Gary Ablett of the Gold Coast Suns addresses the media during a press conference at Crown Casino in Melbourne. Slattery Images
Growing up, I liked three sports: footy, basketball and cricket. Cricket was a distant third, the one that I watched when the other two weren’t on.
It was always a battle between the AFL and the NBA for my attention, and this didn’t change as I grew from a boy into a man.
Both leagues have similar hallmarks: high, constant scoring; unparalleled athleticism causing men to perform extraordinary acts that are replayed to the adoring public again, and again; and at their absolute peaks, when two of the best teams in each individual sport come together, a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it pace that has your eyes glued to the screen.
Take a look at either of the last two AFL grand finals, or the recent NBA finals between Miami and Dallas, and you’ll see what I mean.
Aside from the obvious financial difference between the two leagues, there is one major fundamental difference between the NBA’s players, and the AFL’s. That is loyalty. Sure, there was a time in the 70s and 80s where players baulked at million dollar offers to stay with their teams, but now NBA stars follow the green or the gold – money or success – to other franchises, with no regard for their current teams.
The most publicised of these cases was the terribly-executed, ill-advised Decision of LeBron James, leaving his home state of Ohio and tens of thousands of devastated fans behind to play in (an admittedly beautiful) beachside city with two of the top twenty players in the league. Chris Bosh left Toronto under the same circumstances.
Carmelo Anthony asked to be traded to New York, and Denver had no choice but to honour that request, or risk losing Anthony this American summer and receiving sweet F.A. in return. I love watching this unfold season after season – it’s fascinating to watch where players go and the changes in team dynamics year after year.
It’s especially exciting when that player is an All-Star, maybe one of your favourite players, and that player has the chance to go to a team with another of your favourites, creating high expectations for a “super team” and leading you to reminisce of the great teams you grew up with in the 1990s – the Bulls, Rockets, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics and Pacers teams that made that decade so fun to watch.
But in the AFL, it’s been a different story. Stalwarts such as Robert Harvey, Scott West, Chris Grant, Nathan Buckley and Matthew Richardson stayed at their AFL clubs for well over a decade in search of success, never leaving to get a bigger payday or to be closer to a premiership with a team more capable of winning a flag.
Whilst I’m sure the aforementioned players would give their left testicle to participate in a Premiership, I’m just as sure that they’d keep their ball if that premiership had to be with a different side to the one they played over 200 games with. Ever since the AFL’s beginning, the vast majority of club champions have never pushed to be traded to a better team, or for a bigger pay packet.
There are of course a few exceptions. Nathan Brown and Leigh Colbert left the Dogs and Cats respectively to pursue an (ultimately unsuccessful) premiership dream. Chris Judd left a sinking ship at West Coast; although he’ll never come out and say anything other than he wanted to come back to his home state. Finally, we have the most recent and high profile example.
It has been said that blood is thicker than water, although it has also been noted that money is thicker than blood. That pretty much sums up Gary Ablett Jr’s departure from Geelong last October. As a Geelong supporter, I’m supposed to be bitter. Well, I was, for a short time.
The fact is, when a player has one offer on the table double that of their current team’s offer, you cannot blame that player for taking the higher one. Gary Ablett could have set his children up with the money Geelong offered him – with the Gold Coast contract that he signed, Ablett’s grandchildren will be looked after.
Not only was the move to the Gold Coast good for Ablett, but for the AFL, and probably most incredibly, for the media as well. For the best part of a year the AFL media dissected every move Gary Ablett made, spawning thousands of “will he or won’t he?” conversations around the country throughout the season, with every would-be “Ablett insider” and former player weighing in on the debate.
Every television show, radio program, website and newspaper remotely related with AFL got thousands of words and seconds of media out of the story. The media had a field day – much like they did with LeBron James in the NBA. Now, with the introduction of GWS and impending Free Agency introduced into the AFL from 2012, expect more of the same coverage associated with any player from any club that is yet to sign a contract locking them away for the next umpteen years.
