The players are united. They are all determined to get a fair outcome.
They are unanimous in their belief they deserve more. They are willing to stand together to be heard.
Oh, and they are also united. Don’t forget that one.
Whether this is a sign that the AFLPA are winning the PR war or a sign AFL journalists spend too much time on Twitter is hard to say.
However, what is clear is that a bit less time needs to be spent on emotive and simplistic commentary, and more time needs to be spent looking at where the two sides to this issue are at.
Things like what the AFLPA are actually asking for, what the AFL are offering and how big the gap between those two things are would appear to be far more important to discuss.
With this spirit in mind, let’s look at a quick run-down of what the bargaining table looks like (with some help from Jay Clark and Matt Windley of the Herald Sun).
On the AFLPA side of the table, demands include: 25, 26 then 27 per cent of all AFL and club revenues over the next three years; an improved retirement program, including a new pension scheme beginning ten years after retirement; guaranteed injury protection payments both during and after career; and rookies to be absorbed into expanded lists and earn more.
Roughly a third of the projected increase in the players’ haul would go to salaries, seeing the average player wage (including rookies) increase from $180,000 last year to $210,000 in 2012. The other two thirds would go to the improved welfare and retirement programs.
On the AFL side of the table, the response is: no fixed percentage model and a five year term instead of three; a deal larger than their previous $1.09 billion offer over five years, which itself was up from $811 million for the current deal; and yes to rookies getting more, but not necessarily to the pension scheme.
The AFL are happy however to let the players determine exactly where the money is spent, and also project that a 25-27 per cent model would cost $1.32 billion over five years.
So, fundamentally, the gap between the two sides can be priced at roughly $200 million – or $40 million per year – plus the other notable differences of opinion, whether a fixed percentage should be introduced and how long the agreement should last.
That’s what we’re really dealing with.
And now we’ve gotten that out the way, we can ask the key question: are the players justified in asking for so much?
Firstly, the players are justified in asking for more. That much can be stated without hesitation. The AFL are fresh off signing an astounding $1.253 billion broadcast deal, the game is growing in terms of membership and TV figures, crowds have stalled this year but have improved over the last five years.
The game, in simple terms, is going gangbusters.
But the question of whether they are justified in asking for so much is a bit more complex.
On the surface, the changes the players want implemented seem to be sensible, perhaps even a bit revolutionary. Also, the last player deal (at $811 million) was marginally bigger than the last TV deal ($780 million). The AFLPA’s model would replicate this (an estimated $1.32 billion, if it’s converted to a five-year term, for the players to $1.253 billion from broadcasters).
The problem with the first argument is that there’s a hint of the players wanting to have their cake and eat it too in asking for costly improvements to welfare and retirement yet still expecting wages to improve. This is why it is hard to see all of the AFLPA demands being met.
There’s also an issue with basing the size of the increase solely on AFL revenues, when in fact both league and club revenues contribute to player payments.
Given the two Adelaide clubs were given $12 million in AFL handouts last week, three Melbourne-based clubs sold games interstate exclusively for financial purposes this season, another (North Melbourne) continues to have its future questioned and in Queensland the Brisbane Lions have entered a turbulent period, it’s safe to say things don’t look as rosy in club-land as they do at AFL House.
This could give the AFL added bargaining power, but the AFLPA do have an effective counter.
Over the past five years, the salaries of coaches has increased 10 per cent, club recruiters 19 per cent, fitness staff 16 per cent and medical staff 8 per cent – compared to only 5 per cent for the players.
If clubs can lift spending so much in all these other areas, it’s hard to muster up sympathy towards them when they are asked to spend more on players.
So yes, financially speaking, the players deserve what they are asking for. Accepting less would not reflect well on the AFLPA.
Like all negotiations, though, sacrifices will need to be made and it’s the two non-financial areas of disagreement (the fixed percentage model and the length of the deal) where the players might have to concede ground.
You get the feeling accepting the AFL’s terms on either of these fronts would not be as much an embarrassment for the AFLPA.
It’s messy and complicated, but it does appear as though a resolution to the dispute is possible.
Until then, though, at least we know one thing – the players are united.
