That is not what he implied.
The Government is backing a sport that is played throughout the Asian region. They see it as a means to strengthen cultural ties through sport.
That is something that AFL, Union or League will never be able to achieve.
How much money does the AFL get from the Federal Govt?
- Thread starter finders
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That is not what he implied.
The Government is backing a sport that is played throughout the Asian region. They see it as a means to strengthen cultural ties through sport.
That is something that AFL, Union or League will never be able to achieve.
- Banned
- #77
Too late , it already is.
What you're trying to say is that it will be difficult to have Australian Football as a high profile sport . Agreed , but Australian Footballis seeing more and more interesting developments around the globe . The beauty about Australian Football outside of Australia is that most countries are competitive with each other except for the newly found .
Currently the AFL spends a very small amount on the development of Australian Football overseas .The argument is , why doesn't the government promote Australia and the Australian game rather than Australia playing Cambrige rules football .
.
- Banned
- #78
Well actually Australian Football is becoming increasingly seen as the sport that builds bridges . Soccer is a sport and has nothing to do with cultural ties .More like cultural wars .
.
Why not Badminton then? Its the most popular sport in SE Asia as I understand it.
Or Baseball, its still far more popular in Japan than soccer plus the added bonus of North Americans being impressed to hear of our skippy league.
But thanks for the tip, I'll look out for the Liberal Party's soccer policy in my mailbox now you mention it.
God forbid the Australian government would back a game invented in Australia as a way of strengthening cultural ties with other nations through sport.
I wasn't having a go at you.
Outside of a few expats, no one seriously plays any Football code in the region outside the round ball code.
That is not knocking the other codes, it is the reality.
Throwing our tax dollars to push the other codes would be the biggest waste of our funds, because they don't give a damn. The Government can see the cultural/political/economic return that Soccer can bring. They have said as much.
Lastly, Rudd will only increase these ties, so it doesn't matter who you vote for.
Of course you're right. We should all give up our silly colonial game and convert to the world game immediately. One wonders why we ever gave up our cultural cringe.
Sigh.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Now stop being melodramatic and think about what I was saying. I never questioned the integrity of the AFL annual reports, their financial statements or those of the clubs. I have read several years worth of AFL reports. There are no holes there. I am questioning the ability of the person/people whose website you linked, to understand these reports. He/she may have found $55mil of government subsidies, but I am saying that it is fraudulent to say that government subsidies to the AFL are $55mil PER ANNUM, and imply it has been for several years and will be for several more. They are the ones with financial holes. Who are these people who write the website? What are their creditials? Why haven't they detailed how they calculated the subsidies and how they will be ongoing? Don't expect me to believe some nobody on the internet!! I think I have a record on these boards for providing full information and explaining any financial figures I use!
So government subsidies of Vic govt $14.0mil + local councils $15.50mil + $20mil to the Whitten oval development + $16.4mil Tassie government sponsorship of Hawthorn gets you to the magical $55mil. But three of these 4 are one of grants and they are spread out over 3 or 4 years and the Tassie government sponsorship is over 5 years.
How was the $55mil per annum calculated in 2003 or 04 or 05 or 06 or 07????
So we have a difference of opinion. But you seem to suffer from the Prince Charles "know your station in life" syndrome. The best educated people have no guarantee they will be the highest paid. Why does someone who looks good and can read an autocue get paid 2,3,5 even 10 times what a doctor does?? Who provides a more useful service to society? The capitalist system will always pay more for people who generate income rather than those who have highly educated skills. That's the way the system works and it isn't going to change. Footballers are no different. This opportunity cost is fine in theory but as I discovered half thru my economics degree life is one big opportunity cost. People make lifestyle choices and despite economic theory money doesn't drive all their choices.
Look up the annual richest 200 list. A significant % of these individuals are poorly educated, but they were prepared to do the s**t jobs early on, drive themselves and drive others in a way that probably you and I aren't prepared to do. Who says blokes who can get the hardball on the field couldn't get the hardball off the field, but were distracted by a great passion for the sport. I sense a bit of jealousy.
