- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The AFL’s recent announcement of proposed changes to the free agency system is flawed, and will do the competition more harm than good.
Under the proposed changes, players would qualify as restricted free agents after six years instead of eight years, and as unrestricted free agents after eight years instead of ten.
The free agency system was introduced several years ago to make it easier for players to move to the club of their choice.
Come November’s annual trade period, many players find it difficult to move clubs, mainly due to their club being unable to facilitate a trade due to its inability to satisfy the often steep asking price of the suitor club.
The reasoning behind free agency was that players who had given loyal service to their club for eight or ten years should have the opportunity to seek either more money, more opportunities or greater success at a different club.
No one is disputing that this is beneficial to the players. AFL careers are generally short, and players are within their rights to maximise either their earning potential or chase ultimate success. It was fair enough that the AFL gave some control back to the players.
However, reducing the eligibility requirements to qualify for free agency is set to cause some serious issues.
A player who has played for six to eight years will generally be aged between 24-26 when they are eligible for free agency. It’s generally accepted that the prime age for an AFL player is between 23 and 27 – this is when they fulfil their potential. Allowing players to leave their club at 24 years of age deprives that club of a player entering their prime.
That club, which will have put years of development into said player, may be compensated in the form of a draft pick. But the allocation of compensation picks is a vague system, and, regardless of where the selection falls in the draft, not even the best boom youngster can replace the experience and talent a 24-year-old up-and-comer brings to a side.
Under free agency, the players who leave are often (although not always) either established stars, or young players with an extremely bright future. Teams are not so disadvantaged if the player who leaves is a fringe player seeking greater opportunity, but when a player leaves in search of more financial security or greater success, it unduly disadvantages the player’s original team.
A prime example in recent times was Brendon Goddard, one of St Kilda’s stars, who was lured to Essendon with the promise of finals football. Although St Kilda received a first-round draft pick as compensation for losing Goddard, his departure has left a gaping hole in the young side’s skill and experience.
However, the biggest issue with the new proposal is that it will further entrench the inequality already present in the AFL system.
One of the biggest arguments against free agency is that it unduly disadvantages poorer, less successful clubs. Over the past few years, the overwhelming trend has been for players to leave less successful teams for more successful teams, which also generally have more money to attract these players. Clubs at the bottom of the ladder generally have little to offer free agents, as they are often unable to pay the princely sums free agents command, and cannot offer any success for a period of several years.
Players in their prime want to maximise their careers, which means playing for a team in which they will experience success. Less successful teams have virtually no chance of attracting free agents. Clubs currently near the bottom of the ladder, such as St Kilda, Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs, have little money, and are all developing, rebuilding sides, meaning success is at least several years off.
Reducing the eligibility qualifications for free agency will allow free agents at these bottom clubs to jump ship earlier than they otherwise would have, thereby depriving these teams of experience.
Constantly losing their prime players and being unable to attract like-for-like replacements, will make it extremely difficult for these teams to lift themselves off the bottom of the ladder. It will institute a vicious cycle – even if these teams are compensated with high draft picks, lack of any foreseeable future success will, after six years, see these future stars go in search of greener pastures.
Free agency should be a system that facilitates movement of players searching for greater opportunity, not depriving lowly teams of their star players and making it more difficult for them to climb the ladder.
The new proposal will serve only to entrench inequality between rich and poor, successful and battling, and goes against all the equality measures the AFL has sought to instigate in the past decade.
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.