A worrying development in professional sport in Australia has been athletes signing long-term contracts, which could lead to the financial ruin of some clubs.
Recent reports indicate that Greater Westerns Sydney Giants player Josh Kelly is being offered a nine-year, $9 million deal with North Melbourne Kangaroos.
At 22, Kelly is a very good player most of the time, but he is not as dominant as a Patrick Dangerfield, Nathan Fyfe or Dustin Martin.
Lance Franklin started the trend in long-term contracts at the end of 2013, signing $10 million deal over nine years with the Sydney Swans. A deal meaning Franklin would be playing at the age of 36.
This weekend, Franklin plays his 250th game, at the age of 30 – well done Buddy. But I worry about how many years he has left, due to his dynamic and physical play. Not immune to soft-tissue injuries, if Franklin retires early, will the Swans be paying for an expensive player not on the field?
The answer is yes according to the AFL (who had serious misgivings about the deal), saying at the time, “An explicit acknowledgement that the long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Swans’ total player payments for each of the nine years, regardless of how many years Franklin is available to play for the club.”
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
The NRL has joined the long-term contracts realm, with Manly’s Daly Cherry-Evans’ eight-year deal, reportedly worth $10 million, signed in 2015.
Jason Taumalolo from the North Queensland Cowboys recently signed a ten-year deal believed to be worth $10 million. Taumaolo has a greater chance of completing his contract at the Cowboys, as he is only 23, but maybe not, due to the bruising nature of his play.
The AFL and NRL have salary caps in place mainly to protect clubs from financial mismanagement. I wonder how many clubs’ salary caps are now taken up by players no longer in the team, due to early retirement to injury, or traded to another club with a salary component?
Maybe I shouldn’t worry about long-term deals, as players are often able to break contracts by stating that they no longer want to play for a club. Ultimately, the club allows them to leave, as they don’t want a disgruntled player.
The AFL, due to its draft rules, appears to be stronger than NRL is making players adhere to contracts. Recently Bryce Gibbs’ request to be traded to Adelaide Crows was blocked by Carlton.
Clubs can also break contracts if the player has a supposedly brought the game into disrepute. The NRL has numerous examples.
But I do worry about this issue, as no player can guarantee their health over the long term.
The increased athleticism of both the AFL and NRL puts the human body under greater stress. Clubs will argue that they can monitor training and competition loads, but they cannot stop major ACL injuries, constant concussions, severe shoulder dislocations and Achilles tendon ruptures.
These injuries can take a player out of the game for a year and there is no guarantee they will return to their previous form. Gary Ablett Jr is a case in point – he has not returned to his best after his shoulder surgery.
Contracts should be limited to five years, reducing the liabilities of long-term deals. Clubs can renegotiate contracts based on their finances, player performance and the premiership window.
A team should not be centred around one player, as you cannot guarantee they will be always on the field.
dylillama
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not true
Don Freo
Guest
There's only Buddy and now, maybe, Kelly. Hardly a trend.
me too
Roar Rookie
I think Buddy is definitely worth the coin - whether he will be in his last few years is debateable. Nothing wrong with the dollar amount, only the length. Tippet was overpaid and obviously remains overpaid. Boyd too, but with a flag in their pocket the Doggies won't be complaining. It'll cost them players over the next few years, but well worth it in terms of where the club came from. North may have stolen a St Kilda target, be very hard to turn down that offer, even if it's to what appears a better prospect over his remaining career. Dustin Martin is worth $1m, but no way i'd like to see a longer than six year contract. In fact St Kilda should blow others out with $8mil, six year offer. Front ended heavily.
Birdman
Guest
the trouble with that approach Chancho is that failing clubs HAVE to be saved by the AFL due to the broadcasting obligations.
Birdman
Guest
maybe the AFL believe Boyd is more likely to finish his contract than Buddy?
Birdman
Guest
copy that GJ, as I said, it's a marketing strategy which makes it pretty meaningless.
Birdman
Guest
pretty sure Mitchell wanted to stay in Sydney but was made a derisory offer ($350-$400k) due to Buddy's heavily back-ended contract which will really squeeze the Swans over the next 2-3 years unless the CBA goes supernova.
GJ
Guest
The recent "Bloods" culture was chosen by the players at the time. It was part of the process after the club engaged Ray McLean from Leading Teams
Chancho
Roar Rookie
I agree with all your points Maggie. What if long term contracts go on to be a good thing for a club? What if long term signees help to build a strong culture at the club and provide certainty for list management? What if Josh Kelly, if he signs for North Melbourne, feels an overwhelming sense of comfort knowing that he doesn't have to worry about his contract for the next few years and goes on to become a magnificent footballer as a result. Just because there is a percieved risk of injury/retirement doesn't mean there needs to be rules put in place.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
nope, no further intrusion from AFL House into the opperations of footy clubs. Club Board members are paid more than enough to make decisions without the AFL imposing what they feel is right and wrong
dylillama
Roar Rookie
Thanks for JPK - I reckon he might turn out well for us. ;) I remember arguing at the time we recruited Tippett that we didn't need him and it would force us to shed players who'd earned their stripes. I stand by that. Buddy? He's just so good to watch. He's been priceless for AFL in Sydney and I'm more than happy he came to the club. He's done his part. I think his team mates would accept his contract - he's a once in a generation talent; he never lacks for effort; and he leads by example. Players understand what it takes to trade in someone like that. Tippett? Yeah no. Did it destroy bloods culture? I don't know. Maybe. But Sydney are still a factory for producing talent from unlikely places - rampey, allir, papley, etc etc. They're still a remarkably young team across the park. And our game style has also changed dramatically from the days of yore - we're not a hard nosed defensive unit any more and teams like the dogs trump us for attack on the ball and tackling intensity. And we've been losing the close ones for a while now. I don't think all that can be blamed on 'culture'.
