The AFL finally has their shiny new broadcast rights deal.
On Tuesday afternoon it was announced that the incumbent duo Channel 7 and Foxtel had retained the rights to broadcast AFL and AFLW matches.
For this privilege, between them they will pay $4.5 billion over seven years starting in 2025, with Foxtel bearing the cost of roughly 60 per cent of it.
It’s a colossal uptick from around $473 million per year for the 2023 and 2024 seasons, up to $642 million a year from 2025 and beyond.
This broadcast money is the financial backbone of the league – albeit supplemented by attendance money – and it allows the league to run effectively.
As a result of this significant uptick in revenue, the AFL Players Association has the perfect opportunity to act.
The AFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with its players is up this year, so AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh and president Patrick Dangerfield will be back negotiating with the AFL to try to get better rights for the players after this new broadcast rights deal.
The key thing to note is that the salary cap is directly tied to league revenue. In the last CBA, for instance, the players managed to negotiate 28 per cent of all league revenue up to $6.574 billion, and then 11.2 per cent of additional club revenue above that.
Seem like a lot? Actually, this is absurdly low when you consider the huge amount of players in the league, as well as their vital role in making the sport what it is. Without the players, the AFL just wouldn’t exist.
Compared to the AFL, the NFL and NBA players associations are far more adversarial with the league, and therefore more demanding. This is mostly because it’s not technically the league who cuts their cheques, but the owners of the teams.
It’s a more pure form of collective bargaining than the AFL and looks more like the bargaining process that happens across Australia in various industries. As a result, the NBA and NFL are essentially at an even revenue split. That’s how someone like Aaron Rodgers is going to take home about $50 million in cash this year.
The AFLPA, on the other hand, is far more willing to kowtow to the league, largely because of the degree of control that the AFL wields.
That’s why the highest-paid players of 15 years ago under the 2007-2011 broadcast rights deal, when the AFL was ‘only’ raking in $156 million per year (Jonathan Brown and Chris Judd), are still only earning about the same amount as the highest-paid players of today (your Lance Franklins, Dustin Martins and Jeremy McGoverns) – a little over $1 million per year.
(Photo by Darrian Traynor/Getty Images)
Whilst the rest of the league is making more money – 26 players in 2009 were making between $500,000 and $800,000, and more than half the league was making between $100,000 and $300,000 – it is apparent that the players need to push for a bigger piece of the pie. The average player salary in 2021 still sits at a comparably meagre $372,000.
Yes, it’s the AFL that signs the cheques, and the AFL has a number of other things that they underwrite – namely Gold Coast, GWS and a burgeoning concussion lawsuit settlement fund. But a 28 per cent split with its primary employees is closer to the UFC than it is to other comparably structured sports.
I’ve referred to the UFC here because that body has actively sought to destroy any attempts by fighters to unionise and are constantly – and correctly – lambasted for not paying fighters what they are worth. The UFC is a legal cartel with no real competition in their space; that sounds familiar.
The game earns more money than ever before, and yet that rising tide has not lifted all boats in the way that it should – indeed, in the way that it has in every single other comparable professional sporting association.
The Players Association must push for the league to move with the times and demand more money, despite the hold that the AFL has over the league.
The league cannot cry poor like they did over COVID, nor can they claim that there just is not enough to money to pay the players. There is enough money to go well above 28 per cent of league revenue being devoted to the salary cap, whilst still being enough left over for the AFL executive to hand themselves some bonuses.
The players need to, and should, push for a far bigger chunk of the revenue pie than they are currently getting.
But do I have faith in Dangerfield and Marsh doing it? Based on history, why should I?
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch the AFL on Kayo Sports.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
I don't mind the players getting lots of money, seeing it is the greatest game on the planet - what a spectacle! And if you think about it from an injury perspective and number of games played in an average career, overall it's not really too much.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
For now, it's enough is all I'm saying, let it develop first
Cat
Roar Guru
60 million isn’t much either.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Ya got me there I don't know, but I doubt it would be much
Cat
Roar Guru
Okay so tell me how much of the tv deal increase was because of the extra games the networks have to broadcast now? Hint: you can’t. Neither can I. But a part of that $2b increase in the tv deal surely came about because of it.