Free agency. It’s a term met with squeals of delight from journalists around the United States, who all year round spend their 9-5 lives writing pieces and recording interviews speculating on what an individual’s actions will be months from now, and we can all expect much of the same reaction from Australian media outlets come the 2012 AFL season.
Make no mistake – free agency will lead to some players who have been stalwarts, loyal champions of their clubs for 8, 9, 10 or more years to pack up, leave town, and either collect a bigger salary, or land in a better situation.
Much like Ablett, these players will be acting in their best interests – which you cannot blame them for – however the AFL has a responsibility to the clubs who lose players – the coaches, the staff, the supporters, and even that players teammates – to provide them with an equaliser, something that will not make the sport we all love into just another money-hungry corporation with a small number of rich clubs at the top and the strugglers at the bottom, like the English Premier League and Major League Baseball have become.
Sure, the AFL has a salary cap, like the NBA. That salary cap protects the smaller clubs from the larger ones pilfering all the good players from around the league, like the New York Yankees have done for decades. However, with new franchises being introduced, and throwing around cash like a recent lottery winner at the Spearmint Rhino, clubs will struggle to keep all of their home grown stars and realistically competing for premierships year after year.
Geelong lost Ablett, and there was talk of them losing Bartel or Selwood as well. Collingwood have been able to secure Swan and Pendlebury, but Thomas remains unsigned. Tom Scully has turned a commitment to Melbourne into a “decision” that he will have to make at the end of the year in regards to Greater Western Sydney.
These clubs that have drafted, coddled, developed, and financially rewarded home grown stars should not then have to fend off rival clubs with more salary cap space. There should be a method to keep Sheedy and McKenna at bay, to keep home-grown stars without having to use invisyable [sic] means.
I’m not saying that free agency is a terrible idea. There are cases when a player is fed up with their club and wants to move on. That player should have a right to change clubs, just as clubs have the right to change players. If the club can’t come to an agreement with the player in question, isn’t it best for both parties to move on and start anew? The way I see it, there are three reasons that a player wants to change clubs:
1. A difference of opinion with a coach or teammate regarding lack of opportunities or performance, resulting in irreconcilable differences (best recent example is Bachar Houli);
2. A desire to return to their home state for personal reasons (like Darren Jolly, or to a lesser extent Chris Judd), or;
3. The player is a massive prima donna who overrates themselves, or their position on the club’s pecking order (see Akermanis, Jason).
In all three cases, a change of scenery is good for the player, and perhaps even better for the club, as it avoids a cancerous influence that can spawn a poor culture; or simply a de-motivated player. So, what’s the answer? Well again, I look to the other sport I love for inspiration.
In 1983, the NBA introduced the Qualifying Veteran Free Agent Exemption. This meant that a player who had been with their team for three or more years could be re-signed by that team for an amount over and above what was remaining in their salary cap.
The first team to use this exemption was the Boston Celtics when re-negotiating a contract with little known small forward Larry Bird. When a player qualified for this exemption he was then decreed to have “Bird Rights”. It is my opinion that the AFL needs to introduce such an exemption.
This wouldn’t help players leaving their clubs due to irreconcilable differences – nor was it intended to. No, this exemption would help AFL clubs being raided by rivals with deep pockets.
What about those struggling clubs who have cap space due to having a sub-par list, you ask?
Well, sorry Port and Brisbane, but your current predicaments spawn from bad trade week deals and worse drafting and list management.
Instead of trying to pinch Pav from Freo or Daisy from Collingwood, how about you splurge on a better prospect scout and develop home grown talent like the other successful clubs from the modern era? Bird Rights would eliminate Ablett-like scenarios, and have players only leave a club in situations where they have no intention of staying, regardless of salary cap restrictions.
Why do I care so much?
Well, unlike American pro-sports, where players are traded like shares, and players choose clubs based on the immediate outlook for success, the AFL, my sport – our sport – contains players who bleed the colours they wear on the weekend.
