Free Agency

So it seems that the AFL has finally come up with a deal to allow players "free agency", basically the ability to move club if they are out of contract but their current club doesn't want to trade them. This column by Patrick Smith seems to sum it up quite simply, although I have seen some discrepancy in different reports, whether it's 8 years service for star players (top 25% of earners) or 10 years.

Except, to my ignorant eyes it seems remarkably similar to how the system works now (Luke Ball going into the draft with no guarantees of where he would end up, for example).

Now I'm not going to go all muggaccino like Jeff Kennett has and announce that it's the death of football as we know it, but I have to admit I didn't really see the need for free agency and even now I don't necessarily agree with the changes. In fact, many of the points that Jeff brings up seem quite legitimate to me, especially since, speaking from the perspective of a club with what, 45,000 members? he is definitely in a stronger position.

It definitely would have been interesting to see what would have happened if a case had gone before a court though, any club that sponsored such an action (even implicitly) would be creating a rod for its own back by setting a dangerous precedent. As such, you can't imagine such a situation being likely to happen anytime soon.

Now one of the comments on the first link to the Herald Sun was this one

Wombat of Brisbane Posted at 8:29 AM Today
Not sure if the Players Association has done what is best for their members. They have definitely helped the minority of disgruntled players who want to move clubs and they have definitely helped the bank accounts of the best players in the competition. I think they may have inadvertantly cut the earnings of the majority of their members who are neither disgruntled or stars.

I think that that's an extremely valid point. Sure, a few people want to change clubs and a few players can attract mega salaries if they do move (Ablett, Judd, Brown, Buddy etc) but the majority of players are not only unlikely to want to move, but unlikely to be viewed as that desirable by other clubs, certainly not desirable enough to offer significantly boosted salaries to. The majority of the players out there are having their share of the salary cap cut, while a few stars take away a higher percentage.

A couple of other comments from the Kennett article also seemed quite insightful to me.


jeff from perth of perth Posted at 2:19 PM Today
Nothing has been said regarding how if a player in the top ten money earners goes to the club of his choice how that will effect that clubs salary cap. The salary cap dictates how much gets paid to the players, does it mean that if a club gains one of these players, how many players must that club jettison to keep under the salary cap. Please explain? I'd love Ablett in a Carlton jumper but if that meant Carlton would have to loose Gibbs, Kruezer and say Murphy to fit him in I'd be totally against the move. It seems to me the only persons to benefit under these new rules will be the player manager; they will always get their 10% and never have to deal with angry, disillusioned supporters.

Sure Buddy or Ablett are damn good players, but are they better than 2 or 3 middle or lower-upper tier players? If I had a choice of Ablett or a package deal of Gibbs, Kruezer and Murphy I'd go for the package deal everytime. Sure it's nice to have stars, but great teams have depth and consistency, 22 players who can deliver (why did Gary Ablett senior never win a flag?) Geelong, St Kilda and Sydney have reinforced this need for consistency in the list over recent years.
rust of brisbane Posted at 1:20 PM Today
Is`nt that like putting the shoe on the other foot now.So all the clubs will have to be extra nice to their players.They say that loyalty should prevail, but have a look at so many players that have been loyal then told that there not wanted or put up as draft bait.

Now that is a REALLY interesting point. AFL clubs can't afford to be sentimental. Even Kevin Sheedy, who always made an effort to drag players back to make up milestones was a ruthless bastard when it came to player selection. Loyal club servants were traded or dropped when it was needed. If there's no loyalty shown by a club than it's hard for the players to feel loved. It's definitely a two way street.

Anyway, what we don't really want to see is a situation like the NRL or gridiron where players can move clubs mid season. Having strong clubs with traditions and players with associations with those clubs might not be good for players, but it's certainly great for our game. If the players don't like it, let them go play for Werribee!

cheers

Dr Harry