- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Earlier in the week, the AFL announced the worst kept secret in Australian sports: Essendon would be charged with bringing the game into disrepute following the ASADA investigation into their usage of supplements.
On Tuesday coach James Hird, along with senior assistant Mark Thompson, football manager Danny Corcoran and club doctor Bruce Reid were all charged under AFL rule 1.6 which relates to “conduct which is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.”
In other words, it relates to the reputation of the AFL being harmed as a result of conduct by the person or team charged.
There have been thousands of words and hours of television dedicated to the drugs saga since the charges were outlined on Tuesday night. But at no point has anyone appeared to ask a pertinent question.
Can anyone prove that the AFL’s reputation has been harmed? Can that harm be quantified in any way, shape or form?
It seems like an obvious question. Naturally if you are going to fine or suspend a player or coach you would want to make sure that what they are charged with actually happened. But the question has not been asked, it never is, and the AFL has never been prompted to prove that their reputation has been harmed.
It is actually possible to quantify the extent to which the AFLs reputation has been harmed. It is far from exact and nobody has bothered to do it but it can be done. Perhaps more disturbingly the AFL will never be required to prove it.
The AFL has a number of key performance indicators (KPI) that it uses to measure its success on a yearly basis. The most common KPIs are revenue generated, memberships, crowds, television audiences and participation.
Naturally if the AFL’s reputation has been materially harmed by this saga we would expect to see a noticeable effect in these KPIs.
Unfortunately we cannot measure revenue or participation, which lack timely indicators, but the other three measures are all updated regularly.
After 20 rounds in 2013 attendances are up by 0.3 percent compared with the same period in 2012.
This is a relatively minor change and the weekly variation suggests that crowds over 2013 will likely end up little changed from last season.
Crowds for Essendon home games have actually increased by 3.3 percent, which probably reflects the team performing better on the field compared with last year (when their slump began earlier).
Television audiences for the AFL have never been higher, having climbed around 3 percent over the record-breaking 2012 season. Audiences are up for both Channel Seven and Foxtel.
Finally, club memberships (not including AFL or MCC memberships) are up by an estimated 7.3 percent, which probably underestimates the actual growth in memberships as several clubs only report on a sporadic basis.
Essendon memberships are up by almost 18 percent, one of the highest growth rates in the league.
To date, the AFL appears to be having its most successful season on record with large rises in both television audiences and memberships. The raw data makes it difficult to believe that the AFL’s reputation has been materially harmed.
But I can see people shaking their head. How can I explain the angry comments on news articles or the thousands of angry forum posts that have been created since this saga began? I am not sure I need to.
The old adage, actions speak louder than words, applies here. Some fans may be angry with the Essendon football club and the AFL, they may even be disgusted but the saga has not materially affected any of the AFL’s indicators of performance.
These angry fans may think less of the AFL but the weight they put on these feelings has not proved enough to discourage them from attending matches, watching telecasts and buying memberships in record numbers.
Some people may feel passionately about this issue but even more feel apathetic and it has not proved to be a deal breaker or decision-making issue for a vast majority of fans.
Based on the data the question must be asked: if the Essendon drug saga has not had a material effect on the reputation of the AFL, why has the club, and four of its major employees, been charged with bringing the game into disrepute?
A quick look at the history of the AFL rule 1.6 highlights what a ridiculous rule it is and makes one wonder whether it has even been applied correctly.
Leigh Matthews was charged for punching Geelong player Neville Burns in 1985. It strikes me that this did more damage to Matthews’ reputation than to the then VFL’s reputation, although in hindsight nobody cares and the charge seems like an incredible over-reaction.
The Western Bulldogs’ Nathan Brown and Port Adelaide’s Kane Cornes were fined for delivering insulting gestures to the crowd in 2002.
Does anyone think that these incidents had a material effect on the AFL’s reputation? Do you even remember that they happened?
West Coast’s Ben Cousins was deregistered for 12 months for having a medical disease.
To their credit the AFL acknowledges that drug addiction is a medical disease but evidently, in this case, they did not care.
Finally, earlier this season Melbourne was fined $500,000 for not tanking. How does not tanking hurt the AFL’s reputation?
Given the embarrassing history of rule 1.6 it is clear that it is simply a catch-all charge the AFL uses when it does not like the vibe of a player, coach or teams actions.
There is a very real argument that the Essendon football club acted in an inappropriate fashion with regards to their supplement program.
Their governance was undeniably lacking. However, it is also clear that the saga has had little effect on the AFL’s reputation given they are about to complete their most successful season on record.
Is it not time that the AFL became a little more professional?
If you want to handle issues like tanking and doping would it not be better to create specific rules and guidelines to address the issues rather than drumming up nonsense charges relating to reputation?
It is not as though these issues are without precedent. Tanking has existed as long as there have been incentives for losing and doping in sport has existed since before any of us were born.
What was the AFL doing? Putting their head in the ground and hoping it would not happen here?
Essendon should receive a punishment for their failures of governance throughout 2012, we all expect more from our football clubs.
But hopefully for the sake of the AFL, the Bombers will take their punishment to court, which may go some way to ensuring that no club will ever be charged under this ridiculous rule ever again.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.