Now this is somewhat irrelevant. The single biggest scource of income is TV rights. The gross margin to the AFL and even their net margin of this revenue stream would be over 90%. Better than any killer application software that Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Oracle have ever produced. If 7/10/Fox had offered $1.78 billion instead of $0.78 billion for TV rights what cost pressure are there that would stop the AFL giving the players this extra $1 bill revenue?? NOTHING!
It is a choice by the AFL, it is their opportunity cost. The Australian Cricketers Association have negotiated a 25% distribution of Cricket Generated Income. Why shouldn't AFL players get at least as bigger share of the pie as the cricketers, if not more? Their cost structures wouldn't be that big a difference relatively. I agree with you that the structure of the game will mean it is a long time before we see a 50% share of revenue, but if intangible revenues with low costs bases expands quickly it will happen! A 40% compound growth in TV rights will see TV rights be worth $2 billion in 3 x 5 year deals from now. This increase is in line with other major sports TV rights around the world and the increase in 4 yearly value of Olympic TV rights.
Behind the scenes means they have more opportunity to rip off taxpayers. To do dirty deals. Out in the open means we can all express our views.
No we don't see these people on an internet forum but we see them whinging on TV, we hear their whinging on talk back radio and news and current affairs radio programs and we read their whinging in the newspapers and in magazines. Old industries using old media.
Great. Then the bit where I directly quoted from the 2005/2006 report can't be "bullshit". This is where the $55 million figure came from - the Annual Report!
The spending on stadiums announced in 2006 is likely additional to that. I just pulled out that press release to refute the claim that AFL is often promised money it doesn't see. As you point out, some of that spending is spread across two, three or four years.
How does the AFL account for that? I don't know. More to the point, I don't need to know. The AFL themselves publicly announced $55M in government subsidies for the 05/06 financial year. End of. Yet you called "bullshit" on it - despite claiming to have read the reports!
So if the workers at K-Mart negotiate 25% of revenue goes to them, then it should apply to the workers at Bunnings too? Wow, did you used to run the pattern bargaining unit at the ACTU?
C'mon, Cricket and AFL are quite different in terms of the markets they operate in, the audiences they deliver, the number of players, the number of matches, the amount of touring, the historical development, the costs of running a team etc. You point this out yourself. It would be more surprising if they had the same percentage!
No, what's different here is that we usually see farmers bleating on about needing government handouts. Not fans of farmers. (Even the National Party has a few weekend farmers in their midst.) Imagine if the car industry had thousands of fans prepared to spend an evening championing handouts for them. If they did, we'd probably have the Monaro in production.
There is a good chance we will host the Asian Cup in 2015 - the host will be announced at the closing ceremony of the 2011 Asian Cup - which is in Qatar - and is held in January 2011.
We will also host the Asian Cup in January - there is no way the AFL or NRL would surrender their grounds for a 2 bit tournament like the Asian Cup in the middle of July.
Cricket will have to work around it.
Did you actually take the time to see what this money is for, or are you just a dumbarse?
Most, if not all of these projects are not just training facilities for AFL clubs. The Whitten Oval project, for instance, is a community centre. The Dogs are merely tenants, and have little to no control over most of it. Governments are funding it not to help the Dogs, but to revitalise a dilapidated area.
How the $20 million is a handout to the AFL only you know. The AFL is actually contributing $3m towards it (why I don't know).
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,343
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Soccer is a lost cause....it is the "Lift Music" of sports and only appeals to so many people because it is bland and requires little effort to either play or watch.
Nothing much ever happens and it is very hard to miss any highlites as there are so few.
Nothing much ever happens and it is very hard to miss any highlites as there are so few.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
The trouble is you don't know what you are quoting. I have both the paper 2006 AFL annual report and the power point slide file. The AFL did not say they receive $55mil government subsidy either in 2006 or on a per annum basis as your first post and that website you linked have said.
