Revelations that former Sydney chairman Richard Colless was subjected to a “torrent of abuse” from the chairman of the AFL Commission, Mike Fitzpatrick, should be alarming to AFL supporters.
The outburst was in response to the club’s decision to recruit high-profile former Hawthorn star Lance Franklin. It should be alarming for footy fans, not for the fact of Fitzpatrick’s alleged tirade, but because of what it reveals about the way the AFL does business.
Throughout 2013, it was widely believed that Franklin would leave Hawthorn and sign a lucrative deal with the GWS Giants at the end of that season. The AFL clearly took the view that a player with Franklin’s profile could generate significant interest in western Sydney, which might translate into support for the AFL’s fledgling expansion franchise.
However, the AFL, GWS and Hawthorn were subsequently blindsided by Franklin’s announcement that he was joining the Sydney Swans under the AFL’s free agency rules.
Since Colless has gone public with his account of Fitzpatrick’s phone call, the media analysis has largely focused on whether the chairman reacted inappropriately. However, the most telling comments ascribed to Fitzpatrick were those concerning Sydney’s contentious Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Colless’s assertion that the AFL were deliberately trying to orchestrate Franklin’s move to the GWS.
In that respect, Colless alleges that Fitzpatrick said of the Swans’ deal to acquire Franklin: “You knew what we wanted to do and you came to us with your bloody COLA, I told you I’d support you on COLA then you raced away and did this deal”.
Colless further alleges that the AFL was committed to paying Franklin an additional sum of money, either by diverting funds from one of the competition’s sponsors to GWS, or by paying him that sum directly. If true, it means that the AFL was actively seeking to facilitate an outcome where a player from one club joined a competitor of the AFL’s choosing, while authorising a breach of its own rules governing club salary caps in the process.
Predictably, the AFL has denied Colless’ version of events.
It should be noted that Sydney has previously benefited from the AFL’s attempts to grow the game in Australia’s most populous state.
Indeed, Richard Colless would be aware of the AFL’s preparedness to engineer what it regards as a desired outcome. When he crossed from Sydney to St Kilda in 1995, the AFL paid star full-forward Tony Lockett an allowance as an “ambassador”.
These payments were in addition to his contract with the Sydney Swans and outside the club’s total player payment figure. The AFL only publicly acknowledged the existence of Lockett’s ambassadorial allowance in 2013.
More recently, COLA afforded Sydney an additional 9.8 per cent room in its salary cap. While the Swans have steadfastly maintained that COLA was (and still is) necessary to offset higher living expenses, critics have long opposed the allowance on the basis it does not represent genuine cost-of-living assistance and is no more than one of several measures, along with the Sydney Swans Academy, which is intended to give the Swans a competitive advantage.
The Sydney Swans have qualified for the finals in 16 of the past 19 seasons.
The AFL’s formal position on COLA, at one time consistent with Sydney’s, changed soon after the Swans lawfully recruited Franklin under the competition’s free agency rules.
Indeed, Fitzpatrick’s alleged comment that he was withdrawing his support for COLA and the AFL’s subsequent response, which was to announce the payment would be phased out completely by 2017 (to be replaced by a rental assistance scheme for lower paid players) and ban the Swans from trading for two seasons, reveals a willingness on the part of the league to enact punitive sanctions against anyone that hinders or obstructs the AFL’s plans.
Granted, the AFL have since softened their stance on the trading prohibition, which now only prevents the Swans from acquiring any player earning more than the median AFL player wage.
However, if Colless’s recollection of his conversation with Fitzpatrick is accurate, there are several troubling aspects.
Firstly, it depicts the governing body as one that has a penchant for cutting deals behind the scenes. It paints a picture of an AFL administration that is willing to pursue its commercial objectives at the expense of fairness, transparency and indeed its own rules and standards.
Fitzpatrick’s purported abandonment of COLA also lends weight to the conclusion that the allowance had not been calculated with reference to any reasonable or legitimate cost of living equation in the first place.
Rather, it tends to support the view the AFL had given Sydney favourable treatment, which was revoked when the AFL deemed them to have stepped out of line.
