- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #851
It sort of is easy.
With sport, once a sport is extremely popular, it's almost impossible to drive down its popularity.
You have to try really, really hard to achieve that, and even then, despite the best efforts of the most incompetent administrators, it's almost impossible to drive down popularity.
So in that context, to get massive bonuses normally reserved for merchant bankers, for an activity that has 150 years of immense societal popularity behind it really is akin to shooting fish in a barrell.
yeah sure. I mean lets ignore the statistical and financial evidence that goes with running the competition, and lets not compare it to the competition and their administrative efforts over the years. And lets not just take attendance and membership figures from the 80s and 90s and pretend they are everything.
And lets ignore the market rates for executives.
its easy peasy though.
At club level administrators often battle compared to each other.
The AFL is the best resourced of our sports courtesy of those administrators that went before them.
Well yes and no. That the sport was popular is true, but the AFL hasnt fallen to any of the other issues that have affected other sports either. Both Soccer and League have completely redone their governance structures since 2005 (Soccer in 2005, the NRL in 2011).
Gillon Mclachlan for example has been involved in every rights negotiation since 1999. The tv rights in 1999 were 40m a year, and prior to this the AFL and NRL were neck and neck rights and ratings wise.
The fact that these rights have increased massively in value ahead of every other code is testament to the negotiating skills of the people in charge, not anyone no longer with the league - and bear in mind there has not been a matching increase in tv ratings until the advent of streaming. The decision not to overextend the rights in 2020 when they went for just 2 years instead of the 7 that the NRL did is a classic example of excellent decision making.
Other key calls were the decision to take Docklands in 2017 instead of waiting to 2025 (which enabled the AFL to proceed confidently during COVID) and the decision to start the womens competition 4 years before anyone thought it was going to happen.
The fact there hasnt been a major club or player revolt against the administration despite the massive financial success of the league is testament to the leadership and planning of each administration.
Soccer, Union and League have all shown what happens when you have inept leadership. Look at League, which despite its popularity has issues with clubs and players every couple of years, hasnt really been able to grow its attendance - and is well short of the 20,000 target predicted for 2017! - had no assets until this year, until recently couldnt even get loans, evidently cant actually negotiate stadium deals properly, and has had a similar number of CEOs (4) and Chairmen (3) since the ARLC was formed in 2012 to the AFL has had since the Commission was formed in 1993. (4 & 4).
With that, much of the leagues stability is owed to the formation of the Commission in 1993, and the franchise agreements all clubs signed after the Macedon summit in 1985 (the Elliot meeting where a breakaway league was proposed), and the granting of perrenial licenses, instead of periodic ones (an issue that continues to come up in Rugby League).





