At what point did Aussie Rules football move from being a tough resilient blue-collar game to a ‘spoilt rich kid’ in the penthouse that needs pampering?
That’s what the AFL is looking like by holding the state of Tasmania and the newly formed Tasmanian Devils to ransom over a stadium: if you don’t build, you don’t play.
Unless I am missing something, a state-of-the-art brand-new piece of infrastructure is not going to improve the standard of the on-field competition or integrity of the sport – rather catering to the game’s corporates and sponsors at a business level. I feel that’s what this is really all about.
Just days after the club was launched last week, more than 160,000 people have signed up to be foundation members.
The sign-up price may only be $10, and it is many will be secondary members from supporters of other clubs wanting to be a part of history – but it still shows the interest from footy fans in having a Tasmanian team part of the elite competition.
Yes, a roofed 23,000-seat stadium Macquarie Point was part of a deal negotiated and signed off on between the state government and the AFL in order for Tasmania to get its own AFL team licence.
But it quickly raised anger among the opposition parties, who, on behalf of their constituents, say the money could be better spent elsewhere (not to mention any possible cost blow-outs).
A few days ago at the time of writing, Tasmanians went to the polls, with the stadium a pivotal election issue. The state is currently heading towards a Liberal minority government, but there was a significant swing away from the sitting party towards the minor parties and independents.
While Jeremy Rockliff, who made the initial deal, likely will still be premier, he won’t have it all his own way. Labor, the Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network could have the numbers to join together to oppose any votes on the stadium development – at least on the terms that the AFL wants and has agreed to.
The team doesn’t come in until 2028, so there is still plenty of time for deals to be done and concessions to be made, but if the rhetoric is anything to go by neither side wants to give an inch – and there is also plenty of time for things to go off course.
And if it does, imagine telling hundreds of thousands of members you’re not getting a team that has been unveiled, and for all intents and purposes is up and running.
The AFL administration must be willing to give an inch and compromise for the sake of the game.
No matter where the Devils play, it is not going to affect the game’s overall plans for growth– nor will it determine whether the Tasmanian side will be successful.
AFL House should be more worried about football-related things, like securing quality players and ensuring talent pathways for the expansion side are strong.
As we saw in the NRL, when the Dolphins came in, there was a mad rush from existing clubs to re-sign and secure their biggest stars, leaving few marquee players for the Redcliffe-based franchise.
A competitive team on the park is what is going to drive the club’s growth and repeat attendance at games, rather than any fancy venues.
The issues raised with the existing stadiums in Launceston (which is already set for an upgrade) and Hobart, such as lighting, access and seating, would be far more economical to upgrade for full-time use than a turnkey project, given those stadiums have already had success in hosting AFL games in the past.
The Tasmania Devils foundation jumper is revealed. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
I have also heard nonsense about the weather and a roof being an absolute non-negotiable necessity, as the cold windy winters on the island state may make it difficult for players.
To me, that’s just home-ground advantage for the Devils – the same way as playing at the Gabba in the warmer months needs players to adjust to the heat. Suck it up.
During the campaign, Labor leader Rebecca White suggested that the existing stadiums be used until the club and AFL could prove that the demand was there, before any plans for new infrastructure were made.
It makes sense. That way, the Macquarie Point venue wouldn’t become a white elephant if actual attendance dropped off after the initial introduction of the AFL side.
Former Collingwood President Eddie McGuire has been a staunch supporter of building the stadium, based on the economic impact.
“The unemployed will get jobs building the stadium,” he noted on Nine’s Footy Classified back in May 2023.
“They’ll learn how to do things in the gig economy. Look at the economic impact of Victorian major events, that’ve turned Victoria from being a rust-bucket place in the 90s into the world’s most liveable city within 20 years.”
Mr Rockliff last year was quoted saying the new stadium meant: “4000 jobs and billions into our economy”.
But is it too simplistic to use ‘potential’ economic growth in the long run to justify short-term spending?
An article in the Berkeley Economic Review a few years ago looked at this very issue in regard American sports teams. The author, Karthik Vegesna concluded:
“Building sports stadiums has served as a profitable undertaking for large sports teams, at the expense of the general public”.
Its findings could easily be applied here in Australia too. The AFL may find a way to wrangle a profit out of the new venue, but how exactly will the benefits filter down to the community?
Economic advantages often get woven into the tangled web and complexities of government budgets and lost in the detail, then become political propaganda; but overall, it will be hard for Tasmanians to actually feel better off once it is built.
The number of protests across the state over the past 10 months, and the loss of Liberal votes, prove that people already know this.
The real issue is not, it seems, whether the state needs a new stadium, or the economic benefits that would ensue – but that existing venues don’t have enough hospitality suites and bars for the game’s management and sponsors to have a more comfortable beer and meal at the footy.
