With Tom Lynch seemingly out the door at Gold Coast, once again we have no shortage of talking heads and internet commenters decrying free agency as ruining the game.
The same old arguments are getting wheeled out: the top clubs get better, the bottom clubs get shafted, players only care about money and so on.
Now, the AFL free agency system is far from perfect, but let’s look at the arguments we get each year to see if they have merit.
The good clubs get all the best players
‘The rich get richer’ rolls off the tongue of just about every free agency critic at this time of year. There have been 66 free agents change clubs since it became legal in 2012, and this is how each club has fared, from most to least:
6: Essendon
5: Collingwood, Carlton, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide
4: Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Richmond, Western Bulldogs
3: Brisbane, Geelong, GWS, St Kilda, Sydney
2: Fremantle
1: Adelaide, West Coast
You’d think Hawthorn and Sydney had a monopoly on free agents. They haven’t.
Three of Essendon’s free agents came in the year their players were suspended and needed to top up their lists.
The fact that recent strugglers such as Melbourne and Carlton have signed so many free agents, and recent grand finalists Adelaide and West Coast have only signed one each, should show that free agency doesn’t seemingly make or break a premiership tilt.
Of those 66 free agents who have moved, 33 – exactly half – were delisted by their original club. Free agency simply allowed them to join a team that wanted them, without having to join the draft – which was a major reason free agency was brought in originally.
Of course, there are free agents, and there are free agents – Colin Sylvia is no Buddy Franklin. So let’s look at players who had made an All Australian team before leaving.
Brendon Goddard left St Kilda to join Essendon
Nick Dal Santo left St Kilda to join North Melbourne
Dale Thomas left Collingwood to join Carlton
Lance Franklin left Hawthorn to join Sydney
Nick Malceski left Sydney to join Gold Coast
James Frawley left Melbourne to join Hawthorn
James Kelly left Geelong to join Essendon
Tom Rockliff left Brisbane to join Port Adelaide as a restricted free agent
So of the few All Australians who have left their clubs, only St Kilda has lost more than one – and Nicky Dal was pushed out – while only Essendon has gained more than one, and James Kelly was a top-up player.
It’s not only the top sides receiving free agents, and it’s not only the bad sides losing them.
AAP Image/David Moir
Players only care about money
If players only care about money, then lower teams would be getting players left and right; they’ve got the most cash to throw around.
Or, players get criticised for joining teams that are already good so they can win. This generally means they’re leaving money on the table.
But more often than not, players don’t end up going anywhere.
Just in the last few weeks, we’ve had Tom McDonald, Marc Murphy, Rory Sloane, Jeremy McGovern and others all re-sign with their clubs rather than hit free agency, while last year saw Dustin Martin, Nat Fyfe and Josh Kelly do the same.
AFL players are still far more loyal than most other professional athletes.
So what’s the problem?
There are problems in AFL player movement, but it’s not solely to do with free agency. Instead, clubs aren’t using restricted free agency properly, any offer made to a restricted free agent can be matched by the players current club, andn other leagues – such as the NBA – it’s basically expected restricted free agents will sign an offer sheet with another team.
Even their current team is willing to pay anything to keep them, they will often wait for a rival team to make an offer first. That way, the market decides the value for a player, meaning the current team doesn’t pay more than the guy’s worth and the player can ensure he isn’t held to ransom by his current team expecting a discount out of loyalty.
No AFL club has matched an offer on a restricted free agent. Why not?
So long as they have the salary cap space, the Suns could match any offer made to Tom Lynch and keep him. True, you may have a miscontent on your side, but he’s a miscontent you can trade somewhere else and likely get more than a compensation pick.
Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images
Free agency is meant as a reward for veteran players to choose where they want to work. The reason they’re required to have been in the system for a few years before they become free agents is to protect the clubs that draft them, so they’re able to get some value from their draft picks.
But clubs don’t have any protection at the moment. Currently, a player doesn’t even have to wait until free agency to pick where he wants to play – if he tells the club he wants out and demands a trade to a particular team, there’s nothing the club can do, because players are able to veto trades if they don’t want to go somewhere.
Think Jaeger O’Meara demanding a trade to Hawthorn after only four years, or Brisbane’s ‘Go Home Five’ a few years back.
This has to stop. If a player wants out only a few years into his career, that’s fine – but the club that drafted him should be able to send him to wherever they’ll get the best return.
It’s speculative, but you’d imagine, say, Gold Coast would be better off if they’d been able to send Dion Prestia, Charlie Dixon, O’Meara and others to any club that would pay the most.
Other codes have measures in place to make it easier for clubs to retain their players.
Most obvious would be financial advantages. In the NBA, a player’s team has his ‘Bird rights’, meaning they are able to offer him more years and more money in a contract than rival teams.
Or, the AFL could allow teams to go over the cap by a certain amount if the money is used to re-sign one of their own free agents.
