Last week it was said by Caroline Wilson that there were three potential changes to how free agency works in the AFL still on the table as the league works with the AFLPA to finalise a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The current system is that to become a free agent, a player must have spent at least eight years at their current club, but the proposed changes would make the rules a little looser.
For example under ‘free agency for life’, a player who moves to a new club as a free agent would still be considered a free agent when their next contract runs out, even if they haven’t yet spent a further eight years at their second club.
The provision would likely be only rarely used in the league as the vast majority of players who move clubs do so only once in their careers, and you could count on a single hand the number of three-club players currently going around.
‘Portable free agency’ would be a similar proposition – a player who has played eight years in the AFL, regardless of whether or not they have done so at a single club, would qualify for free agency.
Again, that seems unlikely to be used often.
These changes wouldn’t have much of an impact on the game and in some ways it is a surprising they weren’t already a part of the deal when the league first introduced free agency in 2012.
However, the mooted change that would have a truly enormous impact on how the game is played off the field would be ‘four-year free agency’, a ruling whereby any out of contract player with at least four years of service earning the median AFL wage or less would be an unrestricted free agent.
Now, before we descend into any fits of hysterics, it’s worth noting that this change seems unlikely to go ahead. Wilson said in her article that only one of the three changes described above was certain to happen, though all three potentially could.
Gillon McLachlan also recently said that any changes made to free agency eligibility would be “minor ones” – so here’s hoping he’s aware that this would be far from minor.
The biggest issue facing the AFL regarding player movement these days must surely be the fact that so many young players are leaving their clubs early, particularly from the direction of clubs in the northern states to those in the south.
Yes, it’s fair to say that AFL players should be allowed to make the decision to move clubs at some point during their careers, but for them to be able to hold their clubs at ransom after only two years is already threatening the integrity of the draft.
(AAP Image/Patrick Hamilton)
The obvious example of this is Brisbane, who have already lost six first-round draft picks to ‘homesickness’ in the past few years, and are looking increasingly likely to lose another in October this year.
Of course, the same thing is also happening to the GWS Giants, despite them having modern facilities, a strong club culture, and the prospect of immediate success just on the horizon.
Gold Coast too were hit hard by Victorian clubs looking to poach their players last year. Although the three clubs have their differences, they share one unavoidable disadvantage – the damning geography of living above the Barassi line.
If the four-year free agency rule were to be introduced, it would surely become even harder for these clubs to retain their players – and they would be at risk of losing them for nothing.
It would essentially give young players another way to hold their clubs to ransom. At just 22 years of age, clubs would need to be paying them above the average AFL wage or risk them leaving the club for no return.
Certainly there are some players who by their fourth year in the system are justifying being on more than the average wage, but there are plenty who do not, particularly taller players, that it would be disastrous for clubs to lose with no compensation.
That would put clubs in a dilemma of either overpaying young talent just to keep it around, or risking losing what might have been a high draft pick with nothing coming back the other way – not a decision they should be made to face.
In her article, Wilson stated:
“The four-year rule has also been proposed by the players as an equalisation measure given that footballers struggling for opportunities at successful clubs would relocate to less successful clubs seeking regular selection.”
However, anyone who has been following the AFL long enough knows it doesn’t really work like that.
The players who leave strong clubs for weaker ones are typically those that lack the talent to make the grade in a good side, while the number of players travelling in the other direction is many.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
In a larger sense, I believe the issue with the entire dynamic of player movement in the league at present is that too much concession has been made towards giving players freedom of choice, and it is unlikely to ever be won back.
Players now have the right to move via free agency, and that’s fair enough, but player trades are essentially a slightly more complicated version of free agency, virtually always initiated by players, who can refuse to agree to them.
I don’t mean to say that the players aren’t people and that they shouldn’t have rights, and I’m aware that in most other industries people have at least some manner of choice when it comes to where they live and work.
But, most other industries don’t offer six-figure incomes to 20-year-olds. The AFL is a unique industry and it’s one where, while player welfare is extremely important, for the good of the industry as a whole it must be balanced against the interests of the clubs.
At this stage it seems unlikely that the AFL’s clubs will win back any rights over player movement in the new CBA – and perhaps they never will.
Even a push to extend draftee contracts to three or four years has reportedly been met with a steadfast refusal, unless the eligibility period for free agency were to be significantly shortened in return.
At the very least though, four-year free agency cannot be allowed to happen – it would only make it easier for player movement to cannibalise the clubs, disillusion fans, and move the whole system one step closer to being flushed down the toilet.
Cat
Roar Guru
A much better, more accurate and with proper citations and research paper is: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/4659/1/4659_Davies_2006.pdf
Paul D
Roar Guru
Should have stuck to the Swans where you seem more knowledgeable – your comment about Wingard is wrong on all counts, he said it to GWS, not us – they were the only ones who could draft him before Port Adelaide got their go. He was totally up front about his intentions and completely within the rules of player movement. I applaud him for his honesty, frankly.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I agree with Cat on this. You'll find guys rarely get homesick from great clubs.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Wow, I'm being threatened with being at the bottom of the heap. Sorry, I'm a bit over scaremongering at this point. Asking me to keep the faith is like asking Trump voters to keep track with trickle down economics. I don't know if the new proposal will work, but I know the old system ain't working, and that makes me more inclined to smash it up and try something else.
