Reviewing the Health of the Competition

[FGS_Lurker]

Long-time reader. First-time poster.

I wasn't completely sure which forum to put this in but have done some analysis posted here on the (evenness or not) of the competition and how this helped to make 2017 a great season but also how the six season's prior were, historically-speaking, quite dull (this dull-ness being something that I sensed and the inspiration for doing the review in the first place). Unsurprisingly, this coincided with GWS and Gold Coast entering the competition and I think there's a lot to be said for how their introduction distorted things. Hopefully, 2018 will confirm that 2017 wasn't a fluke and that we are "back to normal".

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Unsurprisingly, this coincided with GWS and Gold Coast entering the competition and I think there's a lot to be said for how their introduction distorted things. Hopefully, 2018 will confirm that 2017 wasn't a fluke and that we are "back to normal".

Really solid, interesting research.

Lance Uppercut had a very similar theory about the expansion years and their effect on the competition - interesting to see the science backs him up.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Long-time reader. First-time poster.

I wasn't completely sure which forum to put this in but have done some analysis posted here on the (evenness or not) of the competition and how this helped to make 2017 a great season but also how the six season's prior were, historically-speaking, quite dull (this dull-ness being something that I sensed and the inspiration for doing the review in the first place). Unsurprisingly, this coincided with GWS and Gold Coast entering the competition and I think there's a lot to be said for how their introduction distorted things. Hopefully, 2018 will confirm that 2017 wasn't a fluke and that we are "back to normal".

Some excellent & time-consuming analysis -great research! Congratulations!

The AFL is on record as saying (about 2015, IIRC) that it wants to follow the NFL Model/Philosophy Of "Any Given Sunday". The AFL is aiming to have teams as evenly balanced as possible (Draft, Salary Cap, Priority Picks, even-up Football Dept. non-player wage spends etc). The AFL & NFL understand that fans are more likely to attend a game if most fans believe (based on recent form) their team has a reasonable chance of winning (or, at least, not being flogged).

For thoroughness on a discussion about the "Health Of The Competition", I would have liked to have seen analysis from you of:-
. population sizes of Melb., Perth, & Adelaide ie also historical per capita AF attendances.
. the strong attendances (c.25,000 average pw) of the very successful (pre 1982) VFA.
. the strong WAFL & SANFL attendances -prior to AFL Clubs being included in Perth & Adelaide.

(There is already a BF thread on per capita attendances, so this discussion doesn't need to be addressed in this thread. In 1970, Melb. pop. was c.2,300,000 -now c.4.82; Adelaide pop. was c.800,000 -now c.1.35; & Perth 688,000 -now 2.1. Live, complete, full TV broadcasts exist now, of course, but didn't until recent times -these would reduce attendances, particularly in rainy weather. Conversely, ground facilities & comfort are FAR superior to the past).

You also have not directly addressed the huge excitement (& thus increased crowds/ increased general interest in AF etc.) caused when teams have full forwards (or other forwards occasionally) who are kicking c.80 goals, or more, in a season.
Historians have recognised this crowd drawing power (eg Lee c.1910, Coventry,Pratt,Todd etc.30's, Coleman 50's, many FF's in 60's - 90's) & it is incontrovertible that forwards regularly kicking bags generate far greater interest for top flight comps.

With such crowded forward lines since c.2004 (due to 4 on the bench & huge interchange nos.), forwards have far less space to lead into/rarely get one-on-one in marking contests etc. Thus, goal totals have been in long term decline. 2017 had the lowest average since c.1969 (despite games now played on pristine, non-muddy surfaces; & wind much less of a factor with grand stands encircling grounds. Also, nil wind at DS).

Finally, the "health of the elite competition" should never be considered in isolation. Many would argue that, on a long term view/analysis, the health of GR AF is equally as important (but I realise your analysis did not wish to include this).

 

[Cmarsh]

This is definitely a main board worthy thread. Fantastic research.

