Player payments must be made public for free agency to work

Doesn't matter if you got pick 1 or 100, your club will either pick a dud or someone who will want to leave the club.

The Hawks GF players received a bonus pro rata'd against how many games they played during the season. Bonus was capped at $25K per player. Not baayd!

Key difference is that the rest of society doesn't have a set salary cap. Lots of salaries and wages are public - anyone with an EBA, public companies, directors to name a few. These guys don't get a lot of privacy - salaries, medical status are widely discussed.

I like the thought. Not sure whether any club would ever reveal the pay structures of their entire list. The mid tier players at Hawthorn would've been happy with some extra 'love' in their pay packets with so much more becoming available once Buddy left. Although the common thought is that the Hawks kept all of that dose....I feel there may have been some incentives for the entire squad with regards finals etc. Luke Breust, Jack Gunston, Liam Shiels, Isaac Smith, Paul Puopolo et al surely got some extra gravy at seasons closure. Of all the talk I am still on the fence re Frawley and I believe he is on far less money than $500000. Shopping himself around at $700-800000 got him nowhere fast and if he wants success he must first prove himself in a Brown and Gold guernsey. He is no walk up start. I'm sure he was made very clear of that position entering into contract talks. Clarkson is no mug. The team plays for him and they understand their place within his, the clubs, framework. Kyle Cheney said as much earlier this season. The same goes for every player on the Hawthorn list. Ryan Schoenmakers and Mitch Hallahan have refused interest from rival clubs due to their loyalty and contentment within this same environment. Sadly Sam Grimley hopes to move on. I, for one, believe he could easily slide into the forward fifty and enhance that area greatly. The years Hawthorn has spent developing his talents is beginning to pay off. Fingers crossed he remains a Hawks. He is a formidable leading target. At 200cm he is sure to attract interest. Well done Nota. I liked your article. Transparency is well overdue. Across the entire league. Not just the clubs. The third party agreements and the rest. That is a bow too long to draw I fear. Back to Back.....WOW! Feels pretty bloody good........reminds me of spring 1989. The good old days are back. CARN the MIGHTY HAWKS!!!

Well done, Nita. You recieved some good comments here.

Agree Jack. Which is why I don't think it is that radical a change and at the very least will give concrete facts.

One has to think though... Half the time we know what players are being given through the media themselves. All these contracts of late, the media get a hold of the number. So how hidden is it really? Just a thought.

I would be interested if someone else can confirm this. I am no US tax expert. According to wiki the NFL corporate structure is non-profit - hence Roger Goodell's salary is apparently public knowledge - but all franchises save the GB Packers are for profit. Anybody know what Jerry Jones at the Dallas Cowboys makes? Recently Andrew Boghut complained about NBA salaries being made public and I don't recall seeing anything about IRS requirements.

I agree that we should also disclose how much clubs spend on support staff, logistics etc. Clubs disclose personal information about the medical conditions and history and injuries of their players. This is unlike any other industry. We know that for example Josh Toy has a heart condition because that was made public. Do fans have a right to know about the intricate medical histories of these players? That would be wholly unacceptable in any other industry.

That's a good point Brett. Taking it further, I'd argue that we already know what the players get paid - $10 million a year, give or take. Who it's allocated out to isn't reall important. But if fans were genuinely interested in knowing about good governance, they'd be wanting to know how much the club spends in off-field expenses - support staff, football department, that sort of thing, for which there hasn't been a cap or any attention paid to until relatively recently. And unlike player payments, that's one area where you could make a case for cutting back, or spending more, depending on the circumstances of your particular club.

That the AFL is a highly visible organisation does not change the fact that disclosure of financial terms would put the AFL in a position unique from any similar business. I would say a decent comparison can be drawn between AFL players and high profile people in the media - they are the public face of a particular business, but in the (corporate) scheme of things they are small fry. It's only that people care about a footy club more than a TV channel that makes us feel a sense of entitlement regarding player salaries. Emotional investment, passion and fan feedback are important, and should be taken into consideration by any smart, well run club, but clubs owe their fans nothing (from a legal standpoint). Just because players are the most highly visible part of the club does not put them at the top of totem pole in a club's hierarchy, and disclosure of their salary would be unparalleled for comparably run organisations, even ones with a similarly high profile. The possibility of fodder for pub chatter and some possible small PR gains will not trump the commercial realities.

A players salary should not be public. That is sensitive information. Fans don't need to know what players are getting paid to be fans of a club. They only need to know the club isn't exceeding their salary cap. They are athletes but footy is their job too.