I don’t want to see money become thicker than that blood.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Chris Judd recently said ""Coming back to Melbourne had nothing to do with footy or money,"""Perth has a pretty vibrant economy and there were plenty of opportunities there. I left for personal reasons because I wanted to spend more time with friends and family outside of football." He wanted to spend more time with friends and family outside of football; nothing about West Coast's being a 'sinking ship', but then you can obviously read his mind.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Most NBA stars who leave do so for reasons other than money. I'm specifically referring to franchise players, for generally when a franchise player leaves, it's usually connected with wanting a ring or being unhappy with the team's lack and/or promise of success. Examples include Charles Barkley, Kevin Garnett, LeBron, Karl Malone, Shaq when he was with Orlando etc... There are also those who leave for other reasons (such as Kareem who left Milwaukee for religious/cultural reasons, and Shaq when he left LA), but most players who leave for money are not franchise players and are not at the peak of their powers (such as Steve Nash who left Dallas for Phoenix for financial reasons, but wasn't as of yet a genuine franchise player.) That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with 'chasing money.' Yes, when we are dealing with $multi-million salaries, we might think it a little surprising that players would leave their teams purely to get a few extra million or so, however considering that most of us would seriously consider leaving our company or organisation if we were made a large financial offer, I don't think we should criticize sportsmen when they do the same.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Adam, no response regarding your comment about Judd?
Liam Quinn
Roar Pro
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but Carmelo didn't ask to leave to chase cash. He wanted to go to the Knicks because he's from Brooklyn, and played for Syracuse in College. If anything, he was leaving a better team to go to a worse team. There are plenty of players who stay loyal to their teams, sometimes foregoing team success. Kevin Garnett was the most recent example of this, he stayed at the T'Wolves for years before the franchise decided to move on without him. He never left, and never complained. So sure, there are players who chase money in the NBA, but it's best not to paint all the players with the same brush.
Republican
Guest
There is absolutely diddly club loyalty in elite sport, whatever the code and you are deluding yourself if you think there is.
Matt F
Guest
Adam - To explain my point i'll flip your arguement. Why shouldn't a player be entitled to maximise his earning potential? Even for the best players a career is not much longer then 15 years so why souldn't they be able to maximise their earnings? I'm sure you wouldn't like it if you were out of contract with your employer and offered a dramatic increase by a rival only for your current employer to demand compensation (even if you are out of contract anyway) so why should it be any different for footy players? I'm pretty sure it would also be illegal for an employer in another industry to do that..... Keep in mind that under the incoming free agency model players aren't eligible until they've given at least 8 years of continuous service to one club. i'd say that after 8+ years of service the club has gotten great return from their initial investment. Also if a player wants to tke less money to stay at his current club then he still can. It's simply giving players a choice. And of course they will still get fair compensation from the AFL. Surely Gary Ablett, after 9 seasons, 2 flags for the cats and having been the best player in the competition for the previous few seasons, has repayed geelong's early investment in him and was entitled to look after his future?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Adam, The salary cap exists for two reasons - first, to stop clubs going broke trying to buy a premiership, and second to ensure competitive balance. If you are going to have a bunch of players come off contract, then the AFL system deals with this very very well - you hint about the situation, ask players to take pay cuts, and make it clear that if they can find a suitable team, you're happy to trade them. Alternatively, our existing pseudo-free agency system is shown by Shane Mumford - Sydney wanted him, they promised him a big contract, and he went to Geelong and asked them to match it or trade him. Geelong then got pick 28 in the draft off Sydney, which they turned into a promising younk kid, and Mumford got a million bucks over four years. Frankly, it's bad for the league to have Port play as badly as they not only do now, but also will once their veterans go. On the other hand, they have lots of cap room. Therefore, teams under cap pressure - and that means the ones doing very well, generally, - will be in a situation where they either need to go over the cap, cut players getting nothing ... or do a deal with Port.