 

[FGS_Lurker]

Really solid, interesting research.

Lance Uppercut had a very similar theory about the expansion years and their effect on the competition - interesting to see the science backs him up.

You'll have to point me to a link.

This also relates to the idea of cycles and premiership windows. It would be worth testing that idea to see if, in fact, it is just bull$!t to keep fans interested. There were 3 teams that finished in the bottom 6 in both 2010 and 2011, Adelaide, Richmond, Melbourne, and Brisbane. In 2014 and 2015, Melbourne and Brisbane were still in the bottom 6 (excl. GWS and GC). So if you believe in cycles then arguably Melbourne and Brisbane should not have still been there. But then why were Adelaide and Richmond OK?

In the end, the draft only plays some role in a team's resurgence (and perhaps the media places too much emphasis on it). There are plenty of other factors that we debate continuously: draft, trading nous, facilities, culture, management, luck). It's probable that Adelaide and Richmond had enough of the latter 5 factors to somewhat mitigate the impact of the distorted draft (they were not top 4 sides in 2014 and 2015).

 

[FGS_Lurker]

Some excellent & time-consuming analysis -great research! Congratulations!

The AFL is on record as saying (about 2015, IIRC) that it wants to follow the NFL Model/Philosophy Of "Any Given Sunday". The AFL is aiming to have teams as evenly balanced as possible (Draft, Salary Cap, Priority Picks, even-up Football Dept. non-player wage spends etc). The AFL & NFL understand that fans are more likely to attend a game if most fans believe (based on recent form) their team has a reasonable chance of winning (or, at least, not being flogged).

For thoroughness on a discussion about the "Health Of The Competition", I would have liked to have seen analysis from you of:-
. population sizes of Melb., Perth, & Adelaide ie also historical per capita AF attendances.
. the strong attendances (c.25,000 average pw) of the very successful (pre 1982) VFA.
. the strong WAFL & SANFL attendances -prior to AFL Clubs being included in Perth & Adelaide.

(There is already a BF thread on per capita attendances, so this discussion doesn't need to be addressed in this thread. In 1970, Melb. pop. was c.2,300,000 -now c.4.82; Adelaide pop. was c.800,000 -now c.1.35; & Perth 688,000 -now 2.1. Live, complete, full TV broadcasts exist now, of course, but didn't until recent times -these would reduce attendances, particularly in rainy weather. Conversely, ground facilities & comfort are FAR superior to the past).

You also have not directly addressed the huge excitement (& thus increased crowds/ increased general interest in AF etc.) caused when teams have full forwards (or other forwards occasionally) who are kicking c.80 goals, or more, in a season.
Historians have recognised this drawing power (eg Lee c.1910, Coventry,Pratt etc.30's, Coleman 50's, many FF's in 60's - 90's) & it is incontrovertible that forwards regularly kicking bags generate far greater interest for top flight comps.

With such crowded forward lines since c.2004 (due to 4 on the bench & huge interchange nos.), forwards have far less space to lead into/rarely get one-on-one in marking contests etc. Thus, goal totals have been in long term decline. 2017 had the lowest average since c.1969 (despite games now played on pristine, non-muddy surfaces; & wind much less of a factor with grand stands encircling grounds -nil wind at DS).

Finally, the "health of the elite competition" should never be considered in isolation. Many would argue that, on a long term view/analysis, the health of GR AF is equally as important (but I realise your analysis did not wish to include this).

*******
Thanks for your feedback.

The "Any Given Sunday" idea seems a worthy goal. Though first, fans have to see more upsets (data suggests they are no more common than ever), and closer games (2017 was a good year but prior years were terrible).

Re: Per capita attendance, should be relatively easy to add, tho clearly this would further exaggerate the downward trend that we already observed for matches between Vic teams 2011-2016. Point remains that Vic fans lost interest and they need keep comping back pretty hard in 2018 to regain the lost ground (which'll be tough as teams on a downward trajectory like Hawthorn will lose fans).

