To suggest this showed a remarkable lack of knowledge of the situation.
Put simply, whether the offer could be described as good or not, it put the league and the AFLPA on a collision course. And sadly few, if any, journalists were able to recognise it.
The fact is, the AFLPA were asking for so much more than what the AFL put on the table. To accept the offer would have meant compromising on so many fronts (both financially and non-financially) that there was no way the AFLPA could say yes and still claim to be an organisation that stands up for players.
I wrote an article back in July with the intention of getting to the bottom of where the two sides were at.
Back then, the two parties were $230 million apart financially (using the AFL’s own estimate that the players’ desired 25-27 per cent model would cost $1.32 billion over five years).
There were also many non-financial disagreements, with the players wanting a three-year term and a percentage share of revenue rather than a set amount.
So what, exactly, did this “too good to refuse” offer tabled at the end of last month do to bridge the gap?
Financially, it reduced the gap to only $176 million. In the non-financial sense, it was neither a three-year deal nor a percentage share. Oh, and we also now find out that AFL are asking players to sign over their image rights too.
While many were quick to praise the AFL because “they’ve found an extra $54 million” – the offer was a case of the league arrogantly assuming that throwing money at the problem would make it go away.
Well, money and intimidation, that is.
Just for good measure, the AFL threw in a tight two-week deadline for the AFLPA to respond to their offer.
Said Adrian Anderson: “It’s important the players meet the September 15 deadline because we need to provide some certainty for AFL clubs, state and territory bodies and our game development network who are all sitting back and waiting on their distributions for the next five years.”
It was a message to the players that not getting the deal done within a fortnight would screw things up for everyone else.
This, of course, came despite the AFL taking six weeks to come up with their revised offer in the first place.
Now, maybe what the AFL tabled works in the monetary sense. It’s still well short of what the league estimated the 25-27 per cent model would cost, but it is an improvement on the last offer.
But when you look at the offer as a whole, and look at what the players have said all along they’ve wanted out of this deal, it was an insult.
Combined with the deadline and threats, it was also a poor attempt at bullying the playing group.
The AFLPA were right to turn down the league last week. Of course, there’s a lot of talk that the players should just get on with things at accept whatever they’re offered. Certainly, the PR war seems to be swinging more and more in the AFL’s favour with each passing week.
But to the fans willing to abandon the players at this point: ask yourself, who is more responsible for the deal not being done by now – the league or the players?
amazonfan
Roar Guru
I don't think it matters what the general public thinks. $300k may be reasonable to them, however what they think is reasonable shouldn't determine what the players get paid. Rather, I think it comes down to what the game can afford, without harming its growth and development and threatening the health of clubs. That's why I think a % of revenue is appropriate. I really like Ian's suggestion. :D BTW, good article Michael. Almost makes up for your attack on Melbourne. :D
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
TomC, If they get a percentage of revenues, they arent employees. They are partners. And that really does change things.
TomC
Guest
That's an interesting one, Ian. I hadn't heard about that before. I would point out though that the main reasons given in the article for the NZ cricketers acquiescing are the poor exchange rate and the guaranteed funding for grassroots cricket. Neither of those would be relevant for the AFL. Employees generally get upset at having to take a pay cut because the total revenues haven't expanded. Not hard to see why, when expanding revenues is largely the responsibility of management. AFL players would no doubt also be annoyed if they made less money because of something beyond their control. Which just brings us back to the point that if you're going to link remuneration to key performance indicators, it needs to be something that the players have some control over.
Midfielder
Guest
Its works in the US ....
