AFL reaps $80m from Gather Round deal

[The_Wookie]

AFL reaps $80m from Gather Round deal​

ByJake Niall​

The AFL will reap a major windfall from the Gather Round deal with South Australia, receiving close to $80 million in cash and non-capital investment from the SA government for the next three years.

And, as sources familiar with the deal confirmed, the AFL will benefit even further if infrastructure and longer-term spending on facilities and community footy are counted in the deal announced on Sunday by Premier Peter Malinauskas and AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan.

If this longer-range spending is included - in addition to the cash and non-capital expenses - the SA government’s investment in Gather Round over three years would exceed $90m, although the investments in facilities outlive the three-year deal.

The AFL received what well-placed competition and AFL sources said was between $16m and $20m from the Malinauskas government for last weekend’s first Gather Round in Adelaide and Mount Barker. This consisted of about $15m cash from the major events budget of the SA government, plus a much smaller amount that came from a promotional budget.

All told, the AFL grossed close to $30m from the inaugural Gather Round, counting earnings from ticket sales, but will have to subtract costs from that return. They have handed much of that money to the clubs - lifting the soft cap by $250,000 – and a significant share to the players for playing an extra round.

The AFL estimated that more than 60,000 fans came to South Australia for the first Gather Round, but the expectation of both the SA government, the league and several clubs, including the Adelaide Crows, is that the number of fans who travel from out of state to SA will increase next year and bolster the impact on the state’s economy.

The NSW and Western Australian governments also made pitches for hosting the round. Sources familiar with the negotiations said that, in the early discussions with McLachlan, the premier suggested that the concept would fare better and become more valuable if it was hosted by the fanatical football state rather than NSW, with McLachlan having first floated that SA could host the round next year after it started in NSW.

The AFL and SA government are hoping to host games in the Barossa and possibly McLaren Vale next year, clearly to attract more tourists and dollars from other states. To do so would require more spending on local community grounds and facilities to get them up to AFL standard for spectators and players.


The novelty of games at Norwood Oval (Fremantle v Gold Coast and Hawthorn v Greater Western Sydney) – which could only accommodate 10,000 fans but which offered a more intimate atmosphere – has resulted in SANFL clubs, such as Glenelg and Sturt, expressing interest in hosting those games at their homes next year. Mount Barker also hosted a game between the Brisbane Lions and North Melbourne, a template for what could be done in the Barossa.

The premier has a major events budget of $40m for this year and has indicated that the Gather Round spend is less than half of that budget.

AFL reaps $80m from Gather Round deal

The AFL will reap a major windfall from the Gather Round deal with South Australia, receiving close to $80 million in cash and non-capital investment from the SA government for the next three years.

www.theage.com.au

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ten-to-a-yarn-being-spun-20230417-p5d12r.html

 

[Freomaniac]

A good deal all round

 

[Kwality]

A good deal all round

The claimed financial benefit to tourism is always difficult to quantify.
The_Wookie is in the game (still ?) & hopefully can post any relevant trade chatter.

 

[The 747]

The claimed financial benefit to tourism is always difficult to quantify.
The_Wookie is in the game (still ?) & hopefully can post any relevant trade chatter.

See any study on the Olympics.

 

[Kwality]

See any study on the Olympics.

I'm a car racing fan, see the GP every year.

 

[My_Username]

Well, we know why the AFL was so eager to call it a huge success.

 

[madmug]

See any study on the Olympics.

Considering that spending of facilities & athlete accommodation was virtually zero, I'd say any comparison with Olympic spending is irrelevant.

 

[The 747]

Considering that spending of facilities & athlete accommodation was virtually zero, I'd say any comparison with Olympic spending is irrelevant.

Er what?

My post was nothing to do with Olympic spending.

 

[kranger]

So many metrics can be used to compared Gather Round vs Magic Round. But they are rarely fair comparisons because of triple headers vs double headers vs stand alone games. Total attendance is a good one.

But perhaps it should just be:

1. “did people who attend enjoy themselves” and
2. “did the host city come alive”.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0shr8aR2RPdGbBKzZ1ff3Lss7e2LYLPSVEcC4eTNf38BCgphTtigfXFKfv754yV3jl&id=100058636915948&mibextid=qC1gEa

 

[Rob]

I would have thought a valid comparison is with a usual round of AFL/NRL.

The NRL got roughly the same number of people through the gates as a normal round. The AFL got significantly less.

I am yet to see a compelling argument as to why gather round was a raging success. I believe TV numbers were marginally up, but that can probably be attributed to having exclusive timeslots for all games.

