I remember the day Chris Judd announced he was leaving West Coast. It was equal parts horror that your club’s best player was walking out and relief that the wait was over.
It was like the conclusion of many long-term relationships, in that the drawn-out process to it ending was what was churned the stomach the most. But once the decision was made, at least the post-breakup healing could occur (although plenty of personal relationships healed quicker than the grief of losing Judd).
Gradually, the wide colours of the opportunity that now presented itself replaced the doomy grey of impending heartbreak.
Who would Judd nominate as his club of choice? Who would we get in return? What was the best deal at the trade table for all parties concerned? How can this be turned into a draft opportunity?
Losing Judd was both a major loss and a major moment.
To have Jeremy McGovern re-contract for another five years ends the speculation of whether the relationship will end and brings forth only joy at the potential of the future with him in the side. That particular piece of the puzzle is now in place and the fans can turn their contract-related attention to Andrew Gaff and Scott Lycett.
But, of course, this attention can really only be speculation, given that the AFL does not release player contract information and fans and media alike can only speculate on how the salary cap is bundled together across an entire list to produce a whole.
[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]
Fans often laugh in dismay at how members of the media quote ‘sources’ to report on the likelihood of a player leaving via trade or free agency. This guesswork is enhanced in its speculativity by the fact that there is imperfect information at play.
The NBA and many other American leagues release player salary information in a way that is open and transparent, which spawns an entire media expertise revolving around team expenditure, within a complicated salary cap and tax system.
For the casual follower, it is pure noise. But for the dedicated fan, it spurs discussion about a team that truly enhances the experience beyond simply barracking for your colours.
The role of ‘list manager from the front bar’ would be much more informed, beyond thoughts of ‘we should pay Andrew Gaff $1 million a year’, which unfortunately is a comment devoid of any substance, purely by a lack of decent context.
Economics 101 suggests that a well-functioning market (including say, a free agent market) relies on perfect information being available – which is generally impossible, but in the case of the AFL is blatantly stifled.
We know there are a few million-dollar-a-season players. We also know via the AFLPA that the average wage is approximately $371,000 a year. But using average numbers adds little value.
In fact, the mere mention of this as an average falsely locks it in as what behavioural economists would call an ‘anchor’. The anchor point is simply a psychological bias that clouds judgement, and in this case would distort any discussion around any given players market value. It’s misleading information.
It does go against the Australian mindset to release contract information. It sits somewhere between ‘bugger off’ and ‘working-class man’ in the Australian psyche that this kind of information might be made public – in short, it’s kind of out of bounds in a social policy sense. There is an expectation of humility about those that have risen up to succeed, mixed with a subtle desire for tall poppies to be cut down.
But in sport, we celebrate our champions and rarely deny them receiving mega paycheques (which, in contrast to other sports globally and even the corporate sector, is actually very small) – so there is no need to be so sensitive about this information.
The fans would love to know where a contract bargain might lay and it would surely benefit those players in bottom of the pay ranks to have that information in the mainstream. It would allow those that truly want to invest in contract analytics and the niche fandom of team number crunching to indulge to their hearts’ content.
It would change the face of contract speculation away from statements such as ‘war chests’ and into something that might even be evidence based.
So what, if any, reason is there really against withholding this information?
Jim
Guest
As long as someone told you they are a public servant and you know their name, then you can easily find out when they were promoted, and from that can usually derive their salary (As the bands for 99.5% of people are just time based).
Jay
Guest
Firstly, I really like the way you write and congratulations on a terrific article. I would personally love to know what each player is paid and I'm a sucker for any kind of stat I can get my hand on. But in saying that, I don't think it's a path we should go down. I think the players are under enough pressure and scrutiny and it's only a matter of before a player commits suicide. I'm not suggesting that your proposal will lead to a person taking their life but I do think that it will do more harm than good. That's just my opinion and I look forward to reading more articles.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
He's more consistent than Rance.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I can understand Fasolo and Bolton preferring WC. Better chance of getting a game there.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Quite possibly more than Fyfe. ?
Jon Boy
Guest
Mcgovern way better than ''Flopper'' Rance and Cripp's has way passed ''Flopper'' Dangerfield.
Jon Boy
Guest
i doubt Ross would even play Fasolo before Dud Ballantyne but he still has a lot to offer Alex great pickup .
Show me the Money
Guest
Poor answer Jai. If you want to advocate for an issue surely you must be prepared to provide information to support your argument. Given you didn't have the courage to respond with an appropriate reply your whole article is discredited
Liam
Guest
Then why don't you make it clear for me then, Cat, because your comments suggest you disagree, either with my argument or my reasoning.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Just on JMcGovern.The West says $1m per year,Fox says $1.2 m per year.Tax bites of course, but it seems that he's the highest paid for football alone. Is he worth more than Rance?
Cat
Roar Guru
You've made a lot of incorrect assumptions. Let's start with the simplest and most obvious: where have I said I am for or against revealing salaries?
