I suppose the upside to this story is that it’s good news for anyone who’s invested in a company that is part-owned by the AFL. Well played, guys. Although, by the sounds of things a lot of you work for the AFL anyway – so you probably saw it coming.
For those of you that have missed it, it was announced on Monday that the AFL has allegedly ignored the recommendations of an independent four-man panel and the wishes of all 18 clubs and decided to enter into formal negotiations with Champion Data, a company they partly own, to become the league’s new GPS data provider.
In case you’re worried about what that smell is at the moment, rest assured, it’s just the AFL.
While we’re still yet to hear the AFL’s reasoning behind the decision, it appears such a brazen conflict of interest that it’s almost unthinkable that even the profit-driven AFL would pursue it. Sepp Blatter must be sitting back in his Zurich mansion, stroking his hairless cat thinking, ‘Well played Gill, well played indeed’.
All 18 AFL clubs currently use GPS tracking devices from Melbourne-based company Catapult Group International. According to reports, the clubs have expressed they do not want to change providers as they are happy with Catapult’s services and have serious concerns that switching systems will render their important historical data useless as the system’s are not compatible.
While you’d be forgiven for thinking the endorsement of the entire competition would probably be reason enough to give Catapult the nod of its own volition – it gets even better still.
After receiving proposals from a number of applicants, the AFL Football Operations Department, headed by Mark Evans, commissioned an independent panel of industry experts to review portions of the proposals to assist them with their final recommendation to the AFL executive team.
This panel consisted of high performance experts Darren Burgess from Port Adelaide, David Buttifant from Carlton, Andrew Russell from Hawthorn and David Joyce from Greater Western Sydney who, after a month-long review process, strongly encouraged the AFL to re-sign with Catapult.
Almost as surprising as the news that Carlton has a high performance department, is the AFL’s decision to completely disregard both the panel’s recommendations and the desire of its own club’s to award the lucrative contract to Champion Data, a company that is 49 per cent owned by the AFL and the official provider of statistics for the league.
And just in case the water wasn’t already murky enough, tip into the equation that AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon and general manager of broadcasting Simon Lethlean are both directors of Champion Data and members of the AFL executive team, who of course will always have significant input into the league’s preferred suppliers.
While they were apparently removed from the decision making process, in so much as it appears the executive team has acted upon the recommendation of the operations department, you’d be pretty safe to assume that, at the very least, they’ll be pretty bloody pleased with the result.
Providing the technology is the equal of its competitor’s, which at this stage appears somewhat doubtful, I’m happy to acknowledge that there are potential gains for the AFL in utilising the same company to provide the GPS data as already supplies their statistics. However, an apathetic endorsement from a man who writes a small blog probably won’t be enormous comfort to Catapult owners and shareholders, who saw their shares drop by 12per cent on Monday when the decision was announced.
If the AFL decide to proceed with the Champion Data deal, as appears certain, there’s a strong possibility they’ll face legal action over it – certainly Catapult won’t have to draw too long of a bow to show there’s a conflict of interest here roughly the size of Mike Fitzpatrick’s ego.
This is an audacious decision by the AFL. Given their track record in wanting to acquire complete control of the game I can’t say I’m surprised they’ve made it, but it shows an impertinence that characterises the organisation these days. The AFL are a ruthless, profit-driven organisation – and under that remit, a very successful one.
What we really need to ask ourselves is, are the AFL executive team making decisions in the best interest of the game, or just to benefit both the business and themselves?
jax
Guest
Port CEO Keith Thomas is the 2nd club CEO after Pert at Collingwood to ask the AFL for an explanation on why it ignored the unanimous decision of the expert panel to award the contract to Catapult. The AFL is yet to give an explanation - hmm, how can we tell them we did it for the money without actually saying that? The AFL operates by doing whatever they like without having to explain their actions to anyone, they need to be stopped. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-ignored-club-recommendation-to-keep-gps-player-tracking-providers/story-fni5f9de-1227513445859
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Does this mean that every club will have access to every other club's data? You'd hardly think so. We'll get whatever the AFL decides we (as fans and followers of clubs) decide we should have. Track record? Not so good As a baseline give us drugs and supplements used by other clubs (kidding..).Parties attended, cars crashed into. Sign up for the premium service
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
You're not really going to be pushed over by any feathers if you found out the AFL didn't give full and due consideration to one their decisions right now! But data is like gold and chances of bunfights are rife especially if these sort of contracts are drawn up by administrators without due input from the technical guys and so can miss out on crucial stuff they're just not aware of. Sometimes the oversights are of a degree requiring them to be fixed up post hoc, which isn't always the easiest thing to do.
Bob
Roar Rookie
Great points @Dalgety. As I mentioned in the article I can certainly understand why the AFL would want access to the player data and have the ability to integrate it with their statistics provider in real time - they possibly view the potential telecast benefits as worth the risk. However at this stage (by my understanding, which may be wrong), that information is the property of catapult and the clubs, who could be justified in not necessarily wanting to share it. Is forcing the clubs to hand over access to all of their player data (both game and training loads, etc) through a dubious tender process a little bit of a step over the mark? We'll see I guess. That's of course not even looking at the other argument, which is that they've awarded what I presume is a lucrative deal to a company headed up by two of their employees for an inferior product. Allegedly. Maybe I'll just slip my tin-foil hat back on and keep plugging away....
jax
Guest
I agree and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. Really good stuff Bob
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think what they may be trying to do is get greater access to the data (Catapult owns the data at the current time). From my understanding the preference was to have it run conjointly with Champion Data & Catapult, so the AFL via Champion Data could store the data themselves (and have more surety and flexibility into the future), but Catapult hasn't wanted to consider that to this point. I think this may be more a game of brinkmanship, where they are hoping to get Catapult to be more flexible with the ongoing contract.
Bob
Roar Rookie
Absolutely. Still, doesn't mean it should go unnoticed even if GPS data isn't the sexiest topic.
jax
Guest
So the AFL ignored the advise from the clubs and the independent panel and awarded the contract to itself and its buddies over at CD even though the product is inferior. Sounds a lot like the Govt contracts that get awarded. There are conflicts of interest everywhere you look unfortunately.
Leapin Leo
Guest
The only mystifying thing is whether the AFL is incapable of disguising their self interest or just can't be bothered. Going on past form, probably both.