The AFL could review Greater Western Sydney’s cost of living allowance (COLA) separately after the Giants broke ranks with cross-town rivals Sydney over the controversial issue.
AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick confirmed the issue was being discussed at the Commission meeting in the harbour city on Monday, but said he did not expect a decision for another couple of months.
“I wouldn’t say it was a key part of the meeting, but we are looking at competitive balance,” Fitzpatrick told reporters.
A number of clubs have labelled as unfair the 9.8 per cent allowance granted to the Swans and Giants above the league-wide salary cap to help cover the high cost of living in Sydney.
Criticism turned to anger at the end of last season when the Swans found room in their cap to recruit star forward Lance Franklin, a year after also signing Kurt Tippett on a big-money deal.
Giants chairman Tony Shepherd suggested on Monday that it was time for the Swans to no longer receive AFL help.
The Swans, meanwhile, have hired a global management consultant firm to help mount their case to retain the extra player payments.
Fitzpatrick said the COLA review was “not specifically” connected to Franklin’s acquisition, adding that it had been on the table for some time.
“I think the Franklin deal … was almost exogenous. It turned up out of the blue,” he said.
Asked whether the Giants and the Swans would be assessed separately, Fitzpatrick said: “I think if your question is, are Greater Western Sydney are at a different stage of development to Sydney? I think the answer’s yes.”
GWS have previously asked the AFL that, if COLA was abolished, the Commission consider granting an “expansion allowance” at the same level to help them attract and retain players during their formation years.
Fitzpatrick conceded the Homebush-based club was “slightly behind” where the AFL would like to see them in terms of their on-field success, but was confident the addition of five senior players – including former Collingwood star Heath Shaw and ex-Swan Shane Mumford – would make a difference this season.
“On most indicators, they’re good and we believe GWS can become one of the big clubs in the AFL,” he said.
Slane
Guest
Sydney is the 3rd most expensive city in the world. Melbourne is the 5th most expensive city. Calling it a Cost of Living Allowance is just plain dishonest.
Penster
Guest
How about sh!tcan it all together and teach the guys to live within their means.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
That's stupid because Western Sydney is less expensive then Sydney itself. I believe should be minimum threshold and if you are under you receive the bonus as below
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Reckon COLA should be based off a minimum threshold and if are you are under then you receive additional payments from the AFL. The threshold itself could be different for different clubs/states This is something I have just thought about, previously I have argued in favour of the COLA. Some hatred towards the Swans and Giants (but mostly Swans) about the COLA is that few people understand how it works. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, it operates on a basis of here is the salary we give you and then from our COLA allowance, here is the extra. It is not a physical increase to the cap.
Australian Rules
Guest
I agree. If you wanna live near the beach in Bondi, then you'll be paying more in rent...just like everyone else.
Penster
Guest
The club pays for everything a footy player might require to generate his income doesn't it? Boots, supplements, equipment, training, relocation costs etc Why does any footy club need a COLA when so many of the cities are expensive. 20mins east of the SCG and you hit Bondi but 20mins south and you arrive at Pagewood, vastly cheaper.
Franko
Guest
"It should be called a cost of living allowance plus a cost of relocating allowance" But then you couldn't take it away from the Swans and leave it for GWS as they are in the same boat. I agree with others on here that say just scrap the thing. It is no good having the league interfering with the results of the comp, skewing the thing so that some sides are favored, hell it goes against the spirit of competition.
Johan
Guest
Should be kept for Giants but axed for Swans.
josh
Roar Rookie
In reality, COLA exists in most other professions. Due in part to local market conditions (cost of living, wages etc...). I don't see it as an unfair advantage, if the COLA is on parity with the salary cap. But, Brisbane is a pretty expensive city, so should get it back too.
Pat
Guest
It should be called a cost of living allowance plus a cost of relocating allowance. GWS players, staff and coaches are made up almost entirely of people who have had to relocate from other states. Even the Swans after 30 years in Sydney are made up overwhelmingly of people from other states. If the AFL wants the game to be strong in Sydney they must retain some sort of allowance for each of the northern teams, maybe in some graded system where the newer clubs get more than say the Swans and Lions.
Australian Rules
Guest
Yeah but you shouldn't *necessarily* get one even if you live in a higher-cost city. Some US athletes might gravitate to New York City over, say, Cleveland, (due to life style factors, culture, climate, whatever). They don't receive more money because they living in NYC is more exy, nor should they. There's pros and cons with living anywhere. Buddy said that he wanted to live in Bondi. That's great, but he (or the club) shouldn't receive more money because Bondi's rent is high. So I guess I agree with your original point to an extent - yes if a COLA exists, it should go toward worse-paid players... but deciding exactly who they are, and which clubs/cities qualify, is a very tricky exercise. I scrapping it is the only way to ensure fairness across the comp.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
If you live in a low-cost city, then you dont need a Cost of Living Allowance.
Australian Rules
Guest
Let's assume Sydney, Perth and Melbourne are all "high-cost cities". Is Brisbane/GC "medium-cost"? Do Geelong/Adelaide players miss out?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
A COLA is a good idea, but it needs to be an actual COLA, and aimed towards the worse-paid players, especially rookies and first-contract players. Therefore, each year the AFL and AFLPA should agree on high and medium-cost cities. All players at a high-cost city get an extra $100 a week direct from the AFL. All players at a medium-cost city get an extra $50 a week direct from the AFL. Solved.
Australian Rules
Guest
Wow...guess I skipped over the opening line of the article! haha
Australian Rules
Guest
Yesterday, Fitzpatrick said the issue of COLA will be discussed separately for the Swans and for GWS. I expect it to be taken from the Swans.