You're absolutely right, the structure of the leagues are different and obviously no two leagues are identical. I think the more interesting point raised doesn't concern whether leagues are compelled to reveal contracts, or indeed if they like doing it, but whether they should. No question it's information that fans and even players are interested in, the unsubstantiated figures that are discussed for Buddy, Scully, Karmichael Hunt, Israel Folau etc. certainly generate plenty of interest as it is. Interest alone isn’t enough to justify it, and I can understand the argument that it could embarrass players perceived to be overpaid...but that already happens. The media gets wind of rough figures when they're controversial (see the above examples), potentially inflates them, and lambasts players accordingly. And because it's all formally kept under wraps, we can't engage properly with the negative coverage or highlight players that are underpaid, which would actually be in the players interests. I don't think the current system really works in the interests of fans or players. You already get the negative coverage we’d possibly like to avoid, with inaccurate figures and no context, without the positive pressure for underpaid players.

I take your point regarding it being difficult to ascertain who is performing well and who isn't, but fans can have an opinion of the performance of a player at their club as well. I also think that the pressure you mentioned already exists. Buddy's start to the season was criticised heavily because of his contract that we have no real facts about. As mentioned in the article, at least this model would give give some clarity to that and make those criticisms either reasonable or unreasonable. Also they have this model in the NBA/NFL/EPL and players don't seem to have been crippled by the pressure in those cases.

Tom Scully would be more than a little embarrassed if it was put out there I reckon. I’m ok with not knowing what players earn. So long as clubs are adhering to the cap. I don’t buy the notion of members fossicking through the minutiae of player contracts and voting against the board because player X is clearly worth more, or player Y is clearly overpaid. In whose opinion? If the desired outcome is to heap pressure on players who are being reminded of their earnings by fans every time they make a mistake though, and generally add even more pointless noise to an already crowded off-field discussion though, by all means publish them.

Pro Leagues in the US are run as not for profits, and are required by the IRS to disclose salaries.The AFL is a for profit enterprise - so to say the AFL should do it because the US leagues do it is hardly analogous. Leagues in the US are transparent only because they're legally required to be - not because they want to be. In addition, the websites you have linked to aren't "official" websites - they're data accumulators. They may well be accurate, but they're not officially endorsed by the NFL or NBA.

Winston, the AFL is not comparable to a small business or private enterprise. Salaries in those circumstances are kept private for a reason. There are circumstances where the salary of employees are publicly listed for reasons of accountability (including comparable sports leagues around the world as the article notes). Politicians salaries are known, salaries for managers of publicly listed companies are often not only known but voted on by shareholders, even pay points for public servants can be found. The idea in those examples being that the people involved are accountable to shareholders, voters or members of the public. Club members and supporters are effectively shareholders. Tellingly, members are expected to vote on the board. It’s difficult to assess the performance of a football club if you have no idea how they’re performing a fundamental part of the job (assessing talent and rewarding it effectively while managing the salary cap). As an aside, you’re arguing in defence of the players privacy, which is understandable, but the experience in other sports isn’t that they feel violated. Quite the opposite. If you want free agency to work for players, information is the greatest weapon they have. If they know what similar players are paid, they know if they’re being underpaid and could put pressure on their club to match it.

Hi Winston Thank you for your comment. It's obviously a difficult one. I think that the reality is that sports stars are different to other employees in organisations. We have no right to inquire or make public information about all of the health or out of work behaviours of employees. With AFL players everyone makes public information pertaining to all of their medical history, injury concerns, run ins with the law, who they associate with etc because it can and often does impact on what they do on the field. I think this is an extension of the inquiries we already make, which we would never make to other employees, and could actually clarify misinformation that gets spread in the media. I also think that fans of clubs can be viewed like shareholders in a company. If the company is making unwise financial decisions, you have a right as a shareholder to call upon the board to give you financial information about directors' wages etc to make sure the company is behaving responsibly. Thank You Nita

Whatever Frawley is being paid is too much. We (MFC) got the better deal with a number 3 draft pick. Frawley is mediocre at best and as a MFC member I am delighted to see we had a win for a change ! Lets hope our draft picks are the right ones this time ! Who knows, we can only live in hope

Hey Nita How much do you get paid? I think the world should know so we can all decide whether we're being paid fairly when we compare ourselves to you. Your argument is absolute nonsense. Players are just employees of clubs, just like employees of any other organisation. Just like I don't want the public to know how much I get paid, why should things be different for AFL players?