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.
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.
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.
Pete G
Guest
I also wonder if the AFL should look at a system where the trade process can involve the exchange of funds as well as players and picks - but those funds cant be used, obviously, for player payments but can be used by the football department itself of the weaker clubs to improve their overall system and bottom line. Do you reckon weaker clubs would prefer $500,000 to spend on player development/ club facilities/ paying down debt or a first round draft pick who may (for whatever reason) turn out to be a dud/ under-performer/ serial injury concern and therefore ultimately of no value to the club. A player swap is a bit more useful than draft picks as you get some sort of known quantity but cash is still king surely and it doesn't upset the salary cap and but clubs couldn't simply keep buying every good player in the league because they still have to (I) stay within the salary cap and (ii) persuade the other clubs to trade their contracted players but at least the weaker clubs can properly value the decision to let a contracted player go.
Pete G
Guest
Bit rich to take a back-handed pop at Hawthorn and James Frawley - Hawthorn get no COLA and lost a massively expensive player in Franklin which clearly opened up a huge amount of their salary cap - a war chest which has been spoken about widely since the day the news Buddy was leaving was announced. Have a crack at the expansion clubs by all means but Hawthorn quietly sat by after the Franklin poaching (and people can decide whether Sydney were using COLA to bring in more stars than they could otherwise afford) and worked out what they would do with the money it freed up. Factor in that Hawthorn we didn't bring in any big names last year and have lost Sewell/ Guerra and Franklin and I think it is harsh of people to say we are the club who is any way exploiting free agency etc. Apart from Gunston it is hard to say Hawthorn has pulled off any real controversial trades in recent years. Stewey Dew (just a great piece of trading - hardly a marquee player when he came across - not Hawks fault he turned out to be a premiership winner) - Burgoyne was injured around the time of the trade - Hale was basically let go from NNorth and I remember the derision at the time about that pick up but again it seems Clarkson and co knew something others did not - ditto Gibson who so many North supporters laughed about when he left - Brian Lake was hardly controversial and I am sure is not on huge money like Buddy - I'm sure the Dogs were unhappy but he came with baggage and I think everyone acknowledged that and still not in the same universe as losing Buddy to Sydney. Cheney??? Should I even discuss that one. Spangher - two other clubs had a chance to develop his talent and chose not to. So I think people need to dial down the rhetoric about the 'powerhouse' clubs exploiting the system and perhaps start developing their back of house teams with people who can spot a good player in the rough and work out how to trade cheap and well - like the back to back Hawks. Also look around at the trades this year and no one jumps out as being unfair - ok Melbourne have lost a few but then why should players sit on the list of a club con the bottom for so long - Melbourne was up and about above Hawthorn in 2000-2004 but then Hawthorn got their drafting/development right - they were not a powerhouse (financially or otherwise) club when they put their house in order - they were about as far from it as possible.
paul merritt
Roar Rookie
The AFL needs to adopt a system were clubs have the power to trade players to whichever club offers the best deal for the club not the other way around, because its the clubs that need to survive not the players. These so called modern day are soft and very selfish much like the teens and twenty somethings of society they are the now generation of expectation.
Mick
Guest
AFL bans Sydney Swans from trading players in Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trade-2014-afl-bans-sydney-swans-from-trading-players-in-20141009-113sba.html#ixzz3Fdx3A969 being penalised for being smart?
Matt Simpson
Roar Guru
Great article, Good to see Sarah put some perspective on the argument. Lazza is right about restraint of trade as well. The salary cap limits an individuals earning potential, so a club is actually holding them back financially if they don't let them move somewhere to earn more income. Remember when Sonny Bill first went to Union? The Bulldogs and NRL where threatening to take him to court, but if they had, ever salary cap in Australia would have been destroyed by the end of the day.
Paul D
Roar Guru
The last sentence is spot on. Melbourne, St Kilda, the Bulldogs, Lions, and to a certain extent North and Richmond all had big problems well before free agency sprouted up, and to say that it's wholly responsible for their current predicament is somewhat of an oversimplification, to put it mildly.
Lazza
Guest
The real danger is that a disgruntled player goes to court for ‘restraint of trade’. I have not heard one lawyer who thinks the current system would stand up in court and the AFL has a tough balancing act in keeping both the clubs and players happy. Can you blame the players for wanting to move? A Premiership is all you can aspire to in AFL, there’s no international dimension, no representing your country at World Cups or Olympics. With 18 teams now you can be drafted by a dud team at the bottom and never have a chance at Premiership glory.
Radelaide
Guest
One of the reasons free agency works in other sports is there are more players moving around so if you are a lower club then you can always get someone else, so by extension if they lower the age limit then there will be more players floating around and they all can't go to Hawthorn.
Pillock
Guest
Roos comment is valid in the sense that higher placed clubs and players hold a pretty good hand under the current rules. Also true that Melbourne have been absolutely appalling in using high draft picks for years. The danger for the competition with free agency will be when the Players Association lobbies for the 8 year rule to be lowered. I think you will find that Roos comment is more one of frustration.
Winston
Guest
This is a good article, and responses so far are very interesting as well. I don't think free agency will make AFL into EPL because the big difference is we have a salary cap. Otherwise Collingwood would just win every year. I don't agree on the points made about the minimum wage being an issue. If Melbourne has been overpaying duds, they can fix that over time. It's just about delisting the duds, and then using their cash wisely. It means they should have more than enough money to overpay to get stars in. There is then the point about good clubs being able to attract good players, assuming pay is the same elsewhere. I agree with the point about players wanting to win, everything else being equal, but I would have thought there's other things to attract different individuals too. There is the attraction of going to a crap team and be the best player and therefore be the rockstar there. Or a player wants to take on more leadership and mentoring duties, they could go to a club with a young list. There's personal preferences about living in a particular city. There's loyalty. I would have thought these factors can help attract star players even if a team is crap on field. All in all, I'm not sure if free agency has anything to do with equalisation. I am more of the view that I would take it on face value that it's a player driven thing so that, just like Sarah said, like us normal people, players can work for whoever they want to work for.
