An AFL website article over the weekend suggested wheels may be in motion to put an end to the rookie list, and possibly also reduce total AFL list size, introducing two-way contracts to provide clubs with depth instead.
Axing the rookie list is undoubtedly a good idea, the other two a bit more questionable.
But before we get into that, it’s worth considering the state of affairs more broadly.
The AFL is three years away from something of a D-Day, the end of season 2022, at which time its current broadcast deal and collective bargaining agreement with the AFLPA will both come to an end.
These two negotiations are inextricable. How much broadcast revenue the AFL gathers effects the salaries that can be offered to be players, and vice versa – especially since the last CBA established a direct link between revenue and salary cap.
The league has consistently increased its broadcast earnings every time a new deal arrives during the modern era, culminating most recently in a landmark six-year, $2.5 billion deal struck in August 2015.
However, three years out from the next negotiation, the AFL appears to be facing the possibility of a deal which is stagnant at best or regressive at worst.
Declining TV ratings have prompted the competiton over the past two years to look at significant rule changes and shortening the halftime break as ways of improving audiences, all so far for little to no return.
This comes, not coincidentally, at a time when traditional broadcasters are showing a greater and greater reluctance to invest in sports rights, most recently played out in the form of Fox Sports’ apparent disconnect from Super Rugby.
The possibility might be there for the AFL to make a bold step and cross to a next-gen sports broadcaster like Google, Facebook, Twitter or Optus – or at least engage in discussions of that nature.
How this plays out remains to be seen, but it’s certain that there is uncertainty, and where there is uncertainty there is tension.
Gillon McLachlan hs plenty on his plate (AAP Image/Julian Smith)
Concurrently, we know that the AFL has made dramatic changes over the last five years to the mechanisms by which clubs build their lists – bringing in a new academy and father-son bidding system, the option to trade future draft picks, the ability to trade picks live during the draft, as well as the supplementary selection period and the mid-season draft.
And broadly speaking, the majority of these initiatives have been successes. The clubs have fallen in love with future pick and live draft trades, and fans have enjoyed watching them play out.
The SSP and mid-season drafts in only the space of one year have already provided success stories like Sydney Stack, Michael Gibbons and of course Marlion Pickett.
More questionable is the bidding system. It makes a kind of sense on its own, but meshed in combination with future pick and live draft trading has created a status quo where any club that has a pre-tied prospect can rort the system if they’re smart enough.
That’s proving functional at present because every club has an academy now and they seem mostly happy enough to watch others rort the system when they know they’ll get their turn at some point too, but is it sustainable? The matter may well come to a head later this year in what’s shaping as a particularly compromised draft.
What is clear is the list-management mechanisms remain a work in progress. Gillon McLachlan himself said in November last year that he didn’t see the league arriving at a stable routine for trading and drafting, but that fans instead should expect continued change.
All that being the case, it comes as no surprise that the league would give consideration to axing the rookie list, which appears that the clubs have outgrown.
Nearly half the picks in last year’s rookie draft – 16 of 33 – were used by clubs to relist players they had themselves previously delisted, shuffling them about only for the purpose of being able to put part of their wages outside the salary cap.
This is more effort than it’s worth for everyone – there’s no need to force clubs and players through such an onerous process nor to have fans follow the machinations of it in the media.
For that reason I’m fully on board with the league putting the rookie list to bed. In fact, they should take it one step further and collapse a handful of the competition’s less-used functions into the same mechanism.
Currently we have delisted free agency, the pre-season draft, the rookie draft and the supplementary selection period all providing a means for players who couldn’t find a club via draft or trade to be added to lists. They all do essentially the same thing, so why not make them the same thing?
My pitch is that before the AFL trade period begins, every club should be required to confirm whether they will or won’t offer a deal to the uncontracted players on their list.
Any player not offered a deal could join the club of their choice as a supplemental signing at any point between then and the start of the new season. Any player who was eligible for but not taken in the national draft, now the only draft, can do the same once the event concludes.
Seems like it would make life simpler for everyone to me.
Sydney Stack, a supplementary selection success story (Photo by Mark Brake/Getty Images)
Cutting the size of lists is a thornier issue – the AFL.com.au article suggests lists could be reduced to somewhere between 40 players per club (which would cut 72 players from the league) at the high mark to as low as only 30 players per club (which would cut more than 250).
It’s difficult to imagine the AFLPA agreeing to something which puts any number of players out of work, let alone nearly a third of the league.
Of course, this is where ‘two way’ contracts come in – deals which would allow players to represent an AFL club’s state-league level reserves and be called up to play for the top-tier side as depth when needed.