As you rightly acknowledge, attendance is influenced by other factors other than your team's chances (costs, family friendly (no kick-to-kick, not easy to drive to Docklands/families with young kids prefer to drive), quality of play, football heros, etc). I'd be interesting to know who kids idolise these days. Buddy is still prob an obvious one. Do kids now gravitate towards mid-fielders? The style of play doesn't stop me watching my team, but it does mean that I'll switch off the TV if the play is too congested or that skills are poor.

 

[Benny78]

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2012

2013 2014 2015




2016 2017

In graph form

 

[rumply]

Long-time reader. First-time poster.

I wasn't completely sure which forum to put this in but have done some analysis posted here on the (evenness or not) of the competition and how this helped to make 2017 a great season but also how the six season's prior were, historically-speaking, quite dull (this dull-ness being something that I sensed and the inspiration for doing the review in the first place). Unsurprisingly, this coincided with GWS and Gold Coast entering the competition and I think there's a lot to be said for how their introduction distorted things. Hopefully, 2018 will confirm that 2017 wasn't a fluke and that we are "back to normal".

Congrats on a great piece of work. I've just made my way through it & I think your research confirms what many of us consciously or otherwise have believed for sometime. While I'll leave the debate about whether the GWS/GC experiment will ever pay off to others, there is no question their introduction contributed to an extremely poor period for AFL, which was compounded of course by 'the saga' & was capitalised on by teams that were travelling well at that time, no crime there but also not the outstanding achievement many would like to believe it is. But was that period good for football? * NO. Gut instinct usually doesn't lie & your research certainly helps to back that up.

Like many I am sure, I saw a glimmer of hope when the Dogs won the flag playing great footy, & I honestly hadn't enjoyed a premiership as much since the Dons last saluted. & to have it backed up in '17 with the Tigers playing the way they did confirmed for me the game was back on track. Well, as long as Head Office can take it easy with their endless tinkering, but their equalisation endeavours certainly appear to be bearing fruit.

For various reasons, a lot of people have been lost to the game over the last decade or so. Some decent footy over the next 10 years might see a few of them come back.

 

[BringBackTorps]

For various reasons, a lot of people have been lost to the game over the last decade[Per capita, much longer] or so. Some decent [+++] footy over the next 10 years might see a few of them come back. [Not per capita -unless interchange scrapped; but new PS will see major crowd growth, similar to AO effect]

Big crowds (per capita & raw nos.) will only return with game styles that are, generally, more open -with more long kicking/contested high marking/more goals being kicked. Fans want to see these UNIQUE skills of AF. Historians agree that these factors attract much higher crowds.
Also, traditional one-on-one duels generate much interest & excitement in AF- "battle within a battle".

The current flooding game styles are the antithesis of this. We have now:-
. tackleball (tackle nos. now are about double the rate of the average in the 80's). In a Footscray game in late 2016, there were a record total of c.192 tackles.
. constant, massive flooding -which causes ugly scrappy play, due to insufficient time for players to execute their skills in such congested conditions
. very high & very ugly stoppage nos. & rolling mauls of players.
. despite current pristine, non muddy grounds generally (& less wind, due to more extensive grand stand "barriers"), and full time professional players, total goals kicked have declined to their lowest since 1969.

Only when the cancer of the 4 man bench (revert to two), & Interchange (revert to SUBSTITUTIONS only -or max. of 2 Interchanges per team, per match) are eliminated, will we see traditional, attractive AF game styles. Then, crowds should flock back.
Former AFL Chief Commissioner M. Fitzpatrick wanted to reduce Interchanges to 30 per team per match, but his view was outvoted on the Commission!

Some believe that coaches are in favour of the Interchange because it makes it a "coaches' game" ie more coaches/exercise scientists etc. are needed/employed/paid higher wages. Having only two subs. make decision making by players on the ground more paramount -it becomes a "players' game".

