The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Free Agency: whose game is it anyway?

Expert
8th October, 2014
18

This week the anti-sentiment for free agency has again increased, with Paul Roos labelling it as “the greatest de-equalisation policy” of the past 100 years.

Greatest de-equalisation policy? Well I guess that depends on who you ask.

If you ask the coaches, they’ll tell you that free agency is set to create a two-tiered hierarchy: the same teams will continue to dominate the game, attract the best players and win flags, while the remaining teams will just make up the numbers.

If you ask the fans, they’ll tell you that free agency has created player disloyalty, and that the game has become more callous and business-like in its design.

The romance of the one team player seems dead. But if you ask the players, they’ll tell you that free agency is something that most people take for granted: it’s the ability to choose where they work.

And guess what? It’s the players that free agency was designed for. Not the coaches. Not the fans. The timing of Paul Roos’ comments should be duly noted. He was speaking on the back of the departure of James Frawley to the newly crowned Premiers, Hawthorn. Were it not for free agency, Frawley’s exit may not have been possible.

However, Frawley’s move to Hawthorn and Roos’ subsequent condemnation of free agency speak more of a frustrated coach than of a fundamentally flawed system. Yes, free agency has created some big headlines, most notably with Buddy Franklin’s move to Sydney. But sometimes it’s what’s not said that is more telling.

In the same trading period that Franklin left Hawthorn, other players also swapped teams under free agency. Xavier Ellis (Hawthorn) moved to West Coast, Matt White (Richmond) moved to Port Adelaide and Eddie Betts (Carlton) moved to Adelaide.

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that Ellis and Betts both moved to clubs that finished lower than their previous clubs, whilst Port Adelaide finished two positions higher than White’s former team, Richmond.

This contradicts the argument that free agency will only benefit teams that finish higher on the ladder. What is also worth noting is that all three players flourished at their new clubs. Ellis broke into the Eagles’ regular 22, a feat he could not achieve at Hawthorn in 2013. Eddie became a fan favourite, kicking 51 (mostly mercurial) goals.

While White, whose electrifying run epitomised the Port Adelaide team who fell 4 points shy of a Grand Final birth, celebrated the best year of his career. Free agency gave these three players a fresh start. Ultimately, this is what free agency will be used for in the future, as the whole premise of free agency is empowering players to make their own decisions about their careers.

This may seem at odds with supporters’ notions of loyalty and team. However, free agency isn’t a necessary condition for players changing teams. As has always been the case, players may be delisted or traded by their team if they are no longer a required player.

Free agency, then, is just another way in which players change teams. But, for the players, it is also something much greater. It is a tool of empowerment that gives players the ability to choose where they would like to play, albeit after 8 years at their original club.

With such finite careers, can you really blame players for wanting more financial security for their families and their future? The claim that free agency will act as an intermediary for big name players and teams in premiership contention, as suggested by Alan Richardson, may hold some cogency.

However, in order for a team to attract and pay a Franklin, a Goddard or a Frawley, other players must ultimately be let go. This was the case for the Swans, who lost Mumford, White and Bolton (retired) in order to lure Franklin.

Advertisement

Hawthorn, conversely, had their salary cap opened significantly by Franklin’s departure, giving the likes of Langford and Ceglar the chance to break into the team off the Rookie list. Hawthorn fans booed Buddy at this year’s Grand Final – but did his departure really weaken Hawthorn’s stocks all that much? The result would suggest not.

Why? Not because Buddy was replaced – this seems humanly impossible for a man of his talent. Instead, because Hawthorn were able to manage their list in such a way that they filled the gap he left. Free agency is here to stay.

It’s time for the coaches and supporters to understand that players are much more than pawns in the game of AFL. Without the players, there would be no game. Free agency may come at a cost, but without it players will be the ones who lose out.

close