Free agency. It will inflate player salaries and squeeze out the middle class athletes.
It will widen the gulf between the big powerful clubs and the smaller, less financially resourced clubs and create what Mick Malthouse contends will be a ‘two tiered competition.’
It would be fair to say that the AFL’s move to free agency has had its fair share of detractors.
Since the announcement that free agency, a staple among sporting leagues around the world, would be introduced into our game, statements similar to Malthouse’s have flooded our newspapers and airwaves.
Such fears are completely unfounded. They speak of nothing but an aversion to change.
It is important to be clear on the actual rules surrounding free agency in the AFL. Players who have been at a club for at least eight years and are in the top 25 per cent of highest paid players at their club have the right to become a restricted free agent.
This means that they are free to negotiate with other teams, but their original clubs have the right to match any offers they receive. As a result, the majority of big-name free agents will be restricted.
Once a player who is in the top 25 per cent of earners at his club comes out of contract, he can become an unrestricted free agent, as long as he has been at the same club for at least 10 years.
Any club which suffers a net loss through free agency – that is, losing more players than it gains – will be compensated with draft picks.
Put simply, the guidelines for an AFL player actually qualifying for free agency are extremely limiting.
LeBron James’ recent foray into free agency has left the NBA and the entire sporting world in flux. All NBA offseason activity has ground to a virtual halt, as Lebron decides which team he wants to play for.
This situation has sparked unwarranted panic among some AFL observers, who claim that the fact that the NBA’s best players are free to change teams so easily is bad for the game, and that we would be loathe to see such an occurrence in the AFL.
It is important to remember that the NBA and the AFL operate in two completely different worlds and cannot even remotely be compared. We will never see a LeBron circumstance in the AFL, as our form of free agency is as watered down as a beer you get at the footy.
It would require an absolute shift in philosophy in the AFL for this to even be a distant possibility.
Free agency has been a part of the AFL for two years now, and for all the controversy that it has generated, only nine restricted free agents have changed clubs. The vast majority of players have re-signed with their clubs before even getting the chance to become a free agent.
In the past month or so, Bryce Gibbs and David Mundy, the two most prominent potential free agents at the end of this season, have re-signed with the Blues and Dockers respectively, electing not to even test the market.
Saints fans may argue against free agency, as they have lost two club stalwarts, Brendon Goddard and Nick Dal Santo.
Goddard’s move to Essendon came about because St Kilda decided not to match the Bombers’ offer. For their troubles, the Saints received pick 13 in the 2012 draft as compensation, which was then traded to the Suns in exchange for young ruckman Tom Hickey.
Sure, Goddard left a battling club in favour of a financially superior club, but it is no coincidence that the Bombers currently lack the list depth to be a serious contender. The money used to pry Goddard from the Saints could have potentially been allocated towards an extra two or three players, which would have given Essendon the depth required to challenge the top teams.
One might even argue that St Kilda will be better off as a result of this transaction, due to the fact that the Bombers are no closer to winning a premiership than they were before Goddard arrived. Furthermore, Hickey has shown promise for the Saints over the last two seasons as a developing ruckman.
What is often lost among naysayers is the fact that free agency has proven to be a boon for the AFL’s middling players. It has allowed players such as Xavier Ellis and Jeremy Laidler to resurrect their careers with the Eagles and Swans, respectively.
There is nothing to be concerned about when it comes to free agency in the AFL. For all the hoopla, very few big name players are changing clubs, and the compensation system is so generous that losing a free agent does not harm clubs as much as one suspects.
For those who say free agency is just another example of the AFL becoming Americanised, an American sports fan would hardly recognise our version of free agency. There is nothing to be afraid of.
Bosk
Guest
Sydney has a long and storied history of being forced to pay above and beyond top dollar to secure talented players from other clubs. As a Cats fan you'll remember the Shane Mumford deal. I do put some stock in Buddy's claims that he was desperate to live in Sydney, but then I was also foolish enough to believe him when he stated in no uncertain terms that he wanted to remain a one-club player at Hawthorn. Every man has his price.
Bosk
Guest
I agree that with the current TV rights deal the league is rolling in cash, but I'd much prefer to see the bulk of it spent encouraging and promoting grass roots footy than handed to players who I think we can all agree are payed VERY well compared to the average man on the street. Rookie listed players are possibly an exception, though 18 year olds generally aren't terribly well payed in most other industries either. Don't even get me started on those 7 figure executive salaries, Demetriou's in particular. I regard such corporate wages essentially as a legal form of theft.