In Sept. 2016, a women's standalone All Star game was played between Melb. & Footscray. MSM praised it for its lack of heavy flooding/congestion/stoppages, was regarded as a good spectacle, the women could display their skills, many goals kicked & attracted, IIRC, a peak TV audience of c.1,200,000.

In contrast in the AFLW, coaches have reverted to their massive flooding/congestion tactics. This ugliness is, IMO, a major reason we have seen such a significant retreat in average AFLW ratings in 2018 - c.130,000 per match (FTA & Foxtel combined). The women simply don't have the time & space to execute their skills -hence, the scrappiness/stoppages' feast.
(The main reason, IMO, for the disturbing 2018 decline in Ratings was the AFLW had direct TV competition from cricket & Winter Oly. Games -unlike in 2017. Average 2018 AFLW crowds of c.6400, world class for stand alone H & A non-international comp., female team sport, are still obviously excellent)

 

[FGS_Lurker]

Big crowds (per capita & raw nos.) will only return with game styles that are, generally, more open -with more long kicking/contested high marking/more goals being kicked. Fans want to see these UNIQUE skills of AF. Historians agree that these factors attract much higher crowds.
Also, traditional one-on-one duels generate much interest & excitement in AF- "battle within a battle".

The current flooding game styles are the antithesis of this. We have now:-
. tackleball (tackle nos. are about double the rate of the average in the 80's). In a Footscray game in late 2016, there were a total of c.192 tackles.
. constant, massive flooding -which causes ugly scrappy play, due to insufficient time for players to execute their skills in such congested conditions
. very high & very ugly stoppage nos. & rolling mauls of players.
. despite pristine, non muddy grounds generally (& less wind, due to extent of grand stand "barriers"), and full time professional players, total goals kicked have declined to their lowest since 1969.

Only when the cancer of the 4 man bench (revert to two), & Interchange (revert to SUBSTITUTIONS only -or max. of 2 Interchanges per team, per match) are eliminated, will we see traditional, attractive AF game styles. Then, crowds should flock back.
Former AFL Chief Commissioner M. Fitzpatrick wanted to reduce Interchanges to 30 per team per match, but his view was outvoted on the Commission!

Some believe that coaches are in favour of the Interchange because it makes it a coaches' game ie more coaches/exercise scientists etc. are needed/employed/paid higher wages. Having only two subs. make decision making by players on the ground more paramount -it becomes a players' game.

In late 2016, a women's All Star game was played between Melb. & Footscray. It was noted & praised for its lack of heavy flooding & congestion, was regarded as a great spectacle, the women could display their skills, & attracted, IIRC, a peak TV audience of c.1,200,000.

In contrast in the AFLW, coaches have reverted to their massive flooding/congestion tactics. This ugliness is, IMO, a major reason we have seen such a significant retreat in average AFLW ratings in 2018 - c.130,000 per match (FTA & Foxtel combined). The women simply don't have the time & space to execute their skills -hence, the scrappiness/stoppages' feast.
(The main reason, IMO, for the disturbing decline in Ratings was the AFLW had direct TV competition from cricket & Winter Oly. Games -unlike in 2017. Average 2018 AFLW crowds of c.6400, world class for stand alone H & A non-international comp., female team sport, are still obviously excellent)

Just looking here for my own reference. 2-person interchange introduced in 1978. Third person added 1994. Fourth added 1998. Before 1978 there were 2 substitutes allowed. Unfortunately, can't find any online sources for the reason for introduction (would need to hit the microfilm at the library to properly confirm) but my guess the original idea for substitutes and interchanges related to replacing injured players, not a coaching strategy. I don't blame coaches, they just play within the rules that are set. Responsibility sits with the AFL to maintain an attractive product. It's very surprising that they cannot see what the fans see from the grandstand, especially since they have all the data.

