The AFL under Gillon McLachlan has made equalisation a key competition pillar. As the AFL strives to be a truly national sport, it continues to utilise several equalisation measures throughout the footy landscape.
These measures include salary caps on playing lists, the annual AFL draft based on the previous year’s ladder position, free agency trading and football department soft cap limits.
The AFL also has the authority to provide priority draft picks to struggling clubs and has historically utilised cost of living allowances for the New South Wales-based clubs. The AFL is also contemplating the introduction of a mid-season draft to help clubs hit by injuries or retirements throughout an individual season.
The AFL’s equalisation mandate has been on the most part successful. Since 2000, eleven individual clubs have won premierships, while another four clubs (St. Kilda, Fremantle, Adelaide and GWS) have made grand finals. Only three of the current 18 clubs (Gold Coast, Carlton and North Melbourne) have not qualified for a grand final since 2000.
Equalisation has also ensured that the game maintains relevance in New South Wales and Queensland as the AFL continually battles for market dominance against the NRL.
A major impediment to the equality and integrity of the AFL is the current fixturing system. This system has each AFL team playing 23 matches across an individual season. Each team plays 11 opposition clubs once a season and six opposition clubs twice a season.
Prior to the 2023 season, Travis Auld and his fixturing team at AFL house used a ‘weighted rule’ system to determine which clubs plays each other twice.
The 18 teams were broken into three groups: the top six teams from the previous year’s ladder, the middle six and bottom six.
The “double-up” fixtures a club is allocated each season has an unfair impact on ladder positions at the end of each season. This is particularly relevant this season, as three AFL clubs are non-competitive.
At Round 9, North Melbourne (two wins, 62.9%) West Coast (one win, 60.5%) and Hawthorn 60.0% (one win, 60.0%) provide easy wins for all other AFL teams.
Fortunately, no team plays all three of these teams twice in the 2023 season. However, this fixturing anomaly provides significant advantages for five clubs in particular. Melbourne, Fremantle, St Kilda, Essendon, North Melbourne will play two of these bottom three teams twice.
This will amount to an additional eight points and a significant percentage boost when compared to the five teams that do not play any of these bottom three teams twice (Geelong, Sydney, Collingwood, Brisbane, and Port Adelaide).
How much difference can these two extra wins make? A massive one. Fixturing inconsistencies can be the difference between finishing in the top four or qualifying for finals.
Last season, the difference between second-placed Melbourne (64 points) and sixth-placed Brisbane (60 points) was one win. The difference between the eighth-placed Bulldogs (48 points) and 12th-placed Gold Coast (40 points) was two wins.
Ninth-placed Carlton (48 points) missed the finals by 0.6% compared to the eighth-placed Bulldogs. The integrity of the season is therefore significantly impacted by these “double-up” fixtures.
Sam Walsh of the Blues looks dejected. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
How does the AFL fix this problem? The fairest solution would be to play a 34-game season where each team plays each other home and away. Unfortunately, the AFLPA and Cricket Australia would not allow this to occur due to the risks of injury and stadia availability.
Another fair alternative would be for each team to play each other once a season. Unfortunately, a 17-game season is not financially feasible for the AFL coffers and for TV rights negotiations.
So, what is a suitable fixturing approach for the current 23 game season? Instead of deciding on the double-up fixtures in the pre-season, the AFL should decide on the double-up fixtures in June or July of each year.
The AFL should then fixture the double-up fixtures from rounds 18-23. Each team should play two bottom six teams, two middle six teams and two top six teams from the current year in the final six rounds.
This delayed double-up fixturing would be fairer and mean that the ladder is already shaped up prior to the AFL determining which “double-up” fixture each team receives.
Until this occurs, the AFL will continue to have a lopsided draw without integrity or fairness.
Arges Tuft
Roar Rookie
wont be too much longer and we'll have Tassie, Norwood, South Freo and hopefully Darwin. A 21 game season, all play each other once. Every other season a home game.
RT
Roar Rookie
Good in theory, but might not even be possible to achieve, depending on results. The current system is not that bad. Best should win it.
GWSingapore
Roar Rookie
The draw emphasizes maximizing revenue, not equity. How is it "fair" that Essendon did not play at Kardinia Park for twenty eight years? One of the hardest away venues in AFL. Collingwood played Sydney at the M.C.G. for the first time in ten years. How is that possible? Geelong play six of their last nine games this year at Kardinia Park. Nice bonus when you are the reigning Premiers.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Eagles 2018 premiers got Richmond, 2017 premiers at home in 2019 and demolished them. Then played them at the MCG and were beaten. So having a home and an away game matters especially to interstate sides.
Teuton
Roar Rookie
Well researched and reasoned piece. Simplest is best. One round each and with the Tassie team you'll have 18, and have a slightly extended playoff series (or two - one for the finals contenders and one for the bottom half to decide on recruitment points or some other also-ran cup). The earlier decision on the double is also a fairer way of levelling up.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
As I've said before and will keep beating the drum, when every Victorian side plays eight interstate games every season, when Collingwood plays in Tasmania,when the Anzac Day games are shared, then you're talking.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
It's still great to watch and the best teams still have to beat the others. Predicting which teams will be strong, who'll be weak and who'll be injury impacted is part of the "impossible" but it doesn't impact on any season result.
AJ73
Roar Rookie
The biggest issue, is the fixture is based on last year. A team (or teams) can be a flash in the pan and finish higher in that year, then next year are horrible. The other issue is time and place of playing the game. PA have played the Tigers 23 out of 35 games at home, yet played NM 23 out of 36 games away. Then look at the teams who share grounds, look at who Geelong plays "home" games at the G against. The fairness in fixturing really went out the window when, 1) consolidated grounds to the MCG and Marvel in Melbourne, 2) the AFL prioritised money over equality, 3) the number of teams increased. A fairer system would be to use at least the last 3 seasons to see who is in which bracket.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
What you’ve proposed is not equitable. It’s equal and fair but it’s not equitable. I think the current fixturing system is good as show by Essendons fixture. Yes they have north and west coast twice which are basically 4 guaranteed wins at this point, but they also have Geelong, Port and Collingwood twice who are shaping up as finals contenders. The other aspect that’s pretty brutal is if you’re an interstate club and there’s a mismatch in your finishing positions your basically facing much stronger opposition twice a year regardless of fairness.