 

[The Educator]

I would have thought a valid comparison is with a usual round of AFL/NRL.

The NRL got roughly the same number of people through the gates as a normal round. The AFL got significantly less.

I am yet to see a compelling argument as to why gather round was a raging success. I believe TV numbers were marginally up, but that can probably be attributed to having exclusive timeslots for all games.

Really?

They've sold it at apparently $30M a year. Working backward from that, it has proof of concept it can drag 10s of thousands more across borders than the magic round (and most sporting events).

As an aside, there weren't exclusive time slots for all games.

 

[The_Wookie]

I would have thought a valid comparison is with a usual round of AFL/NRL.

The NRL got roughly the same number of people through the gates as a normal round. The AFL got significantly less.

I am yet to see a compelling argument as to why gather round was a raging success. I believe TV numbers were marginally up, but that can probably be attributed to having exclusive timeslots for all games.

Financially it was a massive windfall for the league. Attendance wise, big windfall for the states tourism industry.

Objectives met. welcome to 3 more years.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Gather Round increases the AFL's season attendance total by 200k+, since it's an additional round.

Magic Round increases the NRL's season attendance total by maybe 20k, since it replaces a usual round.

 

[Rob]

Really?

They've sold it at apparently $30M a year. Working backward from that, it has proof of concept it can drag 10s of thousands more across borders than the magic round (and most sporting events).

Tourists aren't an AFL KPI. And as I understood it, the $30m per year was not the money the AFL got, it was the total of that plus the amount of money invested in infrastructure, i.e grounds in the Barossa and McLaren vale.

TBH it was better than I thought it was going to be, but the reality is that it was an incredibly poor drawing round comparatively, and a lot of the people that did attend would have gone to multiple games so the number of unique attendees would have been extremely low. On top of that, it really did nothing for the promotion of the game as the AFL is just preaching to the converted. It probably seemed great if you attended, but that's a small minority of footy fans.

As an aside, there weren't exclusive time slots for all games.

Yeah fair enough. There was 1 game on the Sunday that marginally overlapped.

 

[Walshawk]

Really interested to see what the AFL will do when we have an odd number of teams, and thus cannot simply add an extra round (you must have an even number of games for an off umber of clubs to all play the same amount of games)

22 games would mean seven or eight clubs would been to sell a home game to GR.

24 games would mean 19 neutral games, so nine at gather round and ten elsewhere. It would also mean extending the season by two ore weeks, so either starting in February or an October GF.

22 is more likely - it adds two more games per season. Reckon Hawks, Dees, Dogs, Saints, North, Giants and Suns would happily sell a game for $1m. Add the two home states teams and that makes the nine games. In years where NSW, Tas or QLD host would need one more team to sell a home game.

I reckon Sydney will be 2027. You will need some big matchups there to make it work. Then Perth in 2028, Tas in 2029 when the new stadium is ready. Maybe 2030 in QLD at the new Gabba.

 

[Teen Wolf]

22 is more likely

It's never going back to 22. The AFL wanted a 23rd game and decided Gather Round was the best way to make it happen, not the other way around.

Now there's already a 24th game on the table in negotiations between the AFL and AFLPA:

Players have been open to playing more rounds of football, with the successful Gather Round an example of players being open to finding new revenue streams after COVID. The players remain open to adding one further round of football.

By 2028, it'll be one of these three options:
24 games each, 12 home & 12 away, no Gather Round
25 games each, 12 home & 12 away + 1 Gather Round
24 games each, 11 home & 11 away + 2 Gather Rounds (1 in April [ideal for SA], 1 in August [ideal for QLD])

2 Gather Rounds could also be used to address the advantage of the local teams getting an extra home game. For example: Port and the Crows would play the Lions and Suns in the SA Gather Round, then the Lions and Suns would play Port and the Crows in the QLD Gather Round.

 

[Walshawk]

It's never going back to 22. The AFL wanted a 23rd game and decided Gather Round was the best way to make it happen, not the other way around.

Now there's already a 24th game on the table in negotiations between the AFL and AFLPA:


By 2028, it'll be one of these three options:
24 games each, 12 home & 12 away, no Gather Round
25 games each, 12 home & 12 away + 1 Gather Round
24 games each, 11 home & 11 away + 2 Gather Rounds (1 in April [ideal for SA], 1 in August [ideal for QLD])

2 Gather Rounds could also be used to address the advantage of the local teams getting an extra home game. For example: Port and the Crows would play the Lions and Suns in the SA Gather Round, then the Lions and Suns would play Port and the Crows in the QLD Gather Round.

