2014: The year of equality in the AFL

All the talk in the off season from various men who count at the AFL has been about equalisation, and I thought it might be handy to get a grasp on exactly what developments took place to bring us up to date.

On August 28th, the AFL released a statement on the 2014 fixture which announced changes in fixturing that would assist smaller clubs to an extent, by more evenly weighing up the teams clubs play twice.

When the fixture was released on October 31, a number of clubs were featured in marquee slots and with better exposure, whereas some big clubs will be less exposed than they have been previously accustomed to.

On October 24th, John Ralph and Michael Warner reported in the Herald Sun (‘AFL fans could pay an extra $2’) that an additional $2.00 would be charged at the gate next season as a form of equalisation tax.

This apparently will not affect club memberships. Half of the gate tax would go to the home club, with the other half going to an equalisation pool.

General admission prices have been frozen at $20 for the last four years. The Age says that the levy will not apply to home games at Etihad.

On November 13th, Micheal Gleeson reported in The Age that the AFL has delivered a new centralised beverage sponsorship deal that has delivered more money than previously, by segmenting the different types of drinks rather than having a single category.

Instead of a single beverage sponsor, there is now ,ilk, water and soft drink categories amongst others.

On November 16th, Adelaide CEO Stephen Trigg was quoted in the Adelaide Sunday Mail as saying:

“You don’t want to stifle innovation. You don’t want to limit bringing good people into the industry, so it’s a difficult issue. But the sorts of levers that will be addressed will be things like the success of gaming venues, the equality of stadium deals, membership profitability and so on.

“Some of those levers, it could be interesting for us. In other areas, such as gaming, it could be irrelevant.

“You don’t want to put a cap on innovating; you don’t want to put a cap on driving the best medical and research areas. You don’t want to put a cap on getting the best people from outside the industry. So it’s a broader issue. I expect over the next few meetings we’ll have more clarity.”

Grant Baker, writing for the Herald Sun on November 17th reports that the AFL is embarking on a policy of greater transparency when it comes to the aid grants it hands out to clubs after some questions arose over the amounts paid to Brisbane and Melbourne.

Collingwood chief Gary Pert has warned the AFL not to go overboard with equalisation policies lest all clubs look and feel the same.

“One of the great things about our game and what supporters have seen over the last five to 10 years is the advancement in the programs that we run and the support that we give to players in our medical [department] and trainers and coaches… and what we are seeing now is these highly trained, highly skilled athletes that require an investment in the football department to keep on developing these players to be elite.

“We can’t ever forget that the main competition… is other codes, other interests that could take our junior players away at an early age or take our crowds away.”

Leigh Matthews has entered the fray, suggesting that a cap of $10 million (after salary is paid) be applied to Football department spending, while Hawthorn’s Andrew Newbold warned the league to take a measured approach to reform.

“This is not something that can be rushed. These are policy changes that are going to affect the code for the next 25 to 30 years, so it’s something that has to be done in measured way,” he stated.

“We don’t want to bring a set of policies in and then find we have to change them again.

“The biggest fear is that every club looks the same and you get a very bland competition, and that is not something that anyone wants.

“So that’s where the thinking is required and that’s why I say that it is not something that certainly Hawthorn is pushing to rush.

“It needs to be done in a measured way, otherwise we are going to be left with consequences that we actually don’t want – such as a bland competition where, in effect, everyone is governed by the AFL because there are such a strict set of policies.”

The AFLPA has weighed in, with Matt Finnis saying that if department spending continues to rise, then the salary cap should as well – with players apparently concerned that their share of revenue is diminishing as more money is spent on football departments.

The Herald Sun wrote that some clubs are spending nearly $6 million more on their departments than lesser clubs. Furthermore, Finnis is concerned that the chances of success for a player are harmed if they go to a less resourced club.

“It is a fact that the players in good conscience couldn’t continue to support a salary cap in a context where you’ve got such a perverse economic outcome occurring.

There are a number of objectives through this whole equalisation process – which significantly includes the profitability of all clubs – but a critical piece is that the industry seeks to preserve the integrity of the salary cap, if indeed the industry wants to continue to have it.”

West Coast and Fremantle have more or less conceded that the league will implement further reforms. The article in the West Australian tells us that the League took 1.2 million in $2 levy funds on from members tickets alone, and a further $170,000 was taken from gate receipts under the same policy.

The West Australian expects that to increase this year by about $40,000, or as much as $600,000 depending on the measures.

The WA clubs have reminded the league that the pay significant revenue to WA football and hope that exceptions can be made accordingly.