Look, player movement is never perfect – that’s why bargaining agreements are negotiated every few years. And no, the AFL’s free agency system is far from perfect, but it doesn’t seem to be the league-wrecking disaster many make it out to be.
Chris
Guest
As a Collingwood man, I would prefer a father-son to Tom Lynch. However, by buying him we would be precludng somebopdy else from having the advantage of fielding him every week. So, I don't think this resembles the Swans Buddy nonsense at all.
JamesH
Roar Guru
No, it means I have named three wanted players (four, if you count Betts). But my point wasn't to say that lots of players leave weak teams for stronger ones. Just the the small number of wanted players who have left via free agency mostly went in that direction. It's too small a sample size to draw firm conclusions but I think it's a far more useful analysis of the effect of FA, however, small, than just looking at the number of free agents each team has received or the number of former AA players who have moved. The four clubs you named are some of the biggest and most powerful in the competition. They haven't all been successful over the FA period but strength is more than just lifting the cup. Supplements saga aside, those clubs have all been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as both (a) 'destination' clubs and (b) clubs that have the capacity to win or become winners in the short term. Compare their situation to some of the smaller Vic sides or those in Qld - can you see that lopsided nature changing any time soon? As an aside, I reckon Essendon is a far more attractive club now than it was a few years ago ;)
Paul D
Roar Guru
Gee I'd like to see that. Given the AFL owns Etihad outright they'd essentially be covering the costs themselves Add it to the list of what a truly aspirational competition in terms of equalisation would look like, as opposed to this fraudulent VFL rigmarole we have now.
Sam
Roar Rookie
Dangerfield could have signed with Geelong as a restricted free agent, meaning all Adelaide would have got in return was a compensation pick. But Adelaide said they would match whatever offer Geelong made to keep Dangerfield, so it forced Geelong to trade for him instead of getting him for free - thus netting Adelaide a better return.
Guttsy
Guest
The big vic four should really be the big vic six but isn't because of mismanagement at two club. The clubs that are missing are of course Carlton and Essendon. The struggling Melbourne clubs of St Kilda, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne need to be treated as a special cases, particular Melbourne as the oldest Football club not only in Australia but also the world.
Ben
Guest
Interesting article. All this angst perhaps is a false assessment of why Gold Coast are getting smashed on losing players. The fact that Lynch is the latest of a long line of top,shelf talent that has left that club has put focus on freee agency. But OMeara, Prestia, Ablett, Caddy(?) weren’t lost as feee agents. Take Ablett out of it and the reality mentioned within the article about players ability to force a trade even when they are contracted. And this is where the players seek to go and play on “broadway” which is the latest term to creep in to the Melbourne based media language. Richmond, Pies, Cats, Hawks and to a certain extent Sydney are on broadway....free to air, marque games.......the remaining teams play in what I call the Foxtel Cup. The best players will always want to play for the big Vic 4...... cash, exposure and relevance.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Dangerfield was traded to Geelong for Picks 9 (became pick 11 - Wayne Milera) and 28 and Dean Gore in return for Dangerfield and pick 50, no free agency at all.
Guttsy
Guest
Tom T, What is the problem with the fixture? By far the biggest problem with the fixture is that some teams travel a lot further than other teams. Some people see the problem of the fixture being that one team might play better teams twice while other teams play weaker teams twice. I see this as an insigficant disadvantage/advantage when compared to the problem of teams disadvantaged by their travel requirements. Lets start by acknowlegding that all Melbourne based games for Melbourne based teams are actually HOME games.
Guttsy
Guest
Paul, "Right now any 20 year old with a manager can demand a trade to any club of his choice and there’s nothing the club can do in practical terms to stop them." I think it needs to be recognised that the clubs that lose out the most to player movements, whether it is Free Agency or Player Trades is Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS. I also think it needs to be recognised that for Melbourne based teams their "Away" games against other Melbourne based teams are actually "Home" games and this a big advantage to them because it doesn't involve any aeroplane travel. People complain about the fairness of the fixture but by far the biggest unfairness assoviated with the fixture is that some teams travel a lot more than other teams and it is the Melbourne based teams that are advantaged by this and the teams outside vicoria that are disadvantaged.. To help even this up a liitle, Brisbane, Gold Coast and GWS should each have three games, that would have otherwise been played at Etihad Stadium (note not the MCG because this is the home of football and everyone wants to play there) played in regional Queensland and Canberra. Brisbane can play their three games in Cairns, Gold Coast could play their three games in Rockhampton and Mackay while GWS can play their three games in Canberra. The nine games can be taken, one each from the Melbourne based clubs (note not Geelong) , that would have otherwise been home games for these teams. In addition GWS could move some of their home games to Canberra while the Gold Coast Suns could move some of their home games to the Sunshine Coast. Maybe even in time, it might make sense for the GWS to move their team base to Canberra and the Suns to the Sunshine Coast with a few home games played in Western Sydney and the Gold Coast respectively. Doing this could help these teams develop their profiles in these markets and in time they could become important sources of players for these clubs. Also it would help develop game in none traditional markets.
