Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[Dan26]

Disagree. Not having Tasmania and Canberra in the AFL is insane.

Want to reduce the number of teams? Well, too bad, you can’t.

None of them are going anywhere, including the Suns and Giants.

You could definitely make an argument to limit the number of teams, though.

I’d consider capping it at 22, with the NT and NQ to be the last two teams ever added.

Everyone plays each other once + two rivals = 23 games.

Vic v each other
Tas/SA clubs
NT/WA clubs
QLD clubs
NSW/ACT

I can’t see the AFL giving up the 2x showdowns, derbies, and a couple big vic blockbusters.

I’d love to see our game become truly national.

For many people, that just means having the NT but without ACT it’s not truly national IMO.

Let’s put the A in AFL.

This idiocy of a 19 or 20 team competiton is seemingly championed by people who love the way things look on "paper". It's so mind-numbingly crazy. "Oh look, we'll have a team in the NT and a third team in WA and Tassy and everything will be hunky dory!"

Firstly Darwin has a population of 150,000. You need a market of 500,000 for a team, so that rules them out. But if you have all these ridiculous teams in the league there is a massive trade-off. The trade off is that the chances of winning a premiership would be so miniscule that many supporters will never see their team win a flag ever again. The trade off is that standard of the competition suffers. The trade-off is that it creates even more small market teams who will struggle to retain players through free agency and we will see an even bigger gap between the successful clubs and the rest.

It's insanity.

 

[Soggy2112]

Only problem is, with more teams, you’re going to have more dead rubbers leading up to the finals.

Yes, you have to be better to make it, and less finalists ensures more quality teams make it, but the cutoff will happen sooner.

We already saw it this year. You could tell even three weeks ago that only 9 teams were still in finals contention.

I get what you’re saying and it wouldn’t bother me if they kept the 8, but the AFL would probably prefer more dead rubber finals over dead rubber home and away games because finals will make money, regardless.

It’s a very valid point.

Personally I’m happy to accept there being more dead rubbers, if it means that the finals are a higher standard. But I suppose the AFL will just see more finals as an opportunity for more revenue so that’s likely where we’ll end up

 

[Coolangatta]

This idiocy of a 19 or 20 team competiton is seemingly championed by people who love the way things look on "paper". It's so mind-numbingly crazy. "Oh look, we'll have a team in the NT and a third team in WA and Tassy and everything will be hunky dory!"

Firstly Darwin has a population of 150,000. You need a market of 500,000 for a team, so that rules them out. But if you have all these ridiculous teams in the league there is a massive trade-off. The trade off is that the chances of winning a premiership would be so miniscule that many supporters will never see their team win a flag ever again. The trade off is that standard of the competition suffers. The trade-off is that it creates even more small market teams who will struggle to retain players through free agency and we will see an even bigger gap between the successful clubs and the rest.

It's insanity.

I’m not saying now but in 50 years time or whenever they could be viable.

Canberra is viable now, and Tassie deserves a team.

And boo ****in hoo on seeing your team win a flag.

You do realise what the flag tally was in the 1986 VFL, yeah?

Swans 3, North 2, Dogs and Saints 1 each.

It’s almost as if less teams doesn’t guarantee shit. Always has been and will be haves and have nots.

Just because there’s too many teams in Victoria, doesn’t mean the top end should never get a chance to have a team.

 

[LeeCarvallo]

This idiocy of a 19 or 20 team competiton is seemingly championed by people who love the way things look on "paper". It's so mind-numbingly crazy. "Oh look, we'll have a team in the NT and a third team in WA and Tassy and everything will be hunky dory!"

Firstly Darwin has a population of 150,000. You need a market of 500,000 for a team, so that rules them out. But if you have all these ridiculous teams in the league there is a massive trade-off. The trade off is that the chances of winning a premiership would be so miniscule that many supporters will never see their team win a flag ever again. The trade off is that standard of the competition suffers. The trade-off is that it creates even more small market teams who will struggle to retain players through free agency and we will see an even bigger gap between the successful clubs and the rest.

