Tradition should be celebrated, but not when it prevents the growth and integrity of the game.
The 2021 AFL grand final in Perth, and Sunday’s NRL grand final in Brisbane, flashed an exciting opportunity on what the future of Aussie rules could have been.
The AFL is at one of the most important junctures in its history. Decisions made in the coming months will leave an indelible legacy on the size and health of the game. The top AFL executive brass need to realise the seriousness of the moment and take full advantage of it.
The increased accessibility of international sport, (such as the NFL, basketball and European soccer), facilitated through nascent streaming platforms (eg. Stan Sport, Kayo etc), is going to have an unprecedented effect on fan attention towards the AFL.
Aussie rules will further have to compete with other general entertainment platforms, like Netflix, in what can only be described as an increasingly contested viewership market.
For the AFL to thrive in this emerging, saturated environment, it needs to actively rebrand itself as ‘the Australian game’ and match its rhetoric with its actions. The AFL needs to engage thoroughly with every fan base in every state, capturing the attention of casual or otherwise unengaged supporters.
That’s why the $500 million deal it signed to keep the grand final at the MCG till 2057 is one of the most flagrant missteps in the game’s history.
Keeping the AFL’s largest spectacle confined to a single oval in a single city will significantly damage non-Victorian support of Aussie rules. Depriving cities of the possibility to host the grand final not only prevents an economic boost to the local region but also forgoes the opportunity to spark an interest amongst casual or new fans in that state.
Interstate teams playing against Victorian clubs have further cited the clear integrity issues of hosting the game at the MCG. It undermines the competitive meritocracy of the game by providing a consistent and unfair home advantage to Victorian sides.
There are two alternative frameworks to hosting the grand final in one location every year. Both models would require the AFL to annul its current agreement with the MCG.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Superbowl model
The Superbowl model is based off rotating locations that the NFL hosts every year. In the NFL, host cities bid 3-5 years in advance for the right to hold the Superbowl at their stadium. For example, Superbowl 54 played in Miami in February 2020, was the result of a bid selected by the NFL in 2016.
The biggest advantage of this model is that the integrity of the game becomes unquestioned. Indeed, the game is almost always played on a neutral field where neither side is established (eg. West Coast and GWS would play in Brisbane). Another advantage would be that it grows the game by capturing the excitement of fans, creating a palpable buzz and economic boost within that state.
The largest disadvantage to the Superbowl model is that competing teams fans will still likely have to travel to watch the grand final.
Tom Brady’s Buccaneers were the first team in NFL history to win a Superbowl at home. (Photo by Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images)
“Home court advantage” model
The “home court advantage” model is borrowed from the NBA’s game seven advantage. In the NBA, two teams play a best of seven series, in which the first team to win four games advances through the playoffs.
The team which finishes higher on the ladder plays the deciding game 7 at their home city. In an AFL context, the grand final would be played at the home field of whichever highest ranked team remains. For example, if the Swans and Freo played in the grand final, with the Swans finishing first on the ladder, and Freo finishing fifth, then the grand final would be played at the SCG.
The advantages of this model are that at least one team will play in front of their home fans, saving interstate football families time and thousands of dollars in travelling costs. A further advantage is that since around half the AFL teams are based in Victoria, the MCG will still likely host the grand final every second year.
The biggest disadvantage to the home court model is that the grand final venue is decided two weeks before the game.
What do you think Roarers? What’s the best model?
Eddy J
Guest
Legally they can’t? But they’ve played the last two grand finals in Brisbane and Perth. Also played the 1991 grand final at VFL Park in Waverley. The AFL Grand Final can be played anywhere, if there’s a will to do it.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Yet you want the minor premier gifted the GF. Funny haha.
RT
Roar Rookie
WA had about 10000 general admission tickets. If travel wasn't restricted there wouldn't have been any. Dogs and Demons members works have taken them all So much for saving people travel and accommodation expenses.
RT
Roar Rookie
Very good point. The minor premier can effectively be decided on who had the better draw, who had better weather for a percentage booster or who got to play a team testing players.
Yardman62
Roar Rookie
Hey guru Sheek it’s not an arrogant assumption that your idea is wrong just that it lacks detail on how it will improve the sport. Not changing cause it ain’t broken is an arrogant assumption on your behalf that everyone wants the granny at the MCG every year for the next 30 years. Even a guru like you should admit that WA and QLD did a great job over the last 2 years or maybe we all should have waited till Melbourne is ready to take the game again. Always having a nice day ????????????
Lukey Miller
Guest
You are right, I think. The AFL should have been more inclusive when deciding to extend the MCG 's right to stage the GF until 2059 and many will not forgive that.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
So they've 'earned' nothing! You work it out.
Haha
Guest
Yep, minor premiers often dont make the GF. So what.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Why do you have to engage both? Kids in Victoria, SA and WA are rusted on by the time they can pick up a footy.
