There has been talk lately about the possibility of raising the age at which players become eligible for the AFL draft, an idea I would gladly support. Although there might be short-term pain, it would benefit players, clubs and the league as a whole.
From a player perspective, raising the draft age would have numerous benefits. Crucially, it would mean draftees did not have to juggle school and football commitments, giving them some breathing space to focus on their studies.
It would give them an extra year to just live their lives – at that age, many of their friends will be off starting uni, with a three or four-year degree separating them from the workforce. Those years can afford them the opportunity for travel and personal development.
Coming into an AFL system at 18 years of age, young players are not afforded that luxury. They live and breathe football six days a week for the vast majority of the year, and may have few opportunities for personal development.
The football system can be so all-consuming, and affording kids the opportunity to spend another year travelling, pursuing further study interests or engaging in other passions can only be a good thing for their long-term wellbeing.
This may also help address the issue of homesickness for players drafted to interstate teams. For many draftees, moving interstate to their new club is the first time they’ve lived out of home. Learning to adapt to a new environment as well as to a full-time job can be a daunting experience.
If these players have had a chance to travel and experience life outside of school and home, it may help them adapt better to an interstate move.
On a more existential level, it may help them to appreciate their football careers more from an earlier age by giving them more perspective.
Many retired footballers comment that they didn’t fully appreciate how lucky they were to be playing football for a living until they were near the end of their careers.
An extra year between school and being drafted may help aspiring draftees realise that they don’t want to be laying bricks or working at a fast-food chain like their friends, and make more of their opportunities earlier in their careers.
In addition, entering the draft a year later may help them to make smarter financial decisions when they are drafted.
Earning an inflated salary in their first year, with little experience of how money works in the real world, could mean that some younger players don’t value money, and are out of touch with how much those in the general workforce earn for their work.
Hopefully, having an extra year to experience earning money and what normal wages look like would give them perspective and encourage them to make beneficial long-term financial decisions.
On the other side of the coin, for clubs, drafting a player is a huge investment, often upwards of $300,000 for the salary, training, development and support of a first-year player.
Often clubs draft players on the back of a few good games, or a particular talent, but do not have a clear idea of how that player will develop. This can see draftees spend two to four years on a list before they play a game.
Clubs would be much better served drafting players with an extra year of development under their belts.
It would allow them to more accurately judge whether that speculative ruckman might develop into a handy player, or whether a dour key defender can develop a more offensive side to his game, rather than waiting several years to then determine that a player won’t make it.
(AAP Image/Patrick Hamilton)
One of the arguments advocated by proponents of the current system is that raising the draft age would hold back those who are ‘ready’ to play AFL, consigning them to a year in the football wilderness twiddling their thumbs.
However, ‘ready’ is a subjective term – basing a teenager’s readiness to play AFL on their exposed TAC Cup form can be risky, as even the best underage players can have trouble bridging the large gap in level between underage and AFL-level football.
We’ve seen Tom Boyd, Josh Schache, and Paddy McCartin have this issue in recent years. First-year draftees who do make an immediate impact at AFL level are rare – only those in the elite bracket.
The majority of those who get drafted will take time to adjust to the higher level game, and may be better served with an extra year of development under their belt.
I also disagree with the argument that those players who are ‘ready’ when they are 18 would become disillusioned in that extra year.
Many TAC Cup players have little to no experience playing in State league competitions – that extra year could be a perfect opportunity for them to spend a year developing their fitness and adjusting to a higher tempo of footy. This may require changes to the way the VFL operates, but it would be worthwhile.
Leaving the draft age as it is just because raising it may hold back a handful of the most elite players does the game a disservice.
Structurally, the TAC Cup system and State leagues may need to change, which would be an expensive and lengthy process; however, this has never stopped the AFL before. The league has shown time and again that if it thinks something is worthwhile, it will make it happen, regardless of logistical speed humps.
With all the mooted changes to the fixture system and match review panel interpretations swirling around at present, the league is looking to find ways to change the game for the better.
Raising the draft age is one change that would have a significant impact, and the sooner it’s done, the better.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Frankly, this is a well intended but bad idea. For example, athletes in the US that aspire to play in the NFL are already required to go university for at least three years where they train as professionals without getting paid. Even with the "education", many still find themselves in the same boat as the AFL players. The same thing will happen here.
Baz
Guest
its pretty silly in my book id say no. The clibs can give them better training for many thimgs then on thier own. Maybe make it u cant go til u finish school.
Aransan
Guest
There wouldn't be too many players drafted after the first round who would play many games in their first year. How about only allowing 18 year olds to be drafted in the first round of the draft? I would expect the bigger players and those with birthdays late in their draft year to be better assessed by clubs with a view to drafting. Perhaps start off the new system with only allowing the drafting of 18 year olds in the first two rounds.