You have also incorrectly quoted the powerpoint slide.
http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=40053
click the power point link and go to slide 7.
This amount as I have pointed out before, is not for $55mil worth of government subsides. It is $14.0mil from the Vic government and $15.5mil from local councils. Nowhere in the written report does the AFL say it received $55mil from governments!!
Typed up from Page 38 of 2006 AFL annual report.
Now tell me where I am wrong that the AFL in their annual report never said they have received government subsidies of $55mil. You haven't read the annual report, you have misinterpreted a power point slide and you believe an internet article that provides link galore to lots of things but doesn't have one to it's claim that
I have no idea how the ACTU ran it's campaigns although I could ask a mate who used to work for them.
You reckon people don't look at their competitors and compare what they get paid? You don't reckon EPL players look at what Siera A players get paid and try and keep up? You don't reckon the boys at Badcock and Brown look over and see what the Macquarie boys are getting paid and want the same pay? You don't reckon management and electricity traders at Snowy Hydro didn't look at what the merchant bank guys get paid to trade commodities including electricity futures and didn't push for the privatisation of Snowy Hydro? You don't reckon that Rugby League, Rugby Union and AFL players and their players associations don't look at each other to analysis salary relativities?Cricket has plenty of differences, but it also has plenty of similiarities. They are a more complicated beast to work out. Read this 70 page document and you will see there are a lot more similarities than differences. The big difference is the amount of TV rights generated by AFL are greater and as I said before these are the most profitable income streams of any sport.
Memorandum of Understanding between Cricket Australia and the Australian Crickets Association at the ACA's homepage. The memorandum was signed in June 2005 and covers 2005/06 to 2008/09.
I reckon people who live in regional and rural Australia are fans of farmers and they bleat on their behalf. I take your point about the car industry but if Ford and Holden come out and said the would shut down production in Oz unless the government helped out, I reckon those V8 fans would make themselves heard.
Well, that's seems pretty persuasive.
So government subsidies are at least $33M in 06/07. (The $30M you've identified above, plus another $3M at least here. Not to mention another $3M here and $5M here for next year. Plus, they're also going to get a sizeable chunk of the $21M discussed here, but that's not clear yet.)
So, yes, mea culpa. The $55M figure I used is wrong, and it's most likely only 60% of that.
The point stands though: the AFL receives tens of millions of dollars from various governments, to the tune of $50K per player for 06/07.
Asian Cup would have to be hosted in June/July if we were to host it.
We could get away with only using the 4 or 5 stadiums for the event. They would most likely be Suncorp, Telstra Stadium, Telstra Dome (Or a rebuilt Olympic Stadium in Melbourne), Hindmarsh Stadium and possibly Subiaco. (Organise for the two Perth teams to play away on the same weekend and not use Perth for the qtr finals onward. I know the African Cup of Nations is usually played in January but I dont think that could work here, maybe it could though.
Major international team such as Manchester United, Barcelona, AC Milan etc... would be a huge boost for the team, hopefully part of SE asia tour. Perhaps two matches down under. (One against the A-League champs, one against an A-League all star XI.
Club World Cup unlikely as only two teams would get any backing (A-League team and the Europe team
Swans_Fan_089
Rookie
Swans_Fan_089
Rookie
Swans_Fan_089
Rookie
Badminton the mosy popualar sport in Asia
Is that because they always seem to win it at the Commonwealth games
No mate, football is by far the most popular sport in south east asia, aswell as all of asia. And football overtook baseball as the most popular sport in japan many many years ago.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Well good to see you have seen the difference. Maybe you can now amend your blog and remove the per annum from any figure you use.
See the AFL Cairns subsidy is to a state body, the game as a whole not the AFL. Despite the AFL's branding attempts, to me AFL = a league involving 16 clubs, not Australian Football across the board across the country. If you mean the AFL = the game as a whole, you then can throw in grants the SA government gives to the SANFL and WA government to the WAFL and Tasmanian government to the Tassie leagues.