However, this would mean lower salaries for depth players, who already seem to be getting by on the minimum chips salary.
Another AFL.com.au article reported last year that at most clubs, “about 80 per cent of the cap goes to the top 15 or so most valued players”.
Do the maths and this means the other 30 or so players are accepting the competition’s minimum salary or just over. While the ‘average’ salary may be nearing $400,000, the median player would be lucky to earn a third of that.
Cutting the size of lists seems like it would only free up more cash to float up to the top-tier earners, putting more money in the hands of few and giving less opportunity to those on the fringe. Not to turn this into a political allegory, but I’m not a fan of that either as philosophy or in practice.
What’s the answer then? The simplest route I’d say are set lists at a max size of 45, but five of those spots are only available to players who join the club as international or other sport signings, supplementary signings on minimum wage (i.e. not a Jack Martin in the preseason draft type), or mid-season draftees.
If the AFL is interested in simplifying the list management landscape without changing it too drastically, making it easier to navigate and fans to follow, this strikes me as a good starting place.
Could we then see more radical changes to how players join and move between AFL clubs when it comes time for a new CBA? There are intriguing ideas out there – my 2018 pitch for an auction draft being just one example – and this is no doubt a space to watch with interest over the next three years.
Antony Pincombe
Roar Rookie
Good article Josh. It is definitely food for thought. I fail to see how cutting the lists to 30 would help the club at all. Yes, it would give more money to top enders as you say but at the expense of players who make up the guts of your club. not only that what would the club do if they get hit with lots of injuries. some seasons clubs use well over 30 players due to injuries, soreness and resting players to reduce the chance of stress related injuries. I agree the current draft and trade system is unwieldy. We seem to constantly borrow from the Americans without really understanding the concepts or how over burdening some of these systems are. we need to move on and develop simpler systems that suit our game not someone elses.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Well written Patrick, when will you be posting an article on Roar?
Marcus
Guest
Sacrificing your outside opportunities to have a shot at the big time? Happens in every sport around the world. Life is tough.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
He is the exception isn't he, and $197k isn't much for a player who was fifth in the Brownlow medal. Players in secondary leagues with dreams of playing AFL do it tough, almost like having two jobs with a single job income and of course the chances of success are minimal -- even if successful in being picked up by an AFL club they are more likely to be earning close to $100k than $200k. For many of those with AFL dreams their ability to complete their trade or academic education is limited indeed. I am sure career prospects after football are significantly diminished for many players so the average player need to be well remunerated while they are playing at the top level.
Marcus
Guest
Leaving aside sundries such as a re-location allowance, Kelly would have earned $189k in 2018 and $197k last year. What's your point?
Slane
Guest
Tim Kelly was on the exact same wage every other draftee is on. 2 years at or just below 100K before earning a bare MINIMUM of $110k a year in his 3rd season. And no, there aren't 50 other Tim Kelly's. He was a mature age draftee who was working a trade while playing in a state league. If he never played a single game in the AFL he would be rewiring somebodies house right now. The idea that the AFL should bear the burdens of every struggling bloke in the state league who dreams of getting on an AFL list is honestly laughable.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
I think you will find a few 30yo players on minimum money. There are also players in secondary competitions on very little money hoping to be picked up by an AFL club. Tim Kelly comes to mind, from Wikipedia: "He made his senior WAFL debut for the South Fremantle Football Club in 2013. He was runner-up in the club best and fairest in 2014.[2] During the 2017 WAFL season he finished runner-up in the Sandover Medal to Haiden Schloithe.[3] Before being drafted into the AFL, Kelly was an apprentice electrician." Kelly would have been on minimum money at Geelong but now has a big contract at West Coast, for every Tim Kelly there are 50 others who never make it.