Put simply, the rules have not kept up with the increasing fitness and decreasing rates of on-field injury. You don't need 18 players to traverse a cricket ground any more.

 

[BringBackTorps]

... the original idea for substitutes and interchanges related to replacing injured players, not a coaching strategy[Yes]... Responsibility sits with the AFL to maintain an attractive product. It's very surprising that they cannot see what the fans see from the grandstand, especially since they have all the data... the rules have not kept up with the increasing fitness and decreasing rates of on-field injury. You don't need 18 players to traverse a cricket ground any more.

The change to 3 players on the bench, then 4, & allowing players to return to the field -unlimited IC, was discussed/received general acclaim/justified ONLY on the basis that it would be beneficial for injured players (or to assess players who might be injured). That was the ONLY underlying philosophical reason for such a profound change -which now presents an almost existential threat to the game's essence.

It was never discussed that it would enable and/or encourage a MAJOR strategic shift to massive, continuous flooding -giving us an ugly, congested, scrappy, shortkicking, gamestyle; & uncontested marking, & "rugby"-style tackleball. From about 2004, there was a HUGE increase in the no. of interchanges. Our vast & unique football playing field, in effect, was reduced to under 40% of its traditional playing space -with, often, nearly all players in c. 40% of the ground.

Incidentally, you briefly (& correctly) mentioned "costs" as being one factor which might influence attendances.

Until very recently, the VFL/AFL liked to make the proud claim (justifiably, at least in Melb.) that it was a sport that was affordable for working class people/"the common man". Hence, it kept GA ticket prices roughly in line with inflation. IIRC, adult GA entry was c.$1 in the early 70's.
In the last few years, GA prices (especially Dynamic Pricing in big games) have increased well above inflation levels.
Discarding expensive ground food & drink costs (since fans can bring their own food & drink to games), I wonder if the much higher general GA prices are a deterrent for many low income fans? Are 2 adults & 2 kids GA tickets, costing c.$110 (inc. $30 public t'port), too much for some families (particularly when games are available on TV)?
Average wage growth, particularly amongst lower income groups (who, increasingly, are part time or casual -& job security is generally in decline for everyone), has been very modest in the last 10 years. Does the AFL still want GA game tickets to be affordable for working class/low income fans?

In a Monash Uni. Dept. Of Economics 2015 Discussion Paper (Dr L.Frost, L.Borrowman, & A. Halabi), a Study was done on factors influencing VFL attendances 1920-1970 (eg "Big" Top5 matches, venues, MCG amenity, position on the Ladder, ticket prices etc.); & an estimated "true demand value" if the no. of "big" matches were maximised & always played only at the MCG.

At pg 5, it states (re 1920-1970) "The VFL's adult admission charge (Outer GA- my words) averaged 1 per cent of the Weekly Basic Wage (now referred to by the Fair Work Commission as the Minimum Wage -my words)".
(Google " Monash edu measuring stadiums scheduling L Frost 2015 professional sport" for this 47 page Study.
Or contact Dr L.Frost: lionel.frost@monash.edu)

The Minimum Wage in Aust. now is c.$700 pw: for a 38 hour week Mon. -Fri., worked between the hours of 7 am -7 pm ("ordinary time"). If the AFL followed the 1920-1970 pricing philosophy (ie 1%) GA admission in Melb. would now be c.$7 for an adult.
Most grounds, however, pre 1980 were basically "dumps", most fans stood in a simple Outer, with appalling "facilities".
Today, however, we have FAR superior grounds, & much better amenity (ie comfort/food options/better toilets etc); &, pro rata, much higher nos. of police & private security attending. Players now, of course, are paid an average c. $300,000 pa+ as full time professionals.
Also, AFL clubs now have an army of highly paid multiple coaches, exercise specialists, physios, nutritionists, welfare/counselling staff, expensive admin. staff etc.($200,000,000+pa -not inc. player wages)

 

[demondavey]

Really solid, interesting research.

