20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

The last few pages on the 'famous afl players you have met - thread' has about the fact footy isn't as popular in Perth as people would have us believe. A few ex Melbourne people have moved there and realised interest isn't anywhere near Vic and s.a levels. Worth having a look then providing your opinion on here though, I'm interested to hear.

Do you have a link to that thread? I'm interested but can't find it.

 

[budge27]

Do you have a link to that thread? I'm interested but can't find it.

I think he means this thread - try from about post #1090 onwards

Rudest/Nicest player you've met?

Whereas when I went back to South West Sydney in 2015 (after leaving in 2012) I was shocked by how many AFL posts there were compared to when I left. Kinda like the Giants were increasing participation in the western suburbs. But surely that CAN’T be true? We’re a waste of money and offer no...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Bjo187]

Do you have a link to that thread? I'm interested but can't find it.

Rudest/Nicest player you've met?

Whereas when I went back to South West Sydney in 2015 (after leaving in 2012) I was shocked by how many AFL posts there were compared to when I left. Kinda like the Giants were increasing participation in the western suburbs. But surely that CAN’T be true? We’re a waste of money and offer no...

www.bigfooty.com

Page 45

 

[Walshawk]

What's an irrelevant cause, it's an interesting discussion?

Anyhow the book code wars which is one of the best books I've ever read, released in 2019 has w.a as a more segregated fan base amongst sports. Tasmania the highest level of afl interest, I think it went tassie, s.a, vic, w.a, n.t, act, and qld or nsw, but I haven't seen the graph for a couple of years now.

What's the true metrics you're referring to is there a graph on this coz you mighty be right?

In my experience SA is the most footy mad state. WA isn’t close to that depth or volume of passion. Also, most people (including the AFL media) grossly overestimate the popularity of AFL v NRL in Darwin. As per the Code Wars book, RL is not far behind there. Crowds are comparable and participation is closer than people think.

 

[Bjo187]

In my experience SA is the most footy mad state. WA isn’t close to that depth or volume of passion. Also, most people (including the AFL media) grossly overestimate the popularity of AFL v NRL in Darwin. As per the Code Wars book, RL is not far behind there. Crowds are comparable and participation is closer than people think.

Yep that's my experience too. I think from memory n.t was a 65/35 split, which even surprised me at the time coz I didn't know nrl was big there.

The interesting one was ACT, that had afl as the most popular code still, coz the rugby's were split into 2.

I took photos of the graphs at the time but I think it might be on my old phone. If I can be bothered digging it up, it might be of some interest to people on here.

 

[Bjo187]

I was wrong actually. Fujak believes Google search volume is the best indication of interest, because it contains no bias like most other measures of popularity. W.A is actually doing well there, but they don't have any nrl club yet, so not really any competition to split it with when this was written in 2019. But you can see it's lower than Vic and s.a on the other graph. N.T is actually more afl than I said above, but maybe nrl have closed the big gap a bit since. Canberra pear will be happy with the ACT numbers.

What this also shows is how far the afl is ahead nationally and how much of an advantage the nrl have by the Sydney media being the 'national media' and therefore providing more media on the sport than the afl, despite the large discrepancy in actual popularity.

 

[Coolangatta]

I was wrong actually. Fujak believes Google search volume is the best indication of interest, because it contains no bias like most other measures of popularity. W.A is actually doing well there, but they don't have any nrl club yet, so not really any competition to split it with when this was written in 2019. But you can see it's lower than Vic and s.a on the other graph. N.T is actually more afl than I said above, but maybe nrl have closed the big gap a bit since. Canberra pear will be happy with the ACT numbers.

What this also shows is how far the afl is ahead nationally and how much of an advantage the nrl have by the Sydney media being the 'national media' and therefore providing more media on the sport than the afl, despite the large discrepancy in actual popularity.

View attachment 2080727View attachment 2080728

All the more reason for Canberra to be team 20.

And if expansion ever goes beyond them, there's not much the AFL is gonna get out of WA3 and SA3. There's other potential markets they could tap into.

 

[Prince Imperial]

The latest Ausplay State and Territory Participation report showed that the percentage of the population participating in AF was 5% in SA, 4.6% in Victoria and 4.2% in WA.

A lot of this is probably due to the number of overseas born in each state (WA 33%, Vic 30%, SA 24% according to the 2021 census). I suspect a bit of this is also due to the significant number of Qlders and NSWers who have headed west for work in the mining industry.

 

[Bjo187]

The latest Ausplay State and Territory Participation report showed that the percentage of the population participating in AF was 5% in SA, 4.6% in Victoria and 4.2% in WA.

A lot of this is probably due to the number of overseas born in each state (WA 33%, Vic 30%, SA 24% according to the 2021 census). I suspect a bit of this is also due to the significant number of Qlders and NSWers who have headed west for work in the mining industry.

Good info, do you have the percentages for the other states and territories as well?

 

[Hoops]

I was wrong actually. Fujak believes Google search volume is the best indication of interest, because it contains no bias like most other measures of popularity. W.A is actually doing well there, but they don't have any nrl club yet, so not really any competition to split it with when this was written in 2019. But you can see it's lower than Vic and s.a on the other graph. N.T is actually more afl than I said above, but maybe nrl have closed the big gap a bit since. Canberra pear will be happy with the ACT numbers.

What this also shows is how far the afl is ahead nationally and how much of an advantage the nrl have by the Sydney media being the 'national media' and therefore providing more media on the sport than the afl, despite the large discrepancy in actual popularity.