GJ
Guest
I thought the players had to nominate for the draft. I imagine if they wanted to have a gap year they'd delay nominating. Clearly some players are ready for AFL at 18 and some aren't. I imagine the clubs would rather get these players sooner rather than later. Start "educating" them in variety of disciplines from diet, media, rehab, training, skills, game plans, weights etc as soon as they possibly can. Most of the players who aren't immediately ready for AFL would be playing in the second tier competitions of NEAFL, SANFL, VFL, WAFL anyway. Has anyone bothered to ask the players what they'd prefer? My guess is that most of them would want a chance as soon as they possibly could. I would be inclined to keep the options open for a variety of pathways onto AFL lists. Clearly some players do mature later, or spend a few years working out what they want to do and where they fit in.
Mark
Guest
You are an A-grade tosser
Cat
Guest
I reckon that's ten times as much as most other 18 to 22 year olds make. Where else do 18 year olds with no experience walk in the door and get paid a minimum of $70k a year plus match payments and incentives?
Perry Bridge
Guest
There's nothing wrong with playing some local senior footy to bridge from TAC Cup to AFL lists. Many of the best players are the ones who've played senior country footy at age 16 - already know how to handle themselves around 100kg adults. Whether the TAC Cup or the schools comps - the young fellas are given a pretty shallow exposure - in the past in U19s they would probably get some ressies top up games wearing numbers 50-59 and often being a bit of a guessing game based on the info in the Record.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Cat Don't forget - a player who get's in the system for lets say 4-5 years - starts on a relatively low base - and is paying taxes. If he is done and dusted after 4-5 years he probably never hit great heights pay wise. Did he perhaps get paid a total of $700-800K BEFORE tax across that time. He might have pocketed a nest egg sufficient enough to enter the real estate market but doubtful that he'd have been able to achieve mortgage free ownership. And - perhaps his career is cut short having had a few surgeries, got a plate here and a screw there and an ankle that'll never be the same and a shoulder that no longer rotates..... It's all too easy to focus on the '200 game/10 year) players as being the typical stories.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Once upon a time that 'elaborate academy system' was the Under 19s. I always pondered at the TAC Cup being set up as an Under 18s comp. But - it was geared to the draft. The old U19s was geared to producing reserves then seniors progression - with some identified who could progress straight through.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Those are all pretty much arbitrary allocated for that age, who's to say that there shouldn't be more consideration put into any of those. I don't think we need to be afraid of giving things a little bit of thought.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
"there being no real place for them to go in the interim" Perhaps, the question is whether there's a "real place" for non-footballers to go when they're 18. The majority of school-leavers who aren't going on to university study enter into a wilderness with little prospect of immediate, secure full-time work.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Top marks SF.
Cat
Roar Guru
Not all US sports players go through college, they can and do nominate out of HS.
XI
Roar Guru
It's an interesting idea but it's worth comparing the results of our professional leagues to the US leagues first. In the US players will have been through college sports for a couple of years before nominating for the draft. But in the US, I'd say there's a much higher rate of former sports stars suffering behavioural or financial problems. Maybe having that early mentoring can be beneficial to the players' early development and maturity. Perhaps an approach could be to keep the draft age the same but make it so 18 year olds can't play in the AFL until their second season at a club. That way they still have professional training and mentorship but don't get the pressure (or the money) of such a job straight out of school. It also means that they can get used to a new city and look into what other training they might like to do via university, TAFE, etc.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I wonder if a more elaborate academy system might be a bit of a way to compromise on this. Clubs can draft players and have them incorporated into a professional set-up and expectations immediately. If applicable, you could allow players the option of going interstate if they feel ready, but also establish a regime specified by their clubs in their home state. To save money there could be AFL training centres that clubs "rent" for their interstate players (maybe clubs could run dating services matching players with potential partners in their state to help acclimatise them to their destination states ;) ). Another potential measure could be to have a cap on the number of games a player in their first year could play at AFL level as well. It would protect the player from potential physical stress and by having across the board players can more easily adjust to the idea as well. You'd also want to extend the entry level contracts to a minimum 3 years with this sort of set-up perhaps.
kris
Guest
I think it would be best to ask the players what they think, and not only the current players but a wide range from the last 20 odd years including those who only lasted in the system for 3 years. Having had some friends be drafted and go through the journey facing pretty much all the challenges you described, I would seriously doubt they would agree waiting an extra year would of been beneficial. They loved the journey and have turned out quite well. Now I know not everyone is the same, but I think you are exaggerating the benefit an extra year would have.
Sydneygirl
Guest
Leave the age alone. Some players are ready at 18 but agree it should be a minimum 3 or 4 years at a club.
Penster
Roar Guru
Travel and "personal development" at 18 - generally involves backpacking and drinking or scrabbling around for the funds to do so doesn't it? Trying to think of a better environment for a talented young athlete to get a leg up in life than a professional sporting club. Player welfare, lessons from everything from putting on a condom (yes!), dealing with social media, mentoring, assistance with accommodation, business skills to manage their finances, in addition to professionally resourced training, sports science and nutrition, opportunities than most kids only dream of. My life would have been so much better if I'd been good at something and had less time for "personal development". Youth, it's wasted on the young ..........
Enough already
Guest
How about some safe spaces and therapy dogs too? 18 is old enough to drink, vote, go to prison. You can enlist at 17. But 18 is to young to decide to play footy?
Cat
Roar Guru
They've still made more money than most people by that age and young enough to do whatever they want to.