Real fans of Aussie Rules will go anywhere to support their team regardless – that is shown every weekend across the country, right down to local suburban and country leagues, where there’s little to no comfortable stadium-style seating.
What it boils down to in the end is this: does the AFL really care about there being a Tasmanian team?
If it does, then it will work with all sides to find a workable solution, no matter what obstacles, political or otherwise, arise over the next four years, rather than playing its own game of politics.
Vicboy
Roar Rookie
Like Bellerive, Vic Park had no scope to expand and be world class. Collingwood would be North Melbourne if it stayed there.
Vicboy
Roar Rookie
Dry and freezing cold. Retaining skinny 18 year olds from other states doesn’t too hard if you’re expecting them to have a 1970’s mindset - also the time that your big names were at their peak. I want Tassie to have success, hence why I am happy for the Federal funding, AFL funding and private funding to set up a world class facility. You can have health, education, roads and sports facilities (or do you need the Romans to come and make the streets safe too?) I am unsure why given a choice between grubby politics and sporting joy and aspiration you would choose the former. I am in Qld and the short decisions for votes is A) a waste of money now; and B) an impost on future generations to fix it. Governments should build more public housing - should have been doing it for 20 years, but not building something else makes no sense. It’s not either or when the benefits are 30 + years worth. The London Underground was built with horse and cart - but the benefit is greater than that budget.
13th Man
Roar Rookie
Probably should’ve worded it better - the fixturing is dreadful, not the ground - apologies for the confusion on that regard.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Some. But most aren't. It's now a wealth thing.
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
The Devils will be playing half their home games at York Park so you won't be missing out. The fact the new stadium will be hosting only the other half is an argument against it.
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
It is ridiculous FIXturing. Seems mainly SA , WA and smaller Vic. clubs sent there. Never C'wood, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon who have supporters in Tassie that would go to see them. No direct flights for SA or WA teams either unless they charter them. Stinks...Here're the facts. North in Tas. this year play Crows, Power, Cats and Eagles. Hawks play Saints, Giants, Dockers and North. Only big Vic. club in that list is G'long.
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
Yes George. The giveaway is they now talk about the "football industry." It used to be a game.
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
"AFL is increasingly a private school game in terms of where the players are coming from." Or are they working class / country boys given sports scholarships to private schools to improve the schools' footy teams chances of success?
Tassie.
Roar Rookie
That may be so, but saying that York Park (UTAS ) is a terrible venue is a bit tough.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Just shows how arrogant and disrespectful the AFL is. The Tas government spent millions supporting two struggling Melbourne clubs, and the AFL kept carting WA teams over, rather than have regular Victorian opponents for Haw & NM, which would've seen huge tourist numbers from Vic come in! :thumbdown:
Micko
Roar Rookie
"Charity"?! :angry: The Tasmanian government literally paid to host those AFL games! The same ones where the AFL NEVER objected to Bellerive as a venue!
13th Man
Roar Rookie
The playing surface isn't the issue - the issue is it's in Launceston, and Freo seem to end up going down there to play more games than just about any other side (apart from Hawthorn) - a bit of a ridiculous bit of fixturing.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
So what are 12 Tassie senators going to do to the AFL when the Tasmanian government are going to be the ones who broke contract? You also assuming all 12 senators will be united on this rather than splintering along party lines. You are living in a fantasy world.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
They've ignored Tassie for decades before offering this olive branch. It costs the AFL nothing to remain at status quo as adding one extra team does nothing for broadcast rights/funding - with uneven numbers there will be a bye every week. Also, there is likely to be no noticable difference in viewing habits/AFL consumption whether this goes forward or not - it's not like the AFL would be growing the game in a new market. If you are expecting the AFL to fold so Tassie can be gifted a license without following through on the infrastructure they committed to, I am sure you are very much mistaken. You either provide an AFL-standard stadium for an AFL team, or you keep playing bush footy. End of story.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
If you read the Roar I think you will find Raorers from those states are pretty chuffed with their stadiums and talk them up regularly in comparison with older ones from other states
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
You want an AFL team, you have a genuine AFL standard venue. Playing the occasional match at Blundstone as an act of charity for the Tasmanian public does not demonstrate it is a genuine AFL standard venue, any more than Mars stadium in Ballarat is. It's the AFL, not some bush league. If Tassie doesn't want to build a decent venue, then they must never have been that serious about wanting an AFL team in the first place.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
In my opinion, the money would be better spent on the things that Tasmanians really need, such as schools, hospitals and new homes.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
What about other roofed stadiums?
George Apps
Roar Rookie
Wishful thinking.
George Apps
Roar Rookie
We've all been conned - this was a stupid idea from day one. Tasmania should have had their own team 35 years ago and we wouldn't be in this pickle. The AFL is a pack of elitist pricks pandering to their mates from the corporate world! All they care about is money and making a name for themselves.