Johnno
Roar Rookie
You have to engage both......& that’s why you need to evolve the game. Having the GF outside the MCG every say 3 or 4 years will only upset a few rusted on ancientVics, don’t see a problem.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Nice red herring. This has nothing with the argument.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
You could throw in a week bye pre-GF and that gives a two week lead in… logistics could be managed… I don’t buy that argument. The reason for a decades long agreement at the MCG is nothing about logistics - it’s all about a sense of entitlement (of Vic clubs), vested interests and greed. People with their noses already in the trough are going to protect what they’ve got….and who cares about fairness. Again, the AFLW shows the way - the highest ranked team can host the GF, and they did this to massive crowds at Adelaide Oval. It is doable in the men’s game but it won’t be happening.
BBQ BILL
Roar Rookie
Not sure what the bet model is, but the GF should definitely be played in other states more often. It's supposed to be a national game, but we all know that is a farce. It is controlled and directed by a Melbourne cartel in Melbourne's best interests. The way the MCG 50 yr contract was covertly rushed through behind closed doors was nothing short of corruption and lacked any transparency or accountability. It reeked of Victorian bias and no doubt was largely done to lock that money stream into Melbourne. Yes the MCG GF has been a Melbourne tradition for a very long time, but it seriously needs to wake up and look towards the future. It needs to breakaway from the old boys club and truly embrace the competition as 'National' and do everything it can to support and promote this ideal. Victoria aside, the game is national and historically has been played in other states for a similar length of time, give or take a couple of decades. It started in Victoria approx 1860 and started in Fremantle in 1880, Adelaide in 1860, Sydney 1870, Qld 1860's, Tassie 1860's, and in NT around 1916. The Perth GF at Optus proved that it can be held and marketed successfully outside of Melbourne, not only that but it put on a fresh and vibrant new face to the GF, instead of the stale old 'has been' cheap charlie entertainment of the MCG with all it's rusted on entertainment cronies from a bygone era. Perth showed the rest of the country the future of AFL and the GF. And that was in the middle of Covid! Time to get on board the 'National game of AFL - it's in the title Australian Football League (not Victorian). Victoria should be rightly proud that it has created the AFL, but it is time to let go of all it's bogged down biases and truly let the competition soar! States will upgrade or build stadiums accordingly and the GF can be shared around. Alternating with the MCG is a good start. While I appreciate the problems and lack of lead time to set up properly, it the powers that be truly want it to happen!
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
A 3 game GF series? This is a pretty big change. I can see the benefits if you are going to have home teams playing these games.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Not knowing where an event of this magnitude is going to be held a week before it is actually held would create numerous logistical problems? Sponsorship / accommodation is going to be very difficult to lock in. Is our game all about sponsorship? Definitely not, but is a necessity that pays a lot of the bills. Gaining revenue to pay your bills is something the huge majority of the population can relate to on a daily basis.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
When the AFLW starts regularly drawing 50K crowds to their H&A matches & 70K crowds to their GFs paying $200 a ticket then they might review their business model.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
Yes – a three game series would address people who are concerned that venues like Hobart or Gold Coast may be to small to host. With a three game series you’d get games in smaller 20-30K stadiums (Ie hosted by Hobart and Gold Coast) but also games at larger venues for game #2. The upside is hosting by the higher ranked team are substantial – it rewards the highest ranked team (fairness), and it gives all fans the possibility of attending a GF (again, fairness). The AFLW is not shackled by the MCG deal and it will therefore be able to function in a merit based way that delivers a fair outcome to players and to fans… the AFL currently does not, and it will not. I think most would concede that inequity is now baked into the AFL system for historical reasons, and that vested interests (media, Victorian clubs) will ensure that this inequity is locked in for a couple more generations to come. It would be nice to see Adelaide or Sydney host an AFL GF – but this will take another pandemic or people at the AFL waking up and growing up (neither or likely). Over time the AFLW will show the men’s competition how it’s done … we can just be glad that the AFLW wasn’t around when that deal with the MCC was struck because no doubt they would have been roped into that as well and we’d be seeing all AFLW finals at the MCG.
GoGWS
Roar Guru
So what. The bottom line is that the AFL erred, massively, by chaining itself to a such a long term deal that disadvantages most of the clubs in the competition, and most fans in the competition. The rest is mere detail. It’s a shocking blunder that two generations of players and fans will now deal with … and we see with a blamk page that a competition like the AFLW has done far better by not making this same mistake. I do think that internally the AFL would acknowledge that this episode wasn’t their finest hour.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Fair enough, thanks.
RT
Roar Rookie
I am simply responding to your comment: In the expansion year of 2011 rights income went from $750 million over 5 years to $1.25 billion. Even though the Giants and Suns costs to the AFL blew out, $200 million over 5 years, the League gained $500 million in that time – a demonstrable profit play It is not a demonstrable profit play unless your can break down how much of that increase would have occurred anyway. I would say at least 8/9.