Lance Uppercut had a very similar theory about the expansion years and their effect on the competition - interesting to see the science backs him up.

This is not ‘science’ this is an opinion of a poster who has created and projected it into a report format. The fact you deem this as science is comical. Anyone with any opinion could put this into a graph, chart or spreadsheet and gear or skew it in such a way based upon their own personal bias.

This is not science.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is not ‘science’ this is an opinion of a poster who has created and projected it into a report format. The fact you deem this as science is comical. Anyone with any opinion could put this into a graph, chart or spreadsheet and gear or skew it in such a way based upon their own personal bias.

This is not science.

It’s data science. If you disagree with it, review and respond to it.

 

[demondavey]

It’s data science. If you disagree with it, review and respond to it.

It may be data, but it’s not science.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Compared to previous eras & the Minimum Wage, AFL games are expensive to attend, even in GA areas. This cost must have a deleterious effect on the current poor per capita attendances.

The VFL (& other State orgs.) once prided themselves on the fact their games were, deliberately, affordable for working class/other low income fans. Until the 1970's, the VFL's official motto (& the Australia-wide ANFC org.) was Populo Ludus Populi: Latin for "The Game Of The People For The People". Post 1980, this VFL & ANFC motto was, sadly, quietly discarded - I have never read any reasons for this. As a generalisation, many believe that working class fans are more passionate about the old VFL/WAFL/SANFL/TSL/ AFL, cf. more middle class etc. fans. (At GR AF Officials' level, I would dispute this).

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-the-greatest-game-of-all-20120928-26qpv.html

I would prefer that AFL Clubs slash their bloated, expensive Football Dept./Admin. wage levels (not inc. player wages). This should ensure that entry tickets become much more affordable again for low income fans (the cost of housing & renting, cf. the Minimum Wage, has become very expensive, mainly in Melb., Perth, & Sydney). This should produce a significant increase in attendances.
(It would also provide the significant strategic benefit of making it easier & less costly to establish new, sustainable AFL Clubs in Tas., NSW/ACT & Qld/NT)

Incidentally, RMIT's Prof. S. Alomes has written numerous times on how better to promote the AFL, & GR AF. I recommend his book, IMO the best ever written on the strategic challenges & opportunities for the AFL & GR AF: 'Australian Football, The People's Game 1958-2058 Walla Walla Press' (Revised, current edition).
Prof. Alomes has written that the AFL must do more to encourage Asian Australians (who are now c.11% of Aust.'s population, & usually are below 178cm) to play GR AF; & to be recruited to the AFL, as "role models". Recruitment of Asian Australians would also assist in the AFL's professed ambitions to introduce/encourage the 2.2 billion populations of China & India (which is growing & becoming more wealthy) to adopt AF. Even 0.5- 1% would be great!
AFAIK, anecdotally, only the VAFA has good nos. of Asian Australians playing AF. IMO, the AFL has been very derelict in its failure to ensure more Asian Australians (& others below 178 cm) are playing GR AF, & in the AFL.
(Also, more Islander Australians & Middle Eastern Australians should also be recruited).

As a generalisation, players below 178 cm (a very small % in the AFL -but fairly common in GR adult male AF) are much better kicks than players over 188cm. To encourage more short people (not just Asian Australians) to play AF, & be recruited into the AFL, I would like to see Rule changes that require a minimum (eg 25 per game, per side? Kickouts? Umpire's discretion to waive these if game is declared " Rain Affected") no. of torpedoes or drops per game. These spectacular kicks, of course, have great aesthetic appeal, crowds were thrilled by them -attendances would rise.
The NRL has reduced its interchange nos. from 10-8 to revive short player nos./flair in the NRL -another reason for AF to slash bench & IC nos.

Also, the more skillful AF becomes (cf sheer strength), the less chance of exposure to insidious performance enhancing drugs.

