one unavoidable disadvantage – the damning geography of living above the Barassi line.
If the four-year free agency rule were to be introduced, it would surely become even harder for these clubs to retain their players – and they would be at risk of losing them for nothing.
It would essentially give young players another way to hold their clubs to ransom. At just 22 years of age, clubs would need to be paying them above the average AFL wage or risk them leaving the club for no return.
Certainly there are some players who by their fourth year in the system are justifying being on more than the average wage, but there are plenty who do not, particularly taller players, that it would be disastrous for clubs to lose with no compensation.
That would put clubs in a dilemma of either overpaying young talent just to keep it around, or risking losing what might have been a high draft pick with nothing coming back the other way – not a decision they should be made to face.
In her article, Wilson stated:
“The four-year rule has also been proposed by the players as an equalisation measure given that footballers struggling for opportunities at successful clubs would relocate to less successful clubs seeking regular selection.”
However, anyone who has been following the AFL long enough knows it doesn’t really work like that.
The players who leave strong clubs for weaker ones are typically those that lack the talent to make the grade in a good side, while the number of players travelling in the other direction is many.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
In a larger sense, I believe the issue with the entire dynamic of player movement in the league at present is that too much concession has been made towards giving players freedom of choice, and it is unlikely to ever be won back.
Players now have the right to move via free agency, and that’s fair enough, but player trades are essentially a slightly more complicated version of free agency, virtually always initiated by players, who can refuse to agree to them.
I don’t mean to say that the players aren’t people and that they shouldn’t have rights, and I’m aware that in most other industries people have at least some manner of choice when it comes to where they live and work.
But, most other industries don’t offer six-figure incomes to 20-year-olds. The AFL is a unique industry and it’s one where, while player welfare is extremely important, for the good of the industry as a whole it must be balanced against the interests of the clubs.
At this stage it seems unlikely that the AFL’s clubs will win back any rights over player movement in the new CBA – and perhaps they never will.
Even a push to extend draftee contracts to three or four years has reportedly been met with a steadfast refusal, unless the eligibility period for free agency were to be significantly shortened in return.
At the very least though, four-year free agency cannot be allowed to happen – it would only make it easier for player movement to cannibalise the clubs, disillusion fans, and move the whole system one step closer to being flushed down the toilet.