Sam
Roar Rookie
Yeah, the Roar guys messed that bit up. It's back to being correct now.
shirtfront
Guest
Dale Thomas didn't leave St Kilda he left Collingwood to join the enemy and James Frawley left Melbourne, Dal Santo left St Kilda because they were going down the road of Youngsters.
Sam
Roar Rookie
"So take out the 33 DFAs out of the list of 66 FA transfers, then try and mount the argument that the good clubs don’t get all the best players, you’ll find it much harder." No, not really. Here's the list of all restricted and unrestricted free agency signings by club: Adelaide: Eddie Betts Brisbane: Brent Moloney Carlton Dale Thomas Collingwood Quinten Lynch, Clinton Young, Daniel Wells, Chris Mayne Essendon: Brendon Goddard, James Gwilt, Matthew Leuenberger Fremantle: Danyle Pearce, Colin Sylvia Geelong: Jared Rivers, Scott Selwood Gold Coast: Tom Murphy, Nick Malceski GWS Dawson Simpson Hawthorn James Frawley, Ty Vickery Melbourne: Shannon Byrnes North Melbourne Nick Dal Santo, Jarrad Waite, Shaun Higgins Port Adelaide: Matthew White, Tom Rockliff, Steven Motlop Richmond Chris Knights, Troy Chaplain St Kilda: Nathan Brown Sydney: Lance Franklin West Coast Xavier Ellis Western Bulldogs: Matt Suckling, Jackson Trengove You mention most DFAs become role players at best - the same can be said for the majority of UFAs and RFAs as well. And the EPL has no salary cap, so it's hardly an adequate comparison here.
Guttsy
Guest
The draft often takes players to locations (i.e. cities) they don't want to be in after their footy career is over. As I see it an important element of free agency is helping players to get to the city they want to be at in the long term and after their football career has finished. It needs to be recognised that being close to ex team mates and club supporters from the club they played at is an important safety net for ex players and their family in their lives after football. Clubs need to assisted by the AFL to take players who have played a number of years elsewhere and want to return to club iin their home city/state but may not otherwise fit into that clubs plans. In addition free agency is important 1) to make sure clubs reward and adequately look after players adequately for their talents by allowing other clubs to make offers to lure the player to their club. 2) to give players who are out of favour at a club or no longer fit into their clubs medium/long term plans the ability to go to another club Yes Free Agency as it stands isn't perfect but the AFL system is better for it than it would be without it. I think it also needs to be recognised that Free Agency is something that can't be perfect because it deals with a number of competing characteristics of football like - giving players an option about which club they want to play at VERSUS loss of club loyalty which is what fans like to see - helping the player be better rewarded for their talent VERSUS the club being not rewarded for developing the player
Slane
Guest
I remembered White because I'm a Richmond fan. It was very annoying that he essentially left the club because Hardwick used him as a Sub every game and then the AFL got rid of the Sub rule.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Sure. You could have said a lot more though in other areas, and a lot less too on areas you did discuss.
Charlie
Guest
You're absolutely correct that DFAs need to be included when discussing Free Agency as a whole, but they are completely irrelevant when discussing "The good clubs get all the best players". DFAs, are not the best players, they are players that have been delisted by their club. So take out the 33 DFAs out of the list of 66 FA transfers, then try and mount the argument that the good clubs don't get all the best players, you'll find it much harder. Fact is, from all non-DFA transfers that have taken place, very few have involved a player moving from a stronger club to a weaker one. Another way of looking at this is to examine the 33 DFA transfers - how many of those players have gone on to become key members of their new team? Almost without exception, these players have become depth players at best - most of them struggle to break into their new team's best 22. If Free Agency is allowed to continue in it's current format, the AFL will develop into an English Premier League-style competition, where the same 6-8 teams contend for the premiership each year and the remaining teams will be fighting for the scraps. Once in a blue moon a team from outside this group will make a miracle run to the finals, a la Leicester City in 2016, but this will be a very rare occurrence. Anyone who believes otherwise supports one of those 6-8 teams and/or has their blinkers on.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I'd like to see a system where a player can demand a trade to a state of his choice. At least that way clubs could have some leverage or bidding going on - given that there are now two clubs in each major city. It reeks when a player says I want to go home to say WA but only to the Eagles, for example. That's way too much player power for mind. It would also do wonders for breaking up the stranglehold the top Victorian clubs have on things, given they'd have to bid against several other clubs. Clubs like St Kilda, North, the Dees, Carlton and the Dogs should be all in favour of this.
Lroy
Guest
''....so they should get no say in where they end up'' Take it easy Trotsky, we still live in a democracy... a player has to have some say in where hes headed.
Lroy
Guest
Ill give you a thumbs up for that +
Sam
Roar Rookie
Fair point re Adelaide and Danger. That's the type of thing more clubs should be willing to do.