It's insanity.

'you need a market of 500'00 for a team' is such an arbitrary number with no basis.

Geelong's population is 276,446 and they had the 5th most members at 90'000 in 2024, and one of the strongest player retention rates and cultures in AFL football.

The NT is football mad. They would very easily be able to support a team, not to mention game day attendance only accounts for 16% of the AFL's revenue, so getting 15'000 - 25'000 would be no financial strain on the AFL whatsoever as they would be earning a lot more through the TV rights to the extra games.

The standard of competition would suffer fractionally with 20+ teams, however logistically, if the AFL was serious about being a national game and representing each city, they would move some teams out of Victoria.

Teams like St Kilda, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne that are still under financial pressure after being in the competition for so long and have such minor support bases comparatively in such a big market are more of a strain on the AFL long term than what Tasmania, Northern Territory, Gold Coast or GWS would ever be. Especially with their capacity to grow the game in those areas and increase the talent pool long term.

 

[Dan26]

'you need a market of 500'00 for a team' is such an arbitrary number with no basis.

Geelong's population is 276,446 and they had the 5th most members at 90'000 in 2024, and one of the strongest player retention rates and cultures in AFL football.

The NT is football mad. They would very easily be able to support a team, not to mention game day attendance only accounts for 16% of the AFL's revenue, so getting 15'000 - 25'000 would be no financial strain on the AFL whatsoever as they would be earning a lot more through the TV rights to the extra games.

The standard of competition would suffer fractionally with 20+ teams, however logistically, if the AFL was serious about being a national game and representing each city, they would move some teams out of Victoria.

Teams like St Kilda, Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne that are still under financial pressure after being in the competition for so long and have such minor support bases comparatively in such a big market are more of a strain on the AFL long term than what Tasmania, Northern Territory, Gold Coast or GWS would ever be. Especially with their capacity to grow the game in those areas and increase the talent pool long term.

You need 500,000 MINIMIUM to support a team in a heartland AFL market and about 2 million to support a team in a NON-Heartland AFL market

The Geelong example is not relevant. They have been around since 1859, established strong support not just in Geelong but all over Australia over the course of 150 years. They have lots of support in the western suburbs of Melbourne where I'm from and elsewhere. As many of the Victorian clubs do. Collingwood the suburb only has 15,000 people, but the club has established strong support everywhere over more than 120 years, just as Geelong has. It's not as if Geelong's support ends at the imaginary line where Geelong the city ends. Geelong are part of a region, that, combined with the city of Melbourne (which is only an hour away) has a population of over 5,000,000 people.

Ignoring imaginary boundaries with suburbs and small cities like Geelong, the Melbourne/Geelong combined area has about 5,000,000 people. Divided by 10 teams equals 500,000 per team on average. And that's a saturated market

Adelaide has a population of 1.4 million. So an average of 700,000 per team, even though one has more support than the other. But two teams in a heartland AFL city with an average of 700,000 is more than feasible.

Perth is over 2 million now, so they easily pass the 500,000 threshold and "theoretically" could support a third team, even though I don't think that would be good for the structure and balance of the competition.

Sydney has over 5 million, but you need 2 million in a NON-heartland AFL market, that's why Sydney and SE Qld have two teams in areas of 5 million and 4 million respectively.

Tasmania has 500,000 but it's decentralized which is why it's been so hard to justify a team. It can work, but only if the whole state gets behind it.

The N.T cannot support a team. That's laughable. Nor can Canberra. Canberra is half AFL, half Rugby League. You need 750,000, maybe a million to justify a team there, given it's NOT AFL heartland. The Northern Territory fantasy about having an AFL team in a city like Darwin of just 150,000 is mind-numbingly stupid. It will never EVER happen.

 

[Soggy2112]

Sometimes footy, and sport in general, has to be shit, to truly enjoy it.

Enjoying sport IMO is as much about the storyline as it is the actual game itself.

