Ian Prendergast: All things being equal…

Having an even competition is one of the highest stated priorities of the AFL. But why should players care if any given team is dominating or battling (or really dominating, or really battling as seems to be the case at the moment).

Simple. Players agree to be subjected to controls that no one else in the football industry has imposed on them, such as caps on their salaries and tight restraints on moving teams.

They agree to these restraints (provided they’re reasonable) because they believe that competitive balance is good for the overall health of the game.

But the other important factor for players is that they don’t get a choice as to where they get drafted so it is crucial that when they arrive at a club they have access to good facilities and a reasonable chance of success during their career.

The AFL Players’ view is that a measure of the success of equalisation policies is that any given club will be in a position to taste premiership success within the period of a player's average career length.

Clubs shouldn't have to sell hope to fans over a long period of time. I'm no marketing guru, but I'm tipping that selling memberships would be easier if your club had a legitimate chance of competing for a Premiership within a shorter cycle.

If this is not being achieved, it would call into question the legitimacy and effectiveness of the restraints on players, together with the broader equalisation policies of the AFL.

In other words, why should players submit themselves to these controls if they don’t work?

Fortunately, we think they do work. The competition is, statistically more even than it was in past eras. But it’s still worth having a debate about whether they are working as well as they could.

Aside from restrains on players, the AFL has a number of other equalisation policies, including the sharing of gate receipts amongst clubs and special distributions to clubs in need of financial assistance. 

However, in recent times we have seen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" broaden, with the financially stronger clubs able to invest more back into their core business, being their football departments.

This has meant that we've seen a situation where strong financial clubs have far greater resources dedicated to players achieving elite performance in areas such as coaching, sports science, medical and wellbeing.

Tellingly, the top half of the AFL ladder is increasingly starting to reflect the big football department spenders.

It’s probably no co-incidence that the two teams with a lot of money and the resources to field stand-alone VFL teams – Geelong and Collingwood – are currently dominating the competition.

In the PA's view, the AFL needs to do more to correct this imbalance.  In fact, if players are to endorse the current restraints in the next CBA, it is essential they get a decent crack at developing themselves professionally and experiencing on field success during their careers regardless of where they are drafted.  

Fortunately, the AFL have indicated they are looking to correct this situation by providing clubs with unequal distributions, depending on their financial situation, allowing a benchmark spend to be achieved in their football departments. 

The AFL say that this "benchmark" spend will be designed to ensure that clubs are able to provide the minimum standards for players to prepare and recover in a way that reflects the professionalism of today's game.

Whilst the PA welcomes this approach, with the compromised draw being heavily weighted in favour of providing the "strong" clubs with financial advantage through the scheduling of blockbuster games (and accommodating interstate travel arrangements at times), we need to be vigilant in closely monitoring these competitive balance measures.  Otherwise we could end up back in this situation where unfortunately the gulf seems to be winding.

Ultimately, to deliver a competition structure with integrity that complements the other competitive balance mechanisms in place, all teams need to play each other the same number of times.  But that's a blog for another day...