Bosk
Guest
I certainly agree that had it not been for Free Agency there's no way Franklin would be playing for the Swans right now. Had Buddy wanted to play for GWS he would've been forced to request a trade, and Hawthorn would've received compensation equivalent to his worth. I don't object to the Free Agency system on principle but I do think the age of qualification is too low. If an older player such as Chapman or even Nick Riewoldt wants to switch clubs to prolong their career or pursue one last shot at a flag then that seems pretty reasonable, but on the other hand when a man like Dangerfield who is essentially a top 10 AFL player in his prime can potentially leave Adelaide without the Crows receiving anything better than pick 10 it does call into question the league's ability to equalize the sport. Being only in its infancy, supporters of teams who have benefited from Free Agency so far will of course rush to defend it, while those of clubs who've lost a star player will take the opposite view. However, in the long term EVERY team will both lose and gain players through this system, and when those gains & losses are balanced out over time the net result may simply be a permanent drop in player loyalty. Surely that can only be detrimental to the game as a whole.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I am surprised it has not been challenged. They tried to bring in a draft in rugby league in the early 90s but that was challenged in court and that was the end of any draft. Different game I know but the courts rules restraint of trade and I can't see any real difference even taking into account the greater good.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
If my memory serves me correctly I think there was a deal done between the AFL and the AFLPA, along the lines of funding the legacy programs the AFLPA has put in place in return for not challenging the draft and salary cap.
Adam
Guest
wow you guys all sound like a bunch of accountants I love football I love money but as a swans supporter I really feel that people are just carrying on. every one talks about buddy and tippet being everything or nothing we payed the money now lets sit back buddy seems allright del santo seems allright but tippet may cost us a flag my point being in very poor gramer as I've had a few beers money helps a little but comitment of players wins you flags count 2005 any team can do that. sorry about the rant
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
Plus the structure is more like the AFL is a company and the clubs are departments/incorporated cooperatives, while individuals, like the players, are employees of the AFL. This is much more the case than the view of clubs being businesses in their own right.
The Big Fish
Guest
Re salary cap. There is an argument I heard from a lawyer which said that it may not get defeated in courts since it could be argued for the greater good to keep to ensure many more players have the choice to play AND be successful rather than a few in a top side. And that is why players have not and probably will not in near future challenge.
Cat
Roar Guru
Must be why Crameri went to the bulldogs and Dawes went to Melbourne because of all the on field success they have had recently /sarcasm. "He was always swaying towards Sydney..." I don't believe it for a second, if Buddy was so keen on Sydney why did it take a much much better deal to secure him? Surely Sydney would have been wiser to offer the same contract the Giants were then let Buddy choose them, than this 9 year risk. The reality is they had to beat the Giants by nearly double the length and money. Free agents will *always* claim it wasn't about the money, I've been hearing it for 30 years, what players say after signing mega contracts is always just that, a story.
Cat
Roar Guru
yeah *if* (and thats a big assumption) the court ever stripped away the draft and salary cap you see within 5 years a league made up of 4 teams, which would mean less TV money, which would mean players make less so on and so on until there would be nothing left.
Lroy
Guest
Free agency is a must, it should happen once they complete their first contract. The AFL is rolling in money, they are spending 100 million on the Skodas, all the executives are on 7 figure salaries. Surely its time for the players, you know, the ones we actually pay to watch get a piece of the action?? Or should it be only the suits at AFL HQ that get all the cash?? Frankly Im surprised the players havent challenged the salary cap or draft in court.. they would shoot it down in a heartbeat. Restraint of trade 101. You cant tell accountants what firm they can or can't work for, why are footballers subject to this dumb rule? I guess they must be happy watching the likes of Andrew Demetriou stuff his pockets full of their hard earned cash eh?
Michael huston
Guest
Yes he did... Did I not say the more powerful club (in terms of both on-field success and $$$) always wins?
Aransan
Guest
I am sure Essendon are more than happy that they drafted Goddard.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
It's so early in the free agency process that clubs are still figuring it out. The Swans did get funky with the Franklin deal, it showed a way of coming at it a little creatively. Whether that's better for them in the long term remains to be seen and sure they had more wriggle room. But over time we might see a lot more clubs coming at free agency more creatively, sure that means more risk, but so does drafting. With the more lateral approach you might see more movement to smaller clubs ( also the Bulldogs got Crameri).
Cat
Roar Guru
yeah cause those extra 4 years he had on offer from Sydney had *nothing* to do with it right? /eye roll Buddy chased the most money, pure and simple.
Michael huston
Guest
For all his baffling rambles, Malthouse hit the nail on the head re free agency. The Sydney vs Giants deal with Buddy sums the whole thing up perfectly. Leaving the COLA whinging out of it, Buddy was considering the move in early 2013, before Sydney were even aware he was interested in the Swans and BEFORE they offered him the deal. He was always swaying towards Sydney rather than the Giants, and you'll find that in a battle between two clubs to recruit or keep a player, the more powerful club (whether that be in on-field success or $$$) will always win.