I agree with you that the AFL and its clubs receive tens of millions of dollars from various governments, but to say that players received $50k per player is simplistic and unreasonable when capital grants are involved and those grants have community involvement in the facilities.
The government is giving the SCG Trust $25mil to redevelop the SCG. Using your methodology means the 11 cricketers than represent NSW get subsidised $2mill each, or the 25 contracted players get a subsidy of $1mil each.
The NSW goverment gave grants, zero interest loans and low interest loans to the developers of the Olympic Stadium worth $190mil. Using your methodology, then the 89 track and field athletes who represented Australia at the 2000 Olympics received a subsidy of $2mil each. The same agruement would apply to the MCG redevelopment where the Federal government subsidy started at $90mil, before increasing then add the Vic government subsidy. What about swimming why not value the cost of the Olympic pool in Sydney and spread it over the 40 odd athletes who represented Australia at the Olympics. The Swimming body retain control and management of the pool.
Every sport and just like about ever industry group in Australia gets subsidies. Some more direct cash than others. Some less direct. Some with infrastructure attached. Some with conditions attached. Simplistic analysis adds nothing to trying to determine the fairness and how appropriate any subsidies are.
Badminton the mosy popualar sport in Asia
Is that because they always seem to win it at the Commonwealth games
No mate, football is by far the most popular sport in south east asia, aswell as all of asia. And football overtook baseball as the most popular sport in japan many many years ago.
Cricket is streets ahead of soccer in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and the advent of professional Twenty20 will only grow that game.
I saw the crowds (or lack of them) at Asian cup group games so I'm not convinced that soccer is anymore popular than volleyball or basketball in the region. Badminton seems to be more passionately supported than soccer in SE Asia as well.
Done.
I disagree. You see, the pork-barrelling is driven by politicians' perceptions of what the public wants, egged on by sophisticated lobbyists and filtered by the media.
Overly-complex technical analyses with caveats and footnotes etc are easily ignored by the public. It's all just too hard for most people to bother with, so it is, in effect, conducted behind closed doors.
That's why simplistic attention-grabbing analyses play a role in the debate. Like the "per player subsidy" figure: it focuses the public's limited attention on to the issue in a way that people can relate to.
I doubt many Australians would be aware that tens of millions of their tax dollars goes into propping up the AFL - a highly-profitable and secure organisation staffed by some very wealthy people.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Well done for changing your blog. Credit where credit is due.
That's where we differ. I am sceptical of politicans and media providing/reporting simple facts. Just my professional training of analysising numbers to an nth degree.
That's why I made efforts in other threads to clearly demonstrate why Demetriou's claim of $7 out of every $10 of net revenue North Melbourne receive comes from the AFL, was misleading. He gave no definition of what net revenue means and he didn't benchmark it against other clubs. He knew it would be picked up as $7 out of every $10 of gross revenue by the media and there are plenty of examples that it was. His spin worked. Read any North Melbourne thread and you will see how many non North supporters are saying that $7 out of every $10 gross revenue North receives comes from the AFL. It also includes capital grants which are one offs and not ongoing.
That's why I was hot on your presentation of this info. Any other time I probably would have said it's wrong, but just let it slide thru to the keeper.
As I said before, interesting website. You have your adgenda and your own spin, but it is well researched. I will probably pop in every now and then and have a read.
- Banned
- #97
Because anybody with a minute grasp of language would know theat AFL is a league not a sport . But we all know that you really meant to say Australian Football .
Now instead of bagging the crap out of everybody why don't you tell us about your knowledge of Australian Football played overseas and we can all laugh at you and point you in the right direction , because I know that you know Nothing .
.
actually the sport is called AFL, the name was changed by the AFL (administration) so that the sport is now called AFL (the sport) as well as the AFL ( competition)
but feel free to be wrong and beligerent about it
- Banned
- #99
What a load of fabricated crap.
Read the laws of the game yourself, direct from the AFL. Page 1 should be enough.
http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/2007_LAWS_OF_THE_GAME.pdf
Similar threads