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
The Cattery, Football clubs have already proved any money not spent on players will be spent on coaches, assistant coaches, assistants to assistant coaches, offseason trips and in-season trips. Frankly, if you want to foster grassroots developments and have match days affordable, then this needs to be written into the agreement. 23% to the players, 12% to the clubs, 30% to grassroots development, 20% to the stadiums fund, 10% to the AFL and 5% for a rainy day sounds right to me.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
The football public would view average annual salaries of $300k as being more than reasonable. The governing body also needs to foster grassroots development and keep match day costs affordable for the general public - all of which feeds back into providing a healthy livelihood for 900+ players and coaches.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
TomC, I think you will find professional sportsmen have already accepted deals involving fixed percentages of revenue, and have accepted falls in that revenue. Here is the critical quotes 'Heath Mills, the CEO of the players' association, said that while players were disappointed with their deferred pay, they understood it's a part of the agreement. "One of the key tenets of the master agreement, which we are very committed to upholding, is that when the game does well, the professional game - particularly the players - benefit and get a far greater share of the upside," Mills said. "But the quid pro quo is that when the game hasn't gone so well and the revenues aren't what we expect, then the professional game and the players need to pick up the shortfall. "The amateur game - the grassroots level of the sport - has its funding protected now as part of the agreement. "We have been working with NZC to highlight areas in which cuts can be made for the next financial year without unduly affecting the professional cricket programme or the ability to retain players. A number of those cuts occur around the player payment pool. "From a player's point of view, while it's disappointing, we understand that it's the nature of the deal." ' http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/content/story/519547.html
Mark Young
Roar Guru
I whole heartedly agree with this Michael. The players are largely responsible for the wonderful show and deserve their fair share, a share that the AFL is reluctant to offer.
Macca
Guest
It's definitely not because of all the great rule changes he has been a part of. The advantage rule that actually penalises is apparetnly going to be around next year.
Brett McKay
Guest
reckon this is the first comment I've see not giving the players any credit for increased revenues, too. Surely the $1B TV rights wasn't because Andy D makes a good brew for the meeting rooms??
Macca
Guest
"The players demand for a fixed share of revenue is absurd" It works for the Australlian Cricketers.
dean
Guest
solid article Michael. well done
Hornberger
Guest
The AFL is very reasonable. The players demand for a fixed share of revenue is absurd. The players don't contribute to increase revenues to trying their salary directly to revenues is ridiculous. Revenue has tripled since 2002 but almost none of that can be attribute to any action by the players. The players will be doing exactly the same thing in 2012 as they did in 2002. The growth in revenue is attributable to the AFL administration and marco economic factors
TomC
Guest
Yes, James. Everyone with a different opinion than you is being paid. It's a conspiracy.
Swampy
Guest
Signing over digital rights would be a big issue for the players. It would allow the AFL to veto players advertising and promotion potential or take a cut of any fees due if they agree to allow the players digital rights to be utilized. Players are hamstrung enough. For the immense pleasure they bring to fans and the money they drag in for all connected the deserve the highest possible deal. They have on average a brief professional career with considerable risk to their future health. I think a lot of sporting scribes consider themselves a step above the players and see them a mere fodder to feed their bloated egos.
james b
Guest
TOM C do you work for the AFL?
Macca
Guest
Good article Michael and I agree whole heartedly. 5 years is a lifetime and given the amount the game has grown in the last 5 years how can you seriously be expected to lock your wage in now. Plus $54m over 5 years spread over 18 teams with 40 odd players on the list isn't a lot of money.
TomC
Guest
Its interesting that this article focusses on the two key player demands that I initially assumed were ambit claims: the three year deal and a fixed percentage of revenue. It appears that the AFLPA is prepared to dig in on a three year agreement (which admittedly is standard for employee collective agreements), but there are noises that they will budge on the proportion of revenue. The players may have a case to make on the length of the agreement, but I completely disagree with Michael that the AFL should consider the players' demands for a fixed proportion of revenue. That would be a mad business decision. If revenues happened to contract in a given year, you can guarantee the players wouldn't accept a reduction in pay, so all it means is constant upward pressure on player wages. Moreover, the role of players is to put on a show. It is the role of administration and marketeers to grow the game. It makes no sense to link player remuneration to criteria that aren't in their job description. The irony of the three year deal demand is that the longer negotiations go on, the less the AFL or the public would want to see a shorter deal. Who would want to go through this process every three years? Maybe the AFL should give some ground on the length of the deal, but I don't think they can be blamed in this instance for just 'throwing money at the problem'.