Boom Boom
Guest
Be careful comparing the AFL to the NBA in terms of revenue sharing. The NBA can (sort of) afford such a high revenue share because it is only responsible for the running of the league itself. Junior development, grassroots comps and state based competitions are run by separate organisations (eg. AAU, NCAA, etc). AFL, in addition to the national competition, has to fund the sport at all levels. I would suggest that this would easily account for the difference, with at least 30% of the AFLs revenue going towards growth of the sport. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Swampy, it's interesting that strike action has practically been ruled out. Surely the AFLPA would keep that threat on the table just in case. But I suppose if it did happen a lot of fans would turn on the players and thus they would lose another of their strengths, public opinion. Also, as Matt F says, the comparison to US sports and the percentage they get is a tricky one because those sports do not fund development. Currently what the players get equates to 22 per cent, which is roughly the same as the NRL. Cricketers get 26 per cent of total revenue and A-League players apparently get 42-48 per cent. - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/players-confused-anderson-20110628-1gp5i.html
Matt F
Guest
It would be a powerful message but one that would would alienate alot of fans. It look Rugby League a long time to recover from the Super League debacle, cancelling a season may well be the AFL's Super League moment (though that's all hypothetical as it won't happen.) Also a key difference between NBA and AFL is that junior development in the USA is almost entirely the responsibility of the high schools and college systems. The NBA spend very little in this area yet the AFL is in charge of the vast majority of it here.
Swampy
Guest
There are often many comparisons made between the AFL and the NBA. Much of the AFL's direction has been copied from that which the NBA has taken including salary caps, drafts, expansion, pay tv arrangements to name a few. Many clubs in the NBA are struggling mightily after the GFC. Not unlike the same struggles many of the AFL clubs are facing. The NBA is currently in a pay dispute with the players association. In all likelihood there will, at the least, be a shortened season, if there is one at all, for the NBA. The players in this regard are a very powerful force when united to strike. In reality what power does the AFL really hold if the AFLPA really put it's foot down and held the 2012 season to ransom. If they are indeed united then Demetriou really would have no choice but to approve their demands. He is fortunate that the players are only requesting 25-27% of revenue. In the NBA the players receive 60% of the revenue for the league (& thus why so many clubs are battling). It is worth noting that the AFL is a not for profit organisation. So revenue by charter must be spent. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
ManInBlack
Guest
compared to 5 years back, the last CBA, there's 2 extra clubs worth of players to account for. The irony is, that without free agency or any other factors like that - the only 'inflationary' pressure to apply to players salaries in the last couple of years is from the AFL introducing two new clubs. Ironic that. Messers Ablett, Bock, Harbrow etc might be quite pleased with their financial choices. Daniel Harris would be thankful of another year in the system that otherwise he would've missed, and no doubt a few kids and fringe players at other clubs are only still on lists because GCFC and shortly GWSFC have gained access to a lot of the top draft talent.
Redb
Roar Guru
The comment was from a fan's perspective re club loyalty. The current players tread a fine line with some for their rhetoric about rewarding them as individuals, however I do think they know and respect the fact that clubs are uber important.
Richard
Roar Guru
Surely you're not disputing player's loyalty to clubs in AFL? Hird coming to the rescue of Essendon, Bomber Thompson pining to return to his old club, Tarrant's delight in scoring for the 'Pies again in the Adelaide game, the rusted on loyalty to the Bullies and Kangas of some greats of the game. Sure they're making a living and some have gone to the Gold Coast chasing the big bucks. But overall, the club culture is alive and well in AFL I reckon. And thank God it is.
TomC
Guest
The specific figures don't really mean a lot to me. Nor does the fact that coaches, recruiters and administrators wages are going up by proportionally more. I think that just reflects the fact that those roles are growing in importance within the AFL. Moreover I doubt they're increasing uniformly across the league. However I think its very concerning that the players are asking for a fixed share of revenue, to increase over the next three years. And then presumably to increase again in the next deal. If we could guarantee that the league's revenue base will expand at a steady rate in perpetuity, then fine. More likely the league will at some point go through periods of contraction and expansion. Its unlikely that the AFLPA will ever agree to lower total payments in times of contraction, so this proposal will just create constant upward pressure on wages.
Redb
Roar Guru
I'm over it. Fans are loyal to clubs, players come and go. yes the players should be well rewarded and yes Demetriou needs to pull his head in. Balance and compromise will win the day. Just get Jonathan Brown to front up at AFL House for a meeting with Demetriou - in 5 mins job done. :)
Richard
Roar Guru
Good article, well summed up. I agree the players deserve more and I like the idea of putting part of that away for the players' future through improved retirement, pension and injury protection schemes. I don't support tying remuneration to a percent of revenues however, or giving too much of the pot away. The AFL is doing a great job of building, developing and expanding the code. I want to see more of that. The game, after all, is not just about the current crop of AFL players, and it's not just the players who generate revenue.
Matt F
Guest
whilst I agree they do deserve their fair share of the pie, given the broadcast deal is increasing by such a large amount won't they be getting a large increase anyway, even if they do keep the same percentage as they currently get?
Fake ex-AFL fan
Guest
Thanks for this article Michael, it clears a number of things up. I've been listening to the various offers and demands and wondering when someone would actually clarify how far apart the two sides are. It's difficult to make much sense of a dispute when one side says "we want 25% of revenue!" and the other side says "no, we refuse! Instead we will give you $1.1 billion!" and we don't seem to know what 25% of revenue actually is.