World Footy News

The pay dispute between the AFL, the AFL players and the AFL Players' Association (AFLPA) has now continued past the AFL's latest deadline.  Anyone interested in the saga will have followed it in other media but there is one particularly relevant point to supporters of international footy.

The AFL and AFL clubs are not-for-profit organisations.  They do not build up large profits and divide it amongst shareholders or club owners.  The primary areas money is directed is to paying the players, running the clubs, running the League, and Game Development.  Any one area extracting a bigger share of the pie means squeezing one of the other areas.

The AFLPA has sought a significant increase and, eventually, the AFL has offered a major increase including better retirement payments and better conditions for rookies, on top of the overall pay rises.  The AFLPA has knocked it back again.

The AFL has already said that they are now squeezing the clubs and threatening other areas.  The connection that concerns in particular is Game Development.  It's this author's belief that significant improvements in international support are dependent on the Game Development department continuing to expand.  When the AFLPA has said it is not a war between them and the clubs, there are other areas, then surely they mean Game Development.

In my opinion the current standoff threatens some of the good work done across Australia and internationally in the last decade and could severely damage what might be to come.

One argument often put out there and blindly supported by some members of the public is that "the players put on the show".  That's very superficial.

Yes they put on the show.  Playing in front of thousands of fans who are the ones that pay their money.  And who were cultivated over generations by clubs and Leagues and were exposed to the game as kids.  Where would the players be without the current and next generation of fans?

And the world class stadia and facilities?  Built with the fans' money and often with Government support.

Where do these players come from?  Through Auskick and volunteer-run clubs.  Through the hours of parent and volunteer support.

Australian football IS a grassroots game.  At amost every level it is run by volunteer effort.  The money at the top end exists because the volunteers get the players to the top, and sponsors and TV audiences support the sport.  Game Development and facilities for fans is where it starts to flow back to those grassroots people.

It helps make Auskick affordable.  It helps improves facilities, in a limited scope so far, at state league level.  It helps roll out AFL 9s.  It runs the International Cup including covering the buses and internal flights and Gala Dinner and the list goes on.  Most of international development is run by volunteers, just as the sport is in Australia.  But some of the biggest gains have been made in places where Game Development has pitched in - the ability is there to grow this sport like it has never grown before.  I truly believe this will continue to increase in the years ahead and we'll see some very exciting growth.

Any threat to the funding pie is a threat to Game Development which is a threat to international footy.

Yes the players deserve a good remuneration.  Yes many are in the game for a short time.  Yes we need them well paid to attract elite athletes and continue to make the AFL the competition of choice in Australia.  But the new deal on the table gives a player on the average salary $1.38 million over the next five years.  That's pretty handy.  Time to respectfully agree to the offer boys.  Don't burn the people at grassroots that built the game for you.  And there's 100,000 young men queuing up who would love your job.

And another thing.  AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou's salary is sometimes mentioned.  How is it relevant?  Personally I think it's very much excessive and if it needs to be cut to take the heat out of the negotiations then by all means.  In fact personally I think it's insulting that any executive in any company gets paid that much or more.  But what the CEO at the top gets paid should not have much influence on what the players or officials get paid.  If they want to benchmark off that then fine, let's bankrupt the sport in a year.  But is the AFLPA really complaining about AD's pay?  I don't think it would even have been mentioned.

Let's hope a deal is struck without a cut to what Game Development was expecting, otherwise, you won't read about it, but behind the scenes, international support will surely suffer, as will support to the game across Australia.

 

You can read Andrew Demetriou's response to the latest AFLPA rebuttal below:

The AFLPA has today advised us that they have rejected the key elements of the AFL’s $1.144 billion offer - an offer that would provide players with an 11 per cent pay rise in year one, five per cent in year two and three, three and three per cent in the following three years.
 
·         PLUS a doubling of retirement benefits – that is in addition to superannuation – and on current models would result in players receiving on average $28,000 in retirement benefits for every year they play.

·         Plus more money in their hardship fund.