MG
Roar Rookie
In your article you have used median and then average. These are two different things. For median you place the salaries in a list and the one at half way is it. The Swans have 43 on the list so player number 22 is getting the median salary. For average you take the total paid and divide by the number of players. The average will be higher than the median because a few superstars at the top get the big bucks (Buddy and Tippett) and then the half a dozen stars get well above average as well. This is then evened out somewhat because players in their first 2 years are on about $80.000. As most teams have a best 22, players outside of that are the ones subject to 4 year free agency. The Swans used to recruit from others quite a lot before that trading ban by identifying players that were not getting regular game time and in some cases guaranteeing them best 22. I don't think it is a big deal but I still don't support any freeing up of free agency. I think they have gone too far all ready. Chad Wingard saying to the Lions before the draft that I'll be leaving after two years is draft tampering. If you want to play you play by the rules. It's a national competition and that means you might have to move interstate. If you don't want to move interstate then play local league.
Seano
Roar Rookie
Sydney and Western Sydney are global cities so no help needs to be given to them. But for the QLD teams perhaps something as simple as allowing them to have half of any Zone Players salary not included in the cap would help? Eddie won't like it but too bad!
Cat
Roar Guru
Or perhaps 'homesickness' is just an excuse one player used and others saw it work so they've jumped on it too.
MG
Roar Rookie
I believe your last paragraph is actually the case. The players are on an AFL contract. This means that the players have no case for claiming restricted trade. They are free to choose to play AFL or WAFL or Soccer.
Angela
Guest
I find the 'homesickness' thing fascinating. We are talking about 18,19, 20 year-old young men. I come from a generation where we all left home at 17 and, if we came from the country, went off to work in the cities. No phoning home, no email, internet and because we were all paid relatively low wages getting back home when we could was usually via very slow trains. Many young men (and women) went off to war at 18. Not that I'm wishing that on young people but really, we seem to be raising utter wimps, loathe to move out of their comfort zones.
mattyb
Guest
Always good points Anon when discussing the game on a national level. Well said although you could have bypassed the 'mummy boy' insults,but otherwise your right on the money.
mattyb
Guest
Powerboy,thanks for the acknowledgment but I still think Victorian football has an important part to play. The fact though that Victoria is the leagues strongest state but only really has 3 viable Melbourne teams and one rural ream,this is just a complete waste of the leagues so called strength. The whole VFL. suburban thing is just living in the past,but I feel it would be counter productive to just kick some of the Victorian clubs out. I think the AFL need to adopt a model that keeps the most fans within the sport while losing the old suburban relic and expanding with the states new geography. I think Melbourne/Richmond should join forces as a central club,Footscray/Essendon representing the NorthWest,NthMelbourne/Carlton the North and St.kildaHawthorn the SouthEast. This would be far more viable and even exciting to progressive people. Collingwood would remain as a memory and a sign of respect to the old VFL while Geelong remains as the rural club,representing rural Victoria. That's six clubs,far more sustainable and each club has a geographical pocket to try and grow the game and entice new supporters. Victoria should be able to sustain 4-6 clubs so let's start with six and see how it goes.
Lroy
Guest
You my friend have expressed an opinion. We wont know unless it is challenged in court. http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/07/22/salary-cap-legal-or-illegal/ Is an interesting article on the matter from another writer on The Roar.
TWLS
Guest
Onya Powerboy, +100
Hawkeye
Guest
If they were to implement the 4 year rule, but ban the 4yr free agents from going to a Top 8 club from the year before, that would change the game and open up the likelihood of increased free agency also increasing competition evenness. As it is, if you talk about players moving up or down the ladder with their free agency moves, there has been an obvious increase in good players from lowly clubs moving up to finals clubs, a reasonable turnover of quality players moving sideways between finals level clubs, and virtually zero movement of class players the other way other than Dayne Beams (off the top of my head). And he had family reasons, as well as leaving one non-finals club for another. So he was a sideways (with a hint of downwards) move with mitigating circumstances... Griffen's move is hard to quantify because (again, from memory) at the time it was a "sideways" movement between two non-finals clubs, but the Giants were clearly about to go gangbusters, and the Doggies didn't look like they were going anywhere. How wrong THAT turned out to be!
Aransan
Guest
Good one!
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
By that logic, we should also get rid of the draft. Employers have no right to 'hire you' if you don't want to work for them. Remove the draft and players can knock on the door of any club they choose.
Powerboy
Guest
Sorry Cat, it doesn't. By signing the agreement to enter the draft, the player signs away his legal rights. This is the only way a player may enter the AFL. ALL players are drafted by one way or another. In no other workplace in Australia does this happen. Under Australian workplace law such practices are illegal. It is only by signing away one's Australian workplace rights that this is allowed to happen. In other words... The AFL is a cartel.
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
Agree. Dropping the free agency period to 4 years would consign the East Coast sides to perennial cellar dwellers. Isn't it amazing that the likes of Eddie McGuire who are forever bleating about the concessions handed to the likes of the Giants and Swans ignore the natural advantages Victorian clubs have regarding attracting and retaining players. Having a look at the 2016 draft, I would estimate that at least 75% of the draftees originate from Victoria. That's a major advantage when you are talking about players wanting to return home due to home sickness. There are host of other advantages Victorian clubs have in attracting players but that seems to the 'divine right' of Victorian clubs according to the book of Eddie.
Cat
Roar Guru
If you read the actual law the salary cap does stand up.
Lroy
Guest
I dont see why players put up with any of it. McLachlan earns 3 times what the best players do...how many AFL games did he play?? All the rest of those executives at the AFL earn big bucks... The AFL are blowing 100 million each on the Gold Coast and the Sydney Skodas, yet players cant get paid what they are worth?? Neither the draft or salary cap would stand up in a court of law if challenged, so if the players want more money, abolish them. # this was just a random comment, Im not replying to anyone...not sure how it ended up as part of another conversation....