You can’t have 25 games each with 19 teams.
If you go to 24, you would have to start the season in February. Not a fan of that. Neither will be the players.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You can’t have 25 games each with 19 teams.

I'm not the one who started the dumb thread about mergers, just playing along with it. If there are 18 teams in 2028, 25 games would be a realistic option.

If you go to 24, you would have to start the season in February. Not a fan of that. Neither will be the players.

Too bad for you, the AFLPA says otherwise. It will be 24 minimum by 2028, so still a bit of time to get used to the idea (unless it happens sooner, which is possible).

 

[kranger]

2 Gather Rounds could also be used to address the advantage of the local teams getting an extra home game. For example: Port and the Crows would play the Lions and Suns in the SA Gather Round, then the Lions and Suns would play Port and the Crows in the QLD Gather Round.

This is a good suggestion.

 

[Walshawk]

I'm not the one who started the dumb thread about mergers, just playing along with it. If there are 18 teams in 2028, 25 games would be a realistic option.


Too bad for you, the AFLPA says otherwise. It will be 24 minimum by 2028, so still a bit of time to get used to the idea (unless it happens sooner, which is possible).

The article simply said that was understood that players are open to more games. Where has the AFLPA demanded 24 games, and why does that mean the AFL will agree? Plenty to sort out before they add two more weeks.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The article simply said that was understood that players are open to more games. Where has the AFLPA demanded 24 games, and why does that mean the AFL will agree? Plenty to sort out before they add two more weeks.

The AFLPA aren't demanding more games, they're demanding more money. In return, it's the AFL who will be demanding more games, and apparently the players are willing to meet this demand.

 

[Walshawk]

The AFLPA aren't demanding more games, they're demanding more money. In return, it's the AFL who will be demanding more games, and apparently the players are willing to meet this demand.

Gather Round has added nine games, Tassie adds 11 home games (two on top of gather if you go back to 22 games). It sure that they will add another 19 games anytime soon as the next broadcast deal is already done - until 2031. Maybe after that.

 

[The_Wookie]

It's never going back to 22. The AFL wanted a 23rd game and decided Gather Round was the best way to make it happen, not the other way around.

Now there's already a 24th game on the table in negotiations between the AFL and AFLPA:


By 2028, it'll be one of these three options:
24 games each, 12 home & 12 away, no Gather Round
25 games each, 12 home & 12 away + 1 Gather Round
24 games each, 11 home & 11 away + 2 Gather Rounds (1 in April [ideal for SA], 1 in August [ideal for QLD])

2 Gather Rounds could also be used to address the advantage of the local teams getting an extra home game. For example: Port and the Crows would play the Lions and Suns in the SA Gather Round, then the Lions and Suns would play Port and the Crows in the QLD Gather Round.

Its never going back because the players want 2 in season byes if they can find them. Its why we already have the bye rounds we do, even though they arent needed from a fixturing perspective.

I dont think youll get more than 11 games a year per team (gather round doesnt count as a home game for any side), and I highly doubt youll get a second gather round in a season, but that might involve an extra round or two to accommodate the additional byes required for the uneven teams.

 

[The Educator]

Tourists aren't an AFL KPI.

Of course they aren't but that is a particularly glib point which I am surprised you are making given you seem one of the more reasoned posters around here.

Tourism numbers are the key driver of the value of these "sellable" events. Pretty much every sport does it. Before the Gather Round concept, the AFL had pretty much nothing but a small number of fringe "little club" matches to sell to smaller jurisdictions and regions.

If the Gather round starts pulling 100K across borders (like they are apparently expecting next year), the value will be massive in 2027. The AFL gets no explicit dividend from state governments for the 100s of thousands who travel for games through the season and finals

 

[The Educator]

Its never going back because the players want 2 in season byes if they can find them. Its why we already have the bye rounds we do, even though they arent needed from a fixturing perspective.

I dont think youll get more than 11 games a year per team (gather round doesnt count as a home game for any side), and I highly doubt youll get a second gather round in a season, but that might involve an extra round or two to accommodate the additional byes required for the uneven teams.

Walshawk was correct a few weeks back (in some other thread I can't remember) that you necessarily need an even number of games when you have an uneven number of teams. It has to be either 22 games or 24 games when Tasmania comes in (until team 20 comes in). This is mathematically necessarily the case - you cannot solve it with extra byes

I already thought it was going to 24 games per team, probably with an extra gather round. Teen Wolf's highlighting of the AFLPA concession in the negotiations has convinced me of that. It will be a 24 game (26 round) season by 2028