·         Plus a 40 per cent increase in pay for rookies.

We are very surprised and disappointed with today’s decision.

We are disappointed both from an AFL point of view and also on behalf of the entire football industry that thought a $1.144 billion offer that would deliver a player on an average salary $1.38 million over the next five years, was a fair and generous offer.
 
It is a generous offer. Some in clubs and in the wider industry think it is too generous but we genuinely believe it is the best offer the game can afford.
 
We also believe it is an offer that balances the need to reward our players with the need to invest in the clubs, the grassroots, facilities and – most importantly – our supporters.
 
We told the AFLPA there is no more money and today what they have come back with will cost the industry more money. They have also told us that they will not accept the conditions where we asked to use player images to promote the game.

The reason we promote the game is to generate revenue to help pay for the players’ wages so it is unfortunate that they have seen fit to refuse us the ability to use the player images to promote the players, the clubs, the game and the industry when we are in such a competitive landscape.


I think most people would be surprised by the news today. We certainly were. And I think football fans would be surprised and indeed any employee or workforce that was offered $1.144 billion – or $1.38 million for an average worker over five years – would be surprised to have it knocked back.

The wider football industry accepts that players deserve to be well rewarded for their contribution. I think players also need to acknowledge that our clubs, supporters and the grassroots development network also needs to share in the rewards.
 
The record TV rights deal offered the chance to provide a legacy for all parts of the industry – players, clubs, the development of the game, supporters, facilities – and it’s important that we strike a balance that enables us to do that.

We thought we had done with that by putting together a $1.144 billion offer that is the best deal the game can afford. We honestly believe that it is the fairest and best deal the game can afford.

Under the scenario put to us by the AFLPA today that balance is skewed. Unfairly so, for the rest of the football industry.
 
We don’t accept the AFLPA’s views as expressed today that they want a three-year deal. The $1.144 billion offer is front-loaded so that players receive an 11 per cent pay rise in year one and five per cent in year two and then three per cent, three per cent and three per cent.

If it was only a three-year deal, you couldn’t responsibly offer double-digit growth in year one and I don’t think you have to be a mathematician to work out that if you front-end a five-year deal, it would be unfair to take the front-loaded years and then come back and ask for more.
 
So the demands the players put to us today and the changes to the offer represent a significant rise in the amount of money they are seeking.
 
We think we provided a significantly generous offer. I think there will be a fair bit of surprise across the football industry that players don’t think the deal is a fair one.
 
As we have said from day one, we need to look after the players. And we have.
 
But we also need to ensure the affordability of our game for our supporters, the sustainability of our 18 clubs, the investment in our state and territory leagues and community football and also in facilities across all levels of the game.

We have undertaken to provide the clubs with an update on their distribution and we will do that on September 26.
 
While we are thoroughly disappointed, we will continue to talk to the AFLPA and our door remains open. We think we have done everything we can to provide the best possible deal.
 
There is no more money for the players. The $1.144 billion offer was the most generous and best deal the game can afford and I think the football industry and the public recognises that.
 
But we will continue discussions with the AFLPA.
 
I would also encourage each and every AFL player to take the time over the next few weeks to speak to the non-football employees at their clubs, to sit down with their CEOs and presidents and get a better idea of the difficulties in running AFL clubs. And sustaining AFL clubs.
 
I would also encourage players to go back to their local clubs and talk to local volunteers, regional development and talent managers and local community football identities about their needs as well.

I think it’s important for players to understand that those volunteers and local development managers or their TAC Cup or regional managers who have helped them to reach the AFL and who work enormous hours to develop the talent pathway for AFL players also need support and investment.

They also contributed to the success of the game and deserve to share in the rewards.
 
We have moved significantly to accommodate the players. I think the players need to consider the impact of their actions on their clubs, their supporters and the community football networks who helped get them there.
 
It’s important to get balance. It’s important that every part of the industry is able to grow.

I don’t think we have it at the moment which is both surprising and disappointing.