Initiatives such as the salary cap, the draft and the equalisation tax each form part of an “equality framework” in the AFL.
These measures are designed to instil confidence in supporters that the wealthy clubs cannot perpetually dominate the competition, that no club has a greater financial capacity than any other to acquire talent, that teams presently struggling on-field will have access to the best underage talent in the country, and that every club will have adequate resources to afford them the opportunity to be competitive.
The system of free agency, which permits a club to retain a restricted free agent (as Lance Franklin was in 2013) when it matches the offer made by a rival club, can only operate fairly and efficiently if all clubs have the same amount of money available to them in their salary cap.
While supporters can attest to the fact the system does not always play out as intended, the broad objective of the equality framework is that each of the 18 clubs should win a premiership once every 18 years.
Of course, some transitional concessions were made in relation to salary cap and list size for the expansion clubs, but there was a consensus view among the existing clubs that these were necessary to make those clubs competitive in the short-to-medium term.
As the game’s national governing body and the custodian of the sport, the AFL Commission has an obligation to govern the game openly, transparently and in accordance with its own rules and standards. It has an obligation to enforce and adhere to every aspect of the agreed equality framework.
If the AFL is only prepared to pay lip service to that framework, or to abide by it only when it does not conflict with what it perceives to be the competition’s commercial objectives, then the game has a serious integrity problem – and as supporters, it affects us all.
jax
Guest
There is a difference. Only one of the three has been levelled directly AGAINST the AFL and only one article has been written about the AFL commissioners on this site. And only 18 articles in total across all mainstream media organisations yet the story broke days ago. Many articles have been written about Hird and Goodes is up to 1,324 articles. Over 50 articles have been written about Nic Nat's personal issues in less than 24 hours. Only 18 about alleged AFL corruption? Why isn't the mainstream all over this story? It's massive yet they are largely ignoring it.
jax
Guest
In less than 20 hours google news is showing 50 articles on Nic Nat's personal issues. There are still only 18 articles written on Colless' claims against the AFL and Fitzpatrick and that story broke 4-5 days ago. There are 1,324 articles on Goodes and the booing controversy. What a strange media driven world we live in.
jax
Guest
"It's pretty hard for anyone to go public and blow the whistle on this sort of stuff because you get crushed," Warner said on Sports Today. "They're unaccountable, unelected." He said there was too much secrecy and unaccountability throughout the AFL's ranks. http://www.3aw.com.au/news/mick-warner-questions-relevance-and-accountability-of-afl-commission-20150806-git39r.html Warner knows how things work at the AFL and he has spoken up, good on him. It's very hard for anyone to blow the whistle on anything these days. They do indeed get crushed and that's why we see so few of them speak up. They are an endangered species, literally and figuratively. They should be a protected species. Many western Govt's (including our own) have started passing laws that make whistleblowing illegal.
Gecko
Guest
3 ways to get a massive response from readers: 1. Write about Hird 2. Write about Goodes 3. Write about the AFL Commissioners
Mark
Guest
That's what it was.
Mark
Guest
The point is it was within the rules. You can talk about fairness until you're blue in the face but the fact is we followed rules set by the AFL but were punished for not acting as expected.
Mark
Guest
I can't take your comment seriously when you can't differentiate between "bought" and "brought".
TomC
Roar Guru
If Brisbane are making huge FA offers to players like Carlisle to compensate for losing other players, then that takes up room in the salary cap. So it doesn't even out at all. Even assuming they can get players like Carlisle, who are likely to have offers from clubs in heartland states that are closer to home and have more opportunities outside of footy. The rest of your post is obviously scarcely relevant to the discussion. It's a pretty blatant attempt to deflect from what you clearly now realise is an untenable position you've set up for yourself. You won't find me defending the club's administration post-Andrew Ireland. It's been terrible. But even when Ireland was CEO and Matthews was coach the club still lost the likes of Matthew Clarke, Shane O'Bree and Des Headland to their home states. Good management helps, but it's not the whole story.