Take the weekend for example. That Melbourne-Saints last quarter is one of the most entertaining things I’ve ever watched. The people at the ground will talk about that for years and I’m sure so will the players.

But the thing is, it’s only interesting, because it’s rare. If teams came back from 46 points down every other week it would have been meaningless.

It’s only because of all the shit blowouts you sit through, that that one moment is so exciting.

Take the Showdown as well. It’s hardly the best advertisement for footy as a sport, but it adds to the storyline of the two teams. It’s something interesting that you could talk about. Sure, if that’s what footy was all the time it’s not so great, but it adds to the narrative of an AFL season.

People that love test cricket would get what I mean. Sure, there’s plenty of moments in a game of test cricket that would put you to sleep, but that all adds to the story line, and when you get those exciting moments it makes I that much better.

I’m not saying we don’t try and make the game better, but when the media ties itself in knots over a couple boring dead rubbers I think they miss the point of sport. Not everything needs to be wall to wall entertainment.

 

[LeeCarvallo]

You need 500,000 MINIMIUM to support a team in a heartland AFL market and about 2 million to support a team in a NON-Heartland AFL market

The Geelong example is not relevant. They have been around since 1859, established strong support not just in Geelong but all over Australia over the course of 150 years. They have lots of support in the western suburbs of Melbourne where I'm from and elsewhere. As many of the Victorian clubs do. Collingwood the suburb only has 15,000 people, but the club has established strong support everywhere over more than 120 years, just as Geelong has. It's not as if Geelong's support ends at the imaginary line where Geelong the city ends. Geelong are part of a region, that, combined with the city of Melbourne (which is only an hour away) has a population of over 5,000,000 people.

Ignoring imaginary boundaries with suburbs and small cities like Geelong, the Melbourne/Geelong combined area has about 5,000,000 people. Divided by 10 teams equals 500,000 per team on average. And that's a saturated market

Adelaide has a population of 1.4 million. So an average of 700,000 per team, even though one has more support than the other. But two teams in a heartland AFL city with an average of 700,000 is more than feasible.

Perth is over 2 million now, so they easily pass the 500,000 threshold and "theoretically" could support a third team, even though I don't think that would be good for the structure and balance of the competition.

Sydney has over 5 million, but you need 2 million in a NON-heartland AFL market, that's why Sydney and SE Qld have two teams in areas of 5 million and 4 million respectively.

Tasmania has 500,000 but it's decentralized which is why it's been so hard to justify a team. It can work, but only if the whole state gets behind it.

The N.T cannot support a team. That's laughable. Nor can Canberra. Canberra is half AFL, half Rugby League. You need 750,000, maybe a million to justify a team there, given it's NOT AFL heartland. The Northern Territory fantasy about having an AFL team in a city like Darwin of just 150,000 is mind-numbingly stupid. It will never EVER happen.

Again, you're just making up arbitrary numbers.

You don't NEED any minimum number of people living in a city. The AFL's revenue is not dependent on match day attendance. They could quite comfortably create a team in the Darwin and be completely fine.

You're also using the excuse of 'well they've been there for a long time so they have been able to gather more support'

Yes. Exactly like any other team will be able to do given the time and resources.

If the AFL wants a team in the NT, which I don't think they do anyway, they would have no problem whatsoever setting one up.

 

[Blackhawk42]

If you complain the league values $ more than fairness, but also want only big-drawing teams to be playing in "showcase" time-slots (Friday night, Sat night), then you're a hypocrite.

Earlier in the year I heard someone from the AFL say that the broadcaster "rewarded" certain teams for good performances by featuring them in favourable time-slots. What a load of corrupt crap.
Personally I don't care when my team plays. I would rather every team gets featured equally in those time-slots and the league make less $.

It's actually an outrage how much say the broadcaster has in our game.

I've been saying this for years.

Give me St.Kilda vs Gold Coast on a Friday night if it means less Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood.

 

[Pistol Night]

I've been saying this for years.

Give me St.Kilda vs Gold Coast on a Friday night if it means less Carlton, Essendon and Collingwood.