Patrick McKenna
Guest
You know, I'm over all the high paid administrators at the AFL trying to justify their grossly overpaid salary packages, seriously..! I mean, changing the AFL to AFLM, what a load of crap. How about the stupidity of the proposal to reduce the half time break, I mean, what was all that about. Its fine for the AFL and Club officials because they sit in their corporate boxex, eat and drink to their hearts content WITHOUT ever having to get up from their seats and venture out to stand in line to purchase food and drinks at grossly inflated prices ohh and not to mention trying to go to the toilet as well during the half time break ... These out of touch Administrators need to have a serious reality check instead of continually trying to justify their positions.... Did they for one second consider the damage they would be perpetrating to the Oz Kick kids programme... The nursery for the future of the game... Shame on you. And now some bright spark wants to do away with the Rookie list.... Mate this is Australia not the USA I am a proud Australian, an AFL devotee who is currently living in the Philippines and working as a volunteer to help desperately poor families to have running water piped to their simple, dirt floored shacks... This was my reality check and what I have learned from it is... 'if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it' I'd recommend that people in AFL house Stop trying to fix things that are not broken as a means of justifying their positions and inflated salaries and get back to the basics of looking after the people who make this sport the greatest sport on earth... The fans and the players, without whom, they would be irrelevant... You know sometimes the little people need to be heard, respected, acknowledged and appreciated.... Just saying..! Salamat Po, Patrick
Slane
Guest
The worst case scenario for the worst paid player in the competition is that they earn $75,000 for 2 years and then have to go get a 'real job' or education at the age of 19-20.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
The average person doesn't have to make the commitment that footballers have to make. Footballers have a short career and frequently have compromised their futures outside football -- apprenticeship or degree? Not everyone gets a job in the media.
Marcus
Guest
Not sure what you mean by you "hope that is the case". It is the case under the provisions of the AFL CBA. Competitive sport is tough. In 2018, there were 25 players across the AFL who earned under $100k. This would likely consist of Rookies and First and Second year players who didn't play more than a handful of senior games, if any. Note they would also be receiving additional match payments from VFL/SANFL, etc. Not saying they haven't worked hard, but someone has to be at the bottom of the totem pole. And have they contributed enough to "deserve" more? Plenty of aspiring sportspeople across the globe are doing it hard for little reward. Without knowing anything about say, NRL, am guessing there are plenty of fringe players in that league earning far less than minimum chips in the AFL.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
$100K plus health cover and who know what other perks is hardly peanuts, unless we're saying that the majority of the population of adults working full-time are only getting paid peanuts. Even without the health cover and assuming no games played, that still puts them in the probably the top 40% of full-time wage earners in Aust. "he average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults in Australia in May 2019 was $1,634 (trend), according to new Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures released today." https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/030E8BEF4B0B915ECA2582EA00193B04?OpenDocument
Aransan
Roar Rookie
Well I hope that is the case but I am sure there are players running around who have been in the system for a while who are playing for peanuts. I would prefer players be to be paid $10k per match but this would reduce payments for elite players. I can't imagine that depth players late in their careers would be paid much. The commitments that need to be made to compete successfully in the game are enormous. Is the AFLPA letting down the average player?
Aransan
Roar Rookie
The stronger clubs will be able to build stronger academies -- many potential future players will be able to choose the academy they belong to. Isn't that how it would work in many instances and defeat the whole idea of the draft?
Chancho
Roar Rookie
That's far too punitive. Which would only be at the expense of clubs being able to put on entertaining footy and the AFL negotiating better broadcast agreements in the future
Marcus
Guest
Don't disagree with the idea of removing the rookie list, but your contention about a median player being lucky to "earn a third" of $400k is well off. The median player salary in 2017 was over $300k. https://www.afl.com.au/news/85831/player-payments-revealed-millionaires-on-the-up In 2020 the base for a 3yr and up player is $110k plus $5k per match. 5 senior matches from the worst paid player in the league gets them past your imagined median.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Absolutely get rid of the rookie list. Your list is your list, singular. Sometimes there is bad luck, deal with it. No mid-season draft or anything either; that just trashes the next tier down (as do some state leagues taking players from local footy mid-season, largely AFL reserves doing it). The sport is more than the AFL. With lists and the salary cap there are far too many add-ons. It really needs a reset, and go back to being simple. You have your list for the year, under no circumstances can you pay more than this amount for them (including third-party deals).
6x6 perkele
Roar Rookie
Doubt departments that focus solely on list and wage mngt need a simpler system, agree revenue from future broadcast deals is an issue. The rookie list isn't redundant imo and clubs going for known quantity players they would of be forced to delist in most cases a continuation of their career is aok with me.
TomC
Roar Guru
Good article. Thanks Josh
JamesH
Roar Guru
Interesting article Josh. Sometimes I think peak sporting bodies like the AFL can over-complicate things like this. "The simplest route I’d say are set lists at a max size of 45, but five of those spots are only available to players who join the club as international or other sport signings, supplementary signings on minimum wage (i.e. not a Jack Martin in the preseason draft type), or mid-season draftees." If I understand you correctly, players could only occupy one of those last five list spots for one season before they would either have to be delisted or retained in one of the primary 40 spots, with the last five spots being opened up again for SSP etc. In effect, doesn't that just keep the rookie list in place (with the player retention cap reduced to one year), but without the 'rookie list' label?