Cat
Roar Guru
Why should they have to? So as custodians of the game the AFL rightfully (though belatedly) saw fit to finally create a women’s league. Women have contributed to the game for decades, it’s long overdue they get something in return.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Righto mate, nice work I should have said negative 50 million dollars, but that would have sounded weird
Cat
Roar Guru
Never said they were. You claimed they made none. You are wrong. Simple really.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
They are not making 60 mill a year, I'll eat my hat if it makes a quarter of that.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I was about to respond by saying I will give you two guesses. But actually, I am pretty sure you will only need one!
Seymorebutts
Guest
Well provide evidence of how much money the women are making then.
Seymorebutts
Guest
Why don't the women split off form their own league and negotiate their TV deal?
Cat
Roar Guru
$60m may sound like a lot but the reality is it’s 0.75% of the tv deal. BFD. To claim the AFLW makes no money is disingenuous at best, completely ignorant at worst. Part of that tv is for airing the AFLW. There are also myriad sponsors associated with the competition.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
I would argue for equality, I would argue in getting what you pay for, convince yourself it’s awesome all you want, but right now, plenty is being put into the growth of the women’s game, more then enough I’d say, now you want them to earn more? The Men’s comp didn’t turn pro for 100 years, must be nice getting paid for what is rank amateur footy, rank amateur at best. There U15 comps in Oz serving up a better spectacle than these lot who are destroying their own brand by putting a terrible product on display. It will hurt the game far more to showcase and encourage this dross then it would letting the competition grow organically until their skill sets are far better then what they are now, then make it pro, don’t make it pro and go there, have a heap of cash, that’s a terrible business idea. But yeah, I’m a sexist lol, easy to label people when you don’t know their in depth opinions I’d say
Chum
Roar Rookie
There’s only one AFL, but there’s hundreds more blokes who’d give their right nut for a spot in an AFL roster and who wouldn’t look out of place on AFL field either. Who’s got the bargaining power now? Why do the players need substantially more money than what they’re getting now? In case you hadn’t noticed Australia’s pretty deep into an ongoing financial squeeze where most households are doing it tough – if you think now is the time for a PR war where blokes on hundreds of grand a year demand more money I assume you’re picking this up after working for scomo during his campaign. “comparably meagre $372,000” Call me triggered but that’s two of the worst adjectives I’ve ever seen in front of that amount of money. The players can have their argy-bargy with the AFL but at the end of the day they should realise the game is a lot bigger than they are and just accept whatever indexed pay rise they’re getting and get on with the game. Any union of pro sports that thinks Australia and Australians would react favourably to a player strike is delusional. Maybe they could strike on Saturdays – under our TV deal half the country won’t even notice anyway.
PeterCtheThird
Guest
You say Bulldust. Women’s football should not receive an increase because some games are not high-quality and are low-scoring. Would you argue that, say, male players should have some of their pay withheld because they don’t score a specified number of goals, either individually or as a team, or so much off per mark not taken? I’d be astonished if you did, and I doubt that the players would agree with you. I simply suggested that it would be a good idea for the growth of Australian Rules in the community generally if the AFL ensured there is enough moolah to expand the competition, provide more secure employment at higher levels of remuneration and all the other considerations that I am equally sure the AFPLA will be arguing for male players. If you regard women as not worth such consideration, that’s on you.
Cat
Roar Guru
Someone sure is triggered.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Here wo go, people with their hands out. Maybe it's just time to put some money in the bank and pay off some Covid debts, $372,000 is hardly meagre Be better off giving the money to charity, legit, it really would be.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
What load of bulldust, mate, there's been games with one goal kicked, and the comp costs $60m a year to run and makes nothing. What more do you want?
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
They'll need $100m for more Dangerfield posters and memorabilia