For a much more depressing view by Prof. Alomes on flooding/game styles, & the "Health Of The Competition":-

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-games-turned-ugly--and-I-wouldnt-be-lyon-20130926-2ugy2.html

 

[The_Wookie]

people/"the common man". Hence, it kept GA ticket prices roughly in line with inflation. IIRC, adult GA entry was c.$1 in the early 70's.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[robbieando]

View attachment 474416

So in other words, Torps is misrepresenting his facts again (my words)

 

[The_Wookie]

The cost of going to the football has soared by more than 120 per cent in the past 20 years with adults who paid $11 to get into an AFL in 1994 forced to pay $25 at the gate this season.

But analysis of AFL prices and average Australian weekly wages over the past 20 years reveals the league is now asking for the exact same percentage of a fan’s pay for a ticket as it was the year West Coast broke Geelong’s heart for the flag.

The AFL has come under fire this year from fans complaining of steep ticket prices, the sky-high cost of food and drinks at games and the league’s contentious new variable pricing structure.

But figures show in 1994 the $11 cost of a general admission AFL ticket was 1.7 per cent of the average full time adult weekly wage.

The $16.50 cost of a general admission seat in 2004 was 1.7 per cent of the average wage of $965.

And the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for full time adult earnings of $1437 equates to — you guessed it — 1.7 per cent.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...k=7a3aa59dd2a27681b6807e1a58e98163-1521906528

AFL ADULT TICKET PRICES:

• 1994: $11.
• 2004: $16.50.
• 2014: $25.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Tandy]

Richmond prize money is included in this. As well as next gen academy funding for clubs.

 

[BringBackTorps]

So in other words, Torps is misrepresenting his facts again[?] (my words)

I quoted above the words of Dr L.Frost (re the period 1920-1970): "The VFL's adult admission (Outer GA-my words) averaged 1% of the weekly BASIC wage (now the MINIMUM wage-my words)".
I also said " IIRC, adult GA entry was c. $1 in the early 70's". GA entry appears to have been c.90 cents in 1970

Re GA ticket affordability, I was also solely referring to working class/low income people on the MINIMUM wage (As the Basic wage is now called) of c.$700 gross pw for 38 hours Mon -Fri. "ordinary time" (ie not overtime).
And how it is now more financially challenging (re GA adult minimum ticket prices) for the latter to attend AFL matches. Do you challenge this -if so, on what basis?
Ditto GA Dynamic Pricing ("big" H & A games') ticket prices. Do you challenge this -if so, on what basis?

What about Perth & Adelaide availability of GA tickets? And GA ticket prices (both pre & post new PS), & their affordability for working class/low income adults there also?

Do you understand there is a major difference between the Minimum Wage (as determined by the Fair Work Commission), & the AVERAGE wage. Working class people/low income people are, obviously, not on the Average wage.
(I am, obviously, excluding Tradesmen who are paid well above the minimum wage).

 

[BringBackTorps]

View attachment 474415

You left out, when you partially quoted me, my full sentence, and my important qualifier..."WORKING CLASS"/ common man.. etc.

 

[BringBackTorps]

View attachment 474421

You have referred to the "Average Wage" (now c.$1583), which is not the Minimum wage (now c. $700 pw).

My comments on affordability of current AFL ticket prices were for "working class/low income" people. I also referred previously to the current legal (Fair Work Commission) Minimum wage, "c.$700 pw", for 38 hours Mon. -Fri ordinary time.

 

[The_Wookie]

You have referred to the "Average Wage" (now c.$1583), which is not the Minimum wage (now c. $700 pw).

My comments on affordability of current AFL ticket prices were for "working class/low income" people. I also referred previously to the current legal (Fair Work Commission) Minimum wage, "c.$700 pw", for 38 hours Mon. -Fri ordinary time.

Minimum wage isnt used as a standard for anything.