Adam
Guest
Firstly to Ian - I was hoping you'd get the sarcasm associated with my Bird comment. Top 5 NBA player ever. Also, you're right - loyalty is a two-way street. Voss deserved to lose Rischi and Bradshaw, as he proved that they were nothing but chess pieces to him. If a player is shopped around by a club, that effectively ruins the relationship between the two parties, resulting in those "irreconcilable differences". To Matt F - Maxwell makes some great points in favour of free agency, however that doesn't do anything to change my argument. If a club has a high number of players that are worth high contracts because they made good draft choices and developed the players correctly, then why should another club be able to offer those players over and above what their current club can offer them, and why should that first club be forced to choose which of their All-Australian calibre players they keep and give away? Sure, the Geelong players all took pay cuts following the '07 Grand Final victory in a tremendous showing of loyalty, however free agency wasn't an option then, and there were no carrots dangling at those players from other clubs, so whilst they were loyal, they didn't have many other options which would cause them not to be. I'm not talking about a player changing clubs for more opportunities, I'm talking about a player changing clubs due to a significant difference in the size of the offers from those two clubs, due to salary cap restrictions on their current club, resulting from having a large number of All Australian-calibre players on their list that all demand larger salaries. For example - Port Adelaide currently have a terrible list. The players on their list with the highest salaries include the Cornes brothers, Brogan, Chaplin, Ebert, Cassisi, Salopek and a couple of others. If the Cornes brothers retire, which is plausible, and Salopek is let go (as he's in and out of the side) - Port frees up a significant amount of cash. One would assume Travis Boak would assume a position in that above group, but what if Port chases a star from another club due to the massive cap space created by some of its top players retiring? If Port offers $1 Million per year to a star from another club, and that club only has $500,000 left in its cap to pay that player, should he just be made to either walk away, or lose a half a million a year? Bazza - Tim Duncan and Reggie Miller are two fine examples of loyalty in the NBA, so whilst it is a rare quality for a player to have, there are cases of loyalty.
brendan
Guest
You make some valid points Matt F.Free agency may create a scenario where clubs shop around there veterans to enable them to up the ante with young guns.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Good point - we need to separate the current Suns/Giants scenario (that will go on till 2012 in the case of the Giants, I think), witih what the norm will be once it all settles down. Although I'm sure once it's in place, every club will have at least one player around which the "will he won't he" stories will emerge each and ecery year.
Chris T
Guest
Poor Buckley, his story is always one that makes me laugh. He really shouldn't be mentioned with Grant, West and Kelly.
Bazza
Guest
You make some ok points I guess but bare in mind, good players are by and large loyal. They leave more often than not due to a decision the club as made to trade them. Free agency will not change a players mindset if they are loyal at heart and clubs will still have salary cap restrictions. And by the way, never compare AFL with the NBA. Those basketballers wouldn't know loyalty if it jumped out of their soup!
Matt F
Guest
You can't judge free agency based on what GC and GWS are doing as when free agency kicks in for all clubs it will be a different form. Nick Maxwell wrote a very good article about free agency explaining how it works and why it's coming in. http://www.nickmaxwell.com.au/2011/05/02/free-agency-perspective-and-the-facts/ It only kicks in after 8 years of service and the top players are still under restrictions until 10 years service. The current scenario withTtom Scully is an exception as designed to assist two new clubs coming in to the competition. Under the free agency model which will be in place in the next few seasons scully would be ineligible because he hasn't been at melbourne for 8 or 10 years. It also seems that clubs will still be compensated for losing players in a way similar to how they are now if they lose a player to GC or GWS i.e. the AFL compansates them with draft picks based on certain criteria, so they won't be losing them for nothing. Also as Fake Ex-AFL Fan said, you go on about loyalty being so strong in AFL yet worry that free agency will take it away. If players are really loyal then it won't make a difference as they wouldn't be loking to leave anyway. If this results in a "player exodus" then just means that the loyalty was never really there rather it was forced upon them as it was much harder to move clubs.