Hey! What have we done wrong?

 

[Dan26]

Again, you're just making up arbitrary numbers.

You don't NEED any minimum number of people living in a city. The AFL's revenue is not dependent on match day attendance. They could quite comfortably create a team in the Darwin and be completely fine.

You're also using the excuse of 'well they've been there for a long time so they have been able to gather more support'

Yes. Exactly like any other team will be able to do given the time and resources.

If the AFL wants a team in the NT, which I don't think they do anyway, they would have no problem whatsoever setting one up.

Whilst 500,000 is obviously an approximation it is also a well known figure if you look at heartland AFL markets and divide the population by the number of teams. It's not rocket science, and the AFL is fully ware of the market size needed to support a team.

You're also using the excuse of 'well they've been there for a long time so they have been able to gather more support'

Did you even bother reading what I wrote, buddy? Yes of course it's true that Geelong has been around for 150 years and garnered support. But where has that support come from? It has come from a region in Australia that has over 5 million people living within an 1.5 hours of each other. There is no point being succcesful if you have no market of people from which to draw. ALL the 10 Victorian clubs have 5,000,000 people from which to draw on. Some of that support is geographically based, and some is based on success. But if you don't have a large market within a 90-minute radius of where the team plays it's home home games, to draw on in the first place, none of your success will matter. If you are a successful team in a small town of 5,000 people with the nearest major population center 6 hours away, none of your success will mean anything.

Yes. Exactly like any other team will be able to do given the time and resources.

If the AFL wants a team in the NT, which I don't think they do anyway, they would have no problem whatsoever setting one up.

They would have enormous problems setting one up in the Northern Territory. For starters the market for Darwin is 150,000, and unlike Geelong there isn't 5 million people one hour away. The AFL would need a proper stadium built which is totally unfeasible to spend 1.5 billion dollars in a city smaller in population than some Melbourne suburbs.

You have to have a market to draw upon of approximately 500,000 people with a short distance of where the team is located to make any team feasible. A N.T team is a joke. Only a moron could make a business case for it. Same with Canberra. Sure Canberra is almost 500,000 people, but it's not AFL heartland. It's probably 60/40 NRL/AFL, so you would need approximately 1.2 million to make it feasible.

The casual ease with which these "20 team advocates" push for this idiocy is amazingly ignorant. The negatives of a 20 team competition are huge.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Hey! What have we done wrong?

Those 3 clubs get the best TV ratings, so they get more prime time slots.

Essendon and Carlton are garbage. At least the Pies aren't.

As a neutral, it would be nice to see marquee slots shared around more though.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The N.T cannot support a team. That's laughable. Nor can Canberra. Canberra is half AFL, half Rugby League. You need 750,000, maybe a million to justify a team there, given it's NOT AFL heartland. The Northern Territory fantasy about having an AFL team in a city like Darwin of just 150,000 is mind-numbingly stupid. It will never EVER happen.

People always underestimate AFL support in Canberra. Canberrans don't subscribe to code wars to the same extent as the rest of the country. Most NRL fans I know also have an AFL team.

As for population, we're also underestimated. People forget how many people we have within an hour that's not included in our regular population figures. We at over 600k within an hour. That'll be ~700k by the time the 20th team enters.

Not to mention the median income in Canberra is 70% higher than in Tasmania. If Tasmania has the market to support a team, Canberra does too.

 

[Dan26]

People always underestimate AFL support in Canberra. Canberrans don't subscribe to code wars to the same extent as the rest of the country. Most NRL fans I know also have an AFL team.

As for population, we're also underestimated. People forget how many people we have within an hour that's not included in our regular population figures. We at over 600k within an hour. That'll be ~700k by the time the 20th team enters.

Not to mention the median income in Canberra is 70% higher than in Tasmania. If Tasmania has the market to support a team, Canberra does too.

It’s more feasible than an N.T team for sure, but 19 or 20 teams is just so ridiculous. Look at how many problems we have now with 18 teams. Spreading the market even thinner with 20 teams is insanity.