WhereIsGene
Guest
If players are leaving Brisbane then it will create salary cap room allowing your club to make huge free agency offers to players like Carlisle for instance. So to an extent it evens out in the long run. Your club is a basket case because your board is the most incompetent in the league, your coach is clueless, and your board sacked your last coach just as he was starting to make progress because they were desperate to land Paul Roos. Brisbane was doing just fine with Leigh Matthews running the ship and Andrew Ireland in charge of the football department. Fine to the tune of a hat trick of flags in fact. Melbourne's never had a salary cap advantage, "ambassador payments" or an academy and they've suffered a LOT more than Brisbane has. Bulldogs supporters haven't seen their club play in a grand final in sixty years. St.Kilda has won only one premiership in their 100+ year history. I'm so sorry your team isn't making the finals every year, if that's what you expect I suggest either defecting to the Swans or finding another sport - like most of Brisbane's fans did when the team stopped winning flags.
jax
Guest
That would have made more sense Xavier.
jax
Guest
Last night as I listened to James Brayshaw, Luke Darcy and Mick Molloy laughing about Colless' claims on the Triple M link above I came to the conclusion that the AFL is in the entertainment business first and foremost.
jax
Guest
Yes I do thanks AR lol. I hope you mean it though?
Xavier Smith
Roar Rookie
Good article, well considered. As far as the COLA goes, I always found it odd that it was provided as an enlarged salary cap, enabling the Swans to afford a marquee player. Whilst I struggle to see how footballers paid $200k-300k really need assistance with "Cost of Living", a fairer solution would have been a 9.8 per cent bonus on each contract to account for Sydney's higher living costs.
TomC
Roar Guru
On-field disadvantages exist for these clubs, as clearly evidenced by the stream of players leaving Brisbane ever since a club was established there, and therefore there need to be counterbalancing on-field advantages. It's not even arguable. It's just a question of how generous the concessions need to be and where they should be targeted. Currently, they're set too low.
WhereIsGene
Guest
Expansion clubs should be given all the financial support they need TomC. ON-FIELD advantages for rugby state clubs on the other hand should not exist. They make a mockery of the AFL's supposed quest for equalization, unless we are led to believe that some clubs are more equal than others. When the AFL favors some clubs over others and manipulates the rules to ensure they remain in premiership contention every year it because very hard to take this mickey mouse sport of ours seriously. Is it a real sport or is it entertainment? I'd rather not watch a WWE-style drama where the results are planned in advance based on whatever makes the governing body the most money thanks.
WhereIsGene
Guest
The AFL did precisely the same thing to lure Lockett to Sydney. Growing the game is far more important than a fair competition when you measure success with $ signs.
WhereIsGene
Guest
Franklin will inherit Goodes' "ambassador payment" next year after he retires. This was part of the deal to lure him to Sydney.
WhereIsGene
Guest
No surprises. Not when the salaries of AFL executives are tied to growing the game in NSW & QLD, of course they're going to have a hand in luring superstar drawcards like Ablett & Franklin to rugby states. If Fyfe keeps up this year's form he can probably expect calls from Mike & Gillon just before his contract is up reminding him how lovely the weather is up north. What's to stop the AFL authorizing third-party payments from its' sponsors or even its own coffers into Fyfe's bank account if he agrees to make the switch "for the good of promoting the code"? Absolutely nothing, because there's no external oversight built into the AFL power structure. They literally make up the rules as they go along, and if anyone asks questions they'll investigate themselves with their "integrity unit". What an utter farce. Wake up if you haven't already people, the AFL Commission is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
AR
Guest
Ok ok they're a disgrace and corrupt and hypocrites and cowards and everything else. Feel better?
jax
Guest
"Does anyone else think there’s still a lot of Demetriou in the AFL’s doings, even if he’s retired? Clearly his culture of backroom wheeling and dealing lives on." Demetriou is a shareholder in Hirds sports management company and at least one other. Fitzpatrick is concurrently the Head of the AFL and the company that runs the stadiums that the AFL does business with. There are conflicts of interest every way you turn. This is how big business is conducted, not just in the AFL. Many of them have their snouts in the trough. We need to run a big broom through AFL House and we need an independent enquiry into the AFL and while we're at it let's put the microscope on the media as well.