Liam
Guest
So let me get this straight. Your response to the prospect of completely revamping the concept of public good and/or workplace privacy rests on the fact that 18 year olds and/or kids much, much younger 'knew what they signed up for' when they chose to invest their times and effort towards something they're indoctrinated via media and culture to want to be. Would that be a fair summary of your argument here? Never mind the degree to which the AFL media landscape and prospects have grown since - for example - Brian Lake was drafted, or since Gary Ablett jnr was drafted or even since he was traded. There was not the unbelievable amount of speculation over trading and drafting, nor was there the insidious invasive prospect of Channel 7 getting into a coach's huddle or Richo sitting on St Kilda's bench on a Friday night. There was vultures sitting outside clubs, but only if there was already a story; now, we have people camped outside clubs where players have until next October to re-sign for their clubs (Patrick Cripps) and hounding players as they leave their private doctors, sitting outside their homes and inside their lives. We have bleaters like Craig Huchison and Damien Barrett and Caroline Wilson saying that clubs and officials are beholden to the press, and should front up to talk about issues that aren't even their areas of governance or expertise. In short, could Luke Breust or - hell - even Luke Hodge have known where the league would be as it is right now when they were 18? Let's take as given your case that they assumed the burdens of the role as it stood when they chose to become career footballers. Did the two listed above assume the risks of things not even imagined at the time of their choice? We cannot know the future, so we cannot assume the risks of it without some guarantee that there are things that need to be protected, and at the peak of those rights should be the right to keep your information as private as you yourself choose. We should not need to defend our rights to not have our salary printed online or in the public sphere; that we do makes me wonder exactly how healthy our obsession with sport truly is, that we're willing to do this simply to make more articles to feed us.
Cat
Roar Guru
One doesn't assume 'the burdens' of being an AFL player until much later – obviously – but even kids that young start to understand some of what it means to be an AFL player. It doesn't take a university educated adult to see that if your a kid chasing an AFL players signature that if you dream to become an AFL player yourself part of what goes with that is being chased for your signature. As kids grow older they learn more. They either accept it and continue to dream and pursue a career as a professional footy player or they give up and accept its 'too hard'. Stop acting like kids turn 18 and enter the draft completely clueless about what they have to give up (and what they stand to gain in trade).
Liam
Guest
So, what you're saying is that children above the age of 5 who aspire to become AFL footballers, dedicate their time and their lives from that point for the next 13 or so years, you're saying that they assume the burdens of that lifestyle, Cat? At five years of age? Cool.
WCE
Roar Rookie
apologies I meant to type Shai Bolton from Richmond not Jye.
reuster75
Guest
Well said, especially when you consider the average lifespan for a player is only a few years. If the argument goes that the AFL makes money off the public interest (which I can kinda agree with) then why should it only be the players that would be subject to this? Why not anyone who makes a living directly as a result of the AFL (administrators, coaches, football department members, commentators etc.)
Cat
Roar Guru
None of which should come as a surprise to anyone above the age of about 5. Any kid that dreams of playing AFL will have read all the things you've highlighted and known full well that by choosing to pursue a career as an AFL player that is what comes with it. It's all part and parcel.
Cat
Roar Guru
The biggest difference between the NFL and AFL is the magnitude of the difference between offers. In AFL even 'big' offers like the purported ones from NM are only a couple $100,000/yr more. In the NFL the difference in offers can be $1,000,000/yr or more. That extra zero can make turning down a bigger offer a helluva lot harder. This is why the AFL salary floor is killing rebuilding teams.
reuster75
Guest
Being a smaller club with no recent history of success North are always going to struggle to attract free agents so have no choice but to 'throw money at players' if they're to have any chance of landing someone. In NFL in the US (which is the template the AFL usually follow for most decisions) the best free agents will often sign for 'smaller' less successful teams for more money as they often don't have guaranteed contracts, and also players become free agents a lot quicker over there. Neither of these factors are at play in the AFL so the top free agents move to a club they think will help them land a premiership. I applaud North's aggressive approach and if I was a North fan i'd be very happy with what they're trying to do.
Liam
Guest
I would say in response that these players are cultivated towards becoming footballers since well before they reach the age in which they can be employed by the AFL, and the kind of attention this places on kids in their late teens is beyond absurd already. Lukosius and Walsh and Smith are already house hold names, despite either having turned 18 very recently if they've turned 18 at all; these players haven't even been drafted, yet there's interviews and profiles detailing their height and their weight, their agility and their attitude. Then they become AFL players, and they have all of that monitored by their football club. If they're drafted by an interstate club, they leave their home, and while that's perfectly fine for some it really isn't for others. They're subject to scrutiny from the media from the second they're drafted for the rest of their lives, some more some less so; some get out without being interviewed much at all (Matthew Scarlett comes to mind, no-one ever hears from him) where others cannot escape their own fame or notoriety without leaving the country (Jobe Watson). Some players (Nathan Ablett) just want to play footy; they don't want the fame or the money, or the burden of the every day grind that comes with turning a passion into a job. And now, you want to subject their wage to public scrutiny as well? I get that you seem to think that as the AFL is very much run in order to make money off the public interest, but that alone does not make the players a commodity the way the Supercoach leagues would have it.