 

[Coolangatta]

It’s more feasible than an N.T team for sure, but 19 or 20 teams is just so ridiculous. Look at how many problems we have now with 18 teams. Spreading the market even thinner with 20 teams is insanity.

No worries then, let’s boot Essendon out after Tassie comes in and we can stay on 18 teams.

 

[Coolangatta]

12 teams or double that, I still couldn’t see the Bombers winning another flag for at least 50 years lol

 

[Cam Payne]

I like the idea of a mid season thing-o, but it must result in every side playing each other twice, once home, once away.

The only way to make that happen is schedule make everyone play 17 rounds over 17 weeks, with two bye weeks either side of everyone playing 17 games in 17 days. Those happen in game will be scheduled in June.

34 matches over 24 weeks with 2 bye rounds. Finally an even fixture.

 

[Scotland]

If you want to have 19 or 20 teams then you need enough central revenue to support them.

GWS have 36k members (whatever that means) and get anywhere from 8k to 20k to their home games. That isn't keeping the lights on. St Kilda vs Melbourne only drew 22.5k and would have lost money on the day. Get under 20k to a game in Melbourne and Caro will have you relocated by the Monday early edition.

Everyone relies on central funding, and that mostly comes from TV rights. On average, AFL distribution per club is $23m a year ranging from $15m to $37m. If it's $35m per expansion club then the AFL needs to find another $70m a year to make it work before they start losing money. How much are 7 and Fox prepared to pay for 10 games a round instead of 9? Not beyond the realms of possibility that the 2032- TV rights deal is worth $1b a year. The AFL can easily subsidise more teams if that is what they want.

2001: $100m per year (16 teams)
2006: $150m (16)
2011: $250m (17/18 teams)
2016: $417m (18)
2025: $750m (18, potentially 19)

 

[Pistol Night]

12 teams or double that, I still couldn’t see the Bombers winning another flag for at least 50 years lol

That's 3 finals in 1 year. The math is daunting

 

[Coolangatta]

If you want to have 19 or 20 teams then you need enough central revenue to support them.

GWS have 36k members (whatever that means) and get anywhere from 8k to 20k to their home games. That isn't keeping the lights on. St Kilda vs Melbourne only drew 22.5k and would have lost money on the day. Get under 20k to a game in Melbourne and Caro will have you relocated by the Monday early edition.

Everyone relies on central funding, and that mostly comes from TV rights. On average, AFL distribution per club is $23m a year ranging from $15m to $37m. If it's $35m per expansion club then the AFL needs to find another $70m a year to make it work before they start losing money. How much are 7 and Fox prepared to pay for 10 games a round instead of 9? Not beyond the realms of possibility that the 2032- TV rights deal is worth $1b a year. The AFL can easily subsidise more teams if that is what they want.

2001: $100m per year (16 teams)
2006: $150m (16)
2011: $250m (17/18 teams)
2016: $417m (18)
2025: $750m (18, potentially 19)

Yep, they can put them wherever they want if the TV rights can cover it.

Given no Vic club will move their asses to Canberra, I’d personally like to see an aggressive expansion to 22 teams by the 2040s (when I expect the next media rights deal after 2032 kicks in).

I’d like to see the ACT, NT and South West WA (WA3 before any other state gets a third club).

Ideally, Roos would move to ACT and AFL could bankroll NT if the feds build a stadium for them. Would have 20 teams and a proper national comp.

 

[WillHayward]

Disagree. Not having Tasmania and Canberra in the AFL is insane.

Want to reduce the number of teams? Well, too bad, you can’t.

None of them are going anywhere, including the Suns and Giants.

You could definitely make an argument to limit the number of teams, though.

I’d consider capping it at 22, with the NT and NQ to be the last two teams ever added.

Everyone plays each other once + two rivals = 23 games.

Vic v each other
Tas/SA clubs
NT/WA clubs
QLD clubs
NSW/ACT

I can’t see the AFL giving up the 2x showdowns, derbies, and a couple big vic blockbusters.