dylillama
Roar Rookie
I agree with this. I think it's the NBA that restricts the lengths of contracts teams can offer for the very reason discuss in the article - in case of injury, loss of form, etc. Sometimes clubs have to be saved from themselves.
Maggie
Guest
This is a poor article, at least as it relates to the AFL (I can't comment on NRL salaries). But it has allowed the usual Roar commentators to trot out their well-worn negativity about the Swans. (Note how few of the comments above relate to the actual article.) The issues around Lance Franklin's contract were discussed/criticised ad nauseum when the deal was announced back in 2013. But relating to this article: 1. Franklin's contract didn't start a 'trend' in the AFL. Since his 9-year deal there has been ONE 7-year deal (Tom Boyd) and now the rumour of a 9-year offer to Kelly. Three does not make a trend. 2. Franklin's contract wasn't the first long-term contract in the AFL. Alastair Lynch signed a 10-year contract with Brisbane way back in 1994. (Not coincidentally, it was negotiated by Andrew Ireland who also negotiated the Franklin contract.) Near the end the salary was re-negotiated because growth in AFL salaries had made the original figure too low. Ireland is already being vindicated on the Franklin contract for the same reason. (I am not suggesting Franklin's contract will be re-negotiated - just that other players (eg Fyfe) are/will be paid similar amounts.) 3. A significant part of Franklin's contract is paid as an ASA (note how often Franklin is used in promotional work). Currently ASAs are not part of the TPP. 4. The Swans (and other clubs) do run a risk that injury curtails a player's career - but that could happen day 1 of a 4-year contract. It is a calculated risk. If that were to happen it would not lead to the financial ruin the author seems concerned about - caps on TPP and AWAs already limit a club's payments to players. 5. Franklin will be 35 in the last year of his contract, not 36. Plenty of top players are still playing at age 35. The author 'worries' four times in this article. I think he can relax and leave the financial responsibility to the relevant clubs. What he might want to concern himself about is following whether the AFL makes their approval of any new long-term deal subject to the same condition as imposed on the Swans - the condition he cites which stipulated the annual amounts would continue to be included in the Swans' salary cap whether or not Franklin plays out the full nine years. That condition appears not to have been imposed on the Bulldogs for the Boyd contract. A discriminatory retaliation on the Swans when the AFL wanted Franklin to go to GWS?
andyl12
Guest
"“Where were Sydney’s second-tier players in the 2014 GF? You know, the ones who got them over the line in 2012. Were they rendered irrelevant because the team was all about Buddy?” Yeah – that’s it. *rolls eyes*" Pity you can't answer a basic question.
Paul2
Guest
"BTW thanks for Tom Mitchell, I reckon he’ll be a star for us over the next 5+ years" No problem: by the look of things, you need him more than we do ;)
Birdman
Guest
Brian, the Roos will be forced to Tassie sooner or later starting with 7 to 8 games from 2021/2
Jim
Guest
I was told 2 years ago that Mitchell was likely to leave the Swans at the end of his contract to go back to Melbourne - that he preferred living down there. Ultimately, I understand the Swans made him a more than reasonable offer, but he took the more $$$ on offer by a desperate Hawks outfit. No doubt he is a contested ball king, but someone will need to teach him more effective disposals if he is going to be the player you think he will be.
Brian
Guest
I am not surprised by another 9 year deal. I am surprised its coming from NM. If this goes terribly wrong they could very well be jeopardizing the future of the club as it exists at Arden Street.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
"Before they got Buddy they were actually winning flags!" Yes, let's count them shall we. Won't take long: five. Any other nonsensical statements you'd like to make?
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
The Brisbane Lions (formerly Bears) offered Alistair Lynch a 10 year deal back in the mid nineties with the exception 2-3 of those years would be in coaching. That initially looked like being a disaster as Lynch developed chronic fatigue in the first year. It turned out ok in the end though as Lynch played the entire length of the contract. As for the Buddy contract, I doubt it will effect the Swans financially. By all reports Buddy has already paid for himself via increased membership and media exposure. The real risk for the Swans is that in 5 years time their salary cap will be taken up by a bloke who is sitting on the bench. If this occurs, it will hamper their ability to attract and retain other talent.