- Apr 22, 2013
- 4,163
- 5,058
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Personally I agree with tombomb (at least i think that was who it was). We clearly were advantaged by the COLA. it added an element to inequality in the system.
I have been wanting to write a very long and detailed post about why I think equalisation has become such a big issue for the AFL but havent had time. It would involve elements of the law and economics but in essence it is something like:
1. aflpa threatened serious industrial action last cba about salary cap
2. only way to defend salary cap (ie make the restraint of trade lawful) is for policy reasons
3. the policy reasons are fundamentally based on equalisation
4. absent equalisation there is no justification for a salary cap
5. the equalisation working party went to us and looked at the whole range of equalisation tools there (ie luxury taxes, salary caps etc)
6. they came back determined to implement what they saw as best practice
7. this meant all of the little sweetheart deals which had been in place were to be reviewed - and that led to COLA.
However, the problem is and remains that COLA was designed to remove inequality. In my view - and it remains my view - the defence of the COLA was that a salary cap is inherently uneven if there are different costs. If $1 in Melbourne buys 97c in Sydney, 1.03 in Adelaide and 96c in Perth then it is inherently unfair to have a fixed rate salary cap. So yes I would have supported different salary caps to be adjusted annually.
So scope existed for a differential salary cap which would have made (in my view) a lot more sense than it does in the US. Whether it was argued or not I don't know. But if you look at minimum wages for us sportspeople it is in the vicinity of $500k us. This compares to the circa 60k for rookies in the afl. It makes perfect sense for a player to uproot (particularly in the context of going to college for four years where they usually already have left home) in that context as the differential from minimum or even median earnings is so different. In the AFL rookie players aren't even on median australian earnings.
Anyway, that bird has flown.
But (and contrary to what everyone here thinks) I remain uncertain as to exactly how we dealt with COLA. I am not at all convinced by the arguments that we keep making here and on the main board about the way we have dealt with cola - that it is a straight forward 9.8% on each contract. The following quote...
Ireland called on the AFL's football operations manager Mark Evans to confirm the Swans were using COLA as it was intended.
"I think it would be good if someone from the AFL, maybe Mark Evans or someone who has got visibility of the contracts, confirmed exactly that," he said.
"We've asked the AFL to do it and we're still waiting."
Ireland said Franklin and Tippett would only receive about $40,000 combined from COLA this year.
He added that the Swans were only spending "just over a million dollars" combined on the glamour forwards this year.
story here has always had me scratching my head. We agreed to pay over $1m to tippett and buddy in 2014 but we only paid 40000 COLA. Something is simply not right in that statement. Either the 9.8% was more flexible than we all seem to think or andrew ireland doesnt know his maths.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-01/hes-saying-were-cheating
Now I am sorry, but that is simply not 9.8% on the contract. It is about 4%. Something looks odd somewhere.
The point of all this I guess is - if Ireland is correct here I perfectly understand the reasoning behind the afl's decision - we were playing by slightly different rules. There has to be a period where they wash out
I have been wanting to write a very long and detailed post about why I think equalisation has become such a big issue for the AFL but havent had time. It would involve elements of the law and economics but in essence it is something like:
1. aflpa threatened serious industrial action last cba about salary cap
2. only way to defend salary cap (ie make the restraint of trade lawful) is for policy reasons
3. the policy reasons are fundamentally based on equalisation
4. absent equalisation there is no justification for a salary cap
5. the equalisation working party went to us and looked at the whole range of equalisation tools there (ie luxury taxes, salary caps etc)
6. they came back determined to implement what they saw as best practice
7. this meant all of the little sweetheart deals which had been in place were to be reviewed - and that led to COLA.
However, the problem is and remains that COLA was designed to remove inequality. In my view - and it remains my view - the defence of the COLA was that a salary cap is inherently uneven if there are different costs. If $1 in Melbourne buys 97c in Sydney, 1.03 in Adelaide and 96c in Perth then it is inherently unfair to have a fixed rate salary cap. So yes I would have supported different salary caps to be adjusted annually.
So scope existed for a differential salary cap which would have made (in my view) a lot more sense than it does in the US. Whether it was argued or not I don't know. But if you look at minimum wages for us sportspeople it is in the vicinity of $500k us. This compares to the circa 60k for rookies in the afl. It makes perfect sense for a player to uproot (particularly in the context of going to college for four years where they usually already have left home) in that context as the differential from minimum or even median earnings is so different. In the AFL rookie players aren't even on median australian earnings.
Anyway, that bird has flown.
But (and contrary to what everyone here thinks) I remain uncertain as to exactly how we dealt with COLA. I am not at all convinced by the arguments that we keep making here and on the main board about the way we have dealt with cola - that it is a straight forward 9.8% on each contract. The following quote...
Ireland called on the AFL's football operations manager Mark Evans to confirm the Swans were using COLA as it was intended.
"I think it would be good if someone from the AFL, maybe Mark Evans or someone who has got visibility of the contracts, confirmed exactly that," he said.
"We've asked the AFL to do it and we're still waiting."
Ireland said Franklin and Tippett would only receive about $40,000 combined from COLA this year.
He added that the Swans were only spending "just over a million dollars" combined on the glamour forwards this year.
story here has always had me scratching my head. We agreed to pay over $1m to tippett and buddy in 2014 but we only paid 40000 COLA. Something is simply not right in that statement. Either the 9.8% was more flexible than we all seem to think or andrew ireland doesnt know his maths.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-01/hes-saying-were-cheating
Now I am sorry, but that is simply not 9.8% on the contract. It is about 4%. Something looks odd somewhere.
The point of all this I guess is - if Ireland is correct here I perfectly understand the reasoning behind the afl's decision - we were playing by slightly different rules. There has to be a period where they wash out