I’d love to see our game become truly national.

For many people, that just means having the NT but without ACT it’s not truly national IMO.

Let’s put the A in AFL.

Sure but there would need to be two divisions with promotion and relegation.

There is absolutely no way in hell there are enough good quality players to fill 20 teams and have watchable games, let alone 22. The standard for the bottom half of teams would be atrocious.

 

[WillHayward]

Yep, they can put them wherever they want if the TV rights can cover it.

Given no Vic club will move their asses to Canberra, I’d personally like to see an aggressive expansion to 22 teams by the 2040s (when I expect the next media rights deal after 2032 kicks in).

I’d like to see the ACT, NT and South West WA (WA3 before any other state gets a third club).

Ideally, Roos would move to ACT and AFL could bankroll NT if the feds build a stadium for them. Would have 20 teams and a proper national comp.

The issue is going to be having enough good players. Not revenues.

With the national fertility rate at 1.6 (only 1.4 in Melbourne) and current demographic trends, the player pool is actually shrinking.

This is going to be a massive issue and the general footy public haven't yet figured it out but you can't beat demographics.

In 20 years from now we simply won't have the players.

It's already starting to become a problem now.

If you don't believe me have a good look at the Eagles list.

 

[Dan26]

People advocating for a day Grand Final are low I.Q individuals arguing for a pointless and irrelevant tradition even though the tradition of solely daytime football stopped in 1985. "Tradition" isn't an argument for a daytime Grand Final, because if it was, then the simpletons pushing this would have to hypocritcally argue that all other finals and H&A games should be played during the day, which they won't because they are low I.Q hypocrites.

Arguments for a night Grand Final:
1. The TV ratings would be higher
2. The Grand Final entertainment would be better at night
3. 70% of Home and Away games are played at night or twilight (or under a roof) with a yellow ball, meaning it is fairer on the players to play with a yellow ball in a timeslot that is more familiar.
4. All the other finals are played at night.

Arguments for a daytime Grand Final
NONE

 

[Purple Suit]

People advocating for a day Grand Final are low I.Q individuals arguing for a pointless and irrelevant tradition even though the tradition of solely daytime football stopped in 1985. "Tradition" isn't an argument for a daytime Grand Final, because if it was, then the simpletons pushing this would have to hypocritcally argue that all other finals and H&A games should be played during the day, which they won't because they are low I.Q hypocrites.

Arguments for a night Grand Final:
1. The TV ratings would be higher
2. The Grand Final entertainment would be better at night
3. 70% of Home and Away games are played at night or twilight (or under a roof) with a yellow ball, meaning it is fairer on the players to play with a yellow ball in a timeslot that is more familiar.
4. All the other finals are played at night.

Arguments for a daytime Grand Final
NONE

Not one argument for daytime hey, really strange they haven’t just changed it yet then.

 

[Dan26]

Not one argument for daytime hey, really strange they haven’t just changed it yet then.

That’s because the AFL are run by morons.

 

[Mr Meow]

People advocating for a day Grand Final are low I.Q individuals arguing for a pointless and irrelevant tradition even though the tradition of solely daytime football stopped in 1985. "Tradition" isn't an argument for a daytime Grand Final, because if it was, then the simpletons pushing this would have to hypocritcally argue that all other finals and H&A games should be played during the day, which they won't because they are low I.Q hypocrites.

Arguments for a night Grand Final:
1. The TV ratings would be higher
2. The Grand Final entertainment would be better at night
3. 70% of Home and Away games are played at night or twilight (or under a roof) with a yellow ball, meaning it is fairer on the players to play with a yellow ball in a timeslot that is more familiar.
4. All the other finals are played at night.

Arguments for a daytime Grand Final
NONE

Natural light is great.
Less waiting is better.
Only plebs care about the entertainment or TV ratings - unless you're actually an AFL executive.
It's a shame more finals aren't played during the day. Daytime footy rules.
Moving the slot wouldn't be the end of the world, but then again neither is keeping it. Low I.Q individuals may get upset either way.