brendan
Guest
I also suport Geelong and think Ablett leaving may benefit the club long term.He is turning 28 and the salary cap relief and two draft picks Geelong recieved for him may benefit the club well after he is gone from the game.The last high profile player to leave Geelong controversially Leigh Colbert inadvertedly helped Geelong as Cam Mooney and Corey Enright joined the club as part of the deal and obviously as dual premiership players proved there worth.If Collingwood keep Swan,Thomas and Pendlebury it may place enormous pressure on there salary cap resulting in other players leaving who they may regret losing.Free agency will be a good thing and it may even encourage more youngsters to play the game.Footy doesnt have a mortgage on young talent it once did Steven Coniglio, the touted no 1 draft pick,has said he will join Gws if he chooses footy over cricket.Cameron White and David Hussey earn close to a million per year each and are not Test Players.Freeing up the recruiting rules may enable the game to recruit and retain for longer the most talented sportsmen to the game.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
It's a tough question, club loyalty. We can never demand it unequivocally, but one hopes that the movement between clubs doesnt become rampant, because I believe it would affect club support if that were the case.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
110percent, First of all, the current AFL rules have a Veterans Expemption that lets you exempt up to half of the salary of a ten-year veteran. Go look here - its section 13.2-3. Im pretty sure the stalwarts you named took advantage of that, because its a lot easier to pay a player who deserves 300k a year 400k when only 200 of that is capped. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afl.com.au%2Fportals%2F0%2Fafl_docs%2Fafl_hq%2Fpolicies%2Fcollective_bargaining_agreement_2007_2011.pdf&ei=JwsFTprXH7HmmAWw6tzWDQ&usg=AFQjCNGmMimeT8syQmKBL0aL3JT4FQdBCA&sig2=rISFRGMcIYs8hejX3XMSdQ Secondly, my mercenary dash for more cash is your "difference of opinion with a coach or teammate regarding lack of opportunities or performance, resulting in irreconcilable differences". Thirdly, if you dont want your good kids to leave, then sign them to contract extensions. I call this the Steve Hutchinson rule, and Im still dirty at Mike Holmgren for not paying the man what he was worth, I would note that Collingwood secured Swan and Pendlebury by the radical new technique of, get this, signing them to an extension on their current contract. Fourthly, loyalty is a two way street. Rischitelli is a Gold Coast Sun because a disloyal rat by the name of Micheal Voss shopped him against his will to get another player. Rischitelli, unsurprisingly, went looking for another club. Finally, an uncontracted Ron Barassi, Melbourne's premiership winning captain, signed with Carlton for Free Agency. In 1965. Oh yeah, and Larry Bird wasnt anything close to 'little known' - the man was, and is, a genuine superstar.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I stopped caring about player loyalty the first time I read of a club trading a long-term/premiership player. Clubs don't show loyalty, to either players or coaches, so why should players? I also question whether free agency would encourage those who would have otherwise stayed to leave. I suspect those who would leave were simply on the fence before as all it does is make it easier to leave. BTW, "Chris Judd left a sinking ship at West Coast; although he’ll never come out and say anything other than he wanted to come back to his home state." Considering that Judd had always professed a desire to return to Victoria, and he has never given any other reason other than his well-known desire to return home, perhaps you could, I don't know, give him the benefit of the doubt? You don't know what he thinks, and you don't know whether he would have stayed if West Coast's situation (I wasn't aware BTW that it was a sinking ship) had been different. Patrick Smith has, infuriatingly, made similar comments, and it is both presumptuous and dishonest; presumptuous because you seek to read the mind of someone you've almost certainly never met, and dishonest because you state something as fact when it is most certainly is not. It's also incredibly arrogant to think that you can question the publicly stated motives of someone you don't know, and are unlikely to ever meet. Smith has always been the epitome of arrogance, so it doesn't surprise me that he would make comments like that. Still, I don't think that is a path you should follow if you intend to write more articles.
Fake ex-AFL fan
Guest
Good article but there's one thing I don't quite get in your argument - if AFL players have been characterised by a greater loyalty to their clubs than players in other sports, why does free agency necessarily change that? The players you mention: Robert Harvey, Scott West, Chris Grant, Nathan Buckley and Matthew Richardson did indeed stick around at their club for years, but they all could have gone elsewhere should they have chosen to. It's also worth mention that Buckley more or less did leave his original club in search of greater success, one of the more ironic player movements of recent years but I digress. The key point is if they didn't move under the old system when they had the opportunity to do so, why exactly will they move now? As far as I can tell this change will impact more on those players who want to move elsewhere and will have greater freedom to do so. Those who choose to remain loyal will surely be able to do so?