Brian
Guest
I think people have lost perspective a No 3 pick for Frawley is actually a bargain for Melbourne. The same can't be said for pick 18 for Franklin which is what Hawthorn got. Melbourne got the same for Scully as Geelong did for Ablett. I hardly see how Melbourne isn't being given a fair chance. Their mess is their own fault Cale Morton - Pick 4 Jack Watts - Pick 1 Tom Scully - Pick 1 Jack Trengrove - Pick 2 Jordan Gysberts - Pick 11 Lucas Cook - Pick 12 Plus they traded another pick 12 for Mitch Clark. Dud picks thats why Melbourne are where they are not free agency.
Dean
Guest
The clubs and coaches can hardly complain. They were the first to break ranks on loyalty. Just look at the spate of sackings at Melbourne and Richmond almost 10 years ago prior to 'rebuilds' that never got built. Great clubmen like the Kelloways and McDonald were cast aside in the best interest of the club, now players are acting in their own best interests and the clubs get offended?? Clubs started showing no loyalty, but fans expected loyalty of players whose only link to the club was that this club called their name out at the draft? Good on the players for finally having more control over their lives (including where they and their family live). The AFL has carte blanche to make any more rules they feel like to equalise the league via the draft, salary cap, COLA. Plus, it's not hard to figure out why the bottom clubs are the bottom clubs. It's not bad luck that Melbourne have been terrible on and off the field for almost 15 years.
Mark
Guest
Only way a lower club can get a quality free agent is to pay megabucks. Otherwise Free Agents will continually go to the better clubs that have a chance of winning a flag. AFL will become another EPL with only 3-4 clubs being a realistic chance of winning a grand final. If free agency is to remain, they need a rule where clubs are given a larger salary cap to buy free agents. The lower the clubs finishing position, the more cap $ it is given. This is a salary cap in addition to the existing salary cap. So saints will be given an extra $500K to spend and work your way up with Hawthorn receiving $0 extra.
clayts
Guest
Agree with this. It was ridiculous that we (demons) were being forced to pay the minimum so that players that were either way past it or just not nearly good enough were being paid similar amounts to some of the genuine guns in the league. I will never understand that. Then it hamstrings us when we actually want to go get a decent player (or they just 'retire' then leave for free anyway)..
PartTimeZombie
Guest
A good, well reasoned argument for Free Agency. I am quite sure that as long as a club like Melbourne continues to mismanage themselves and are happy to finish in the bottom quarter of the competition, their good players will leave as soon as they can, as who wants to spend their whole career losing? There may be another issue at play here also: If players had no outlet at all for changing clubs without the clubs' permission, would there be a legal challenge to the whole system of player contracts? I am not a lawyer, but there are jurisdictions where restraint of trade is illegal, so an agreement between all of the parties involved, with compromises from everyone might be a good solution. Paul Roos might need to be careful what he wishes for, getting it might be very expensive.
Nick Butler
Roar Guru
Interesting take Sarah. I'd say the loss of Buddy had little to no effect on Langford and Ceglar coming off the rookie list as they both play completely different positions. Ceglar came in for Max Bailey while Langford effectively took the spot of Brad Sewell. I'd also suggest that the reason why the Buddy loss to Hawthorn was minimal was due to the fact they already had a premiership quality team... take Buddy out of a side like Melbourne and it would rip the heart of the club. Free agency has some significant flaws which must be looked at by the AFL. They need to scrap the compensation each club receives which is a ridiculous free kick to clubs (Collingwood recieving pick 10 for Dale Thomas for example was ludicrious and I'm a pies man) and like the NFL in America the top clubs should be excluded from taking part so we don't have these example of top clubs like Hawthorn and Sydney picking up the best free agents and eessentially topping up an already strong list. The AFL is fast turning into the EPL with the haves and have nots.
slane
Guest
Equalization, Shmequalization. I'm sick of hearing about it. Let's drag the good clubs down to the level of the bad clubs just so the handful of supporters who still follow them can feel better.... How about removing the minimum spend of the salary cap rule so the Demons and the Bulldogs don't have to pay their list of duds far more than they are worth? That way they'll have genuine buying power to snag some top free-agents to actually improve their list. I'm not saying Richmond will win a flag soon but look at the players they got: Maric, Grigg and Chaplin all fit in their best 22(at least for a few seasons) and improved the list.
handles
Guest
The argument comes down to how much you value achieving some form of equalization. I n my view, Roos' comment is valid, notwithstanding the examples you give. The big player moves of the free agency period are Ablett, Franklin, Tippett and now Frawley, and all have gone to contenders except Gaz, and his reasons were unusual. There is no denying that players will always value $X and a chance at a premiership more than $X and no chance. So the policy immediately favours teams in contention. If you add the that the fact that players with 8 years under their belts are not likely to move to a 'developing' list, as they haven't got a long career left in most cases, then free agency is a de-equalizing policy. That doesn't mean it is bad, as I think players should have some rights to choose, and some right to chase a flag at a second club. But I think the priority pick system needs to stay to balance the de-equalizing effect.