View attachment 2080727View attachment 2080728

Based on those numbers above, the following for each of the codes in each city is;

	Syd	Bris	Melb	Adel	Perth	Tas	National
AFL	22​	24​	56​	56​	49​	54​	39​
NRL	41​	41​	12​	11​	13​	16​	28​
Rugby	20​	23​	9​	9​	16​	14​	16​
Soccer	32​	21​	24​	26​	25​	16​	23​

This shows that AFL has equal following in Melbourne and Adelaide percentage wise.

 

[Hoops]

I was wrong actually. Fujak believes Google search volume is the best indication of interest, because it contains no bias like most other measures of popularity. W.A is actually doing well there, but they don't have any nrl club yet, so not really any competition to split it with when this was written in 2019. But you can see it's lower than Vic and s.a on the other graph. N.T is actually more afl than I said above, but maybe nrl have closed the big gap a bit since. Canberra pear will be happy with the ACT numbers.

What this also shows is how far the afl is ahead nationally and how much of an advantage the nrl have by the Sydney media being the 'national media' and therefore providing more media on the sport than the afl, despite the large discrepancy in actual popularity.

View attachment 2080727View attachment 2080728

The problem with that dataset for Google searches, is you could have similar results for Uzbekistan, because there is no base level to compare it against. Perhaps if you include cricket which I believe has equal following across Australia, at least we would have something to compare it against.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Good info, do you have the percentages for the other states and territories as well?

My above figures are only for sports club participation and for NSW and Qld it is 1.2% for each but the smaller other 3 aren't apparent in that category.

Overseas born:

NSW 29%
Qld 22%
Tas 15%
ACT 29%
NT 22%

 

[RedV3x]

I was wrong actually. Fujak believes Google search volume is the best indication of interest,

If we rank fans then I's say it goes something like this supporters (spend money), followers (FTA watchers) and then interested parties.

because it contains no bias like most other measures of popularity.

Google searches are biased towards searches obviously.
I don't google search AFL usually because I already have/get the information from official sources.
Absent codes are going to be searched more than incumbent codes which have good media coverage.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Like to show those "metrics".



Please explain



Yet, the Force failed, the Reds failed and the Glory almost gone.



Of course not. Why would it ?


How ?


Please explain how.


That's saying AFL is getting bigger.
There's the ability for Perth stadium to be enlarged and there's always the WAFL.



Huh, if FTA is lost then that would affect NRL more.

Roy Morgan survey data:

Sydney Swans are the most widely supported AFL club ahead of Collingwood, Brisbane and West Coast - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com

West Coast + Fremantle = 697+425 1.122 million people nominally supporting either team when asked on a survey (38% of WA's population)

Adelaide 651 + Port 301 = 952,000 thousand people supporting those two teams/1.866 SA population = 51% of SA's populations supporting when asked by Roy Morgan

I think it's a fair enough argument that AFL's penetration into Perth is less than that of Adelaide and Melbourne.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think it's a fair enough argument to say that Perth with its expanding population bursting the seams of the two existing AFL clubs, when combined with other factors (e.g. greater overseas population born base than SA and VIC), again combined with other marignal factors such as time zone factors meaning broadcast aren't on at a great time vs. east, results in the AFL dominating the state in a slightly less manner than it does Adelaide/Melbourne.

Enough people have posted evidence above.

Perth's rapid population growth covers up some of it, and indeed West Coast and Fremantle are benefitting from it, but the lack of a third team to soak up that population growth simply means the difference in dominance in a percentage sense will continue to decline relative to SA and VIC over the generation. I think that's fair enough.

 

[Seedsfan]

V'landy's lives in North Sydney and said it's the question he gets asked most often, maybe he got sick of being asked?

I don't see how you could have a proper relationship with a club that distance away though. Either N.S will feel sidelined, or Perth people will feel like they are being managed from the east coast and it's not actually their club.

The one advantage it does give is a base of fans straight off the bat, which helps with social media traffic, something the suns and giants struggled with initially. But yeah, could be a disaster relationship because Perth people typically hate east coast arrogance.

Because every other week they are away in Sydney. It isn’t any different to the Fitzroy fans that still support the Lions or the South fans that support Sydney

 

[RedV3x]

It isn’t any different to the Fitzroy fans that still support the Lions or the South fans that support Sydney

The difference being being the huge holiday hiatus and the fact that the Bears didn't have many supporters amongst union and AFL strongholds.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Based on those numbers above, the following for each of the codes in each city is;

	Syd	Bris	Melb	Adel	Perth	Tas	National
AFL	22​	24​	56​	56​	49​	54​	39​
NRL	41​	41​	12​	11​	13​	16​	28​
Rugby	20​	23​	9​	9​	16​	14​	16​
Soccer	32​	21​	24​	26​	25​	16​	23​

This shows that AFL has equal following in Melbourne and Adelaide percentage wise.

I looked up the ABS population data for each significant urban area (and Tasmania's state population) to estimate how many followers there are per club in each place. There's a complicating factor with Melbourne/Geelong and Brisbane/Gold Coast, in that each pair is close enough to each other to have significant overlap in followers, so I combined each city pair for this calculation and assumed the smaller had the same percentage of interest as the bigger city.

Sydney: 554,540
Brisbane/Gold Coast: 402,936
Melbourne/Geelong: 302,712
Adelaide: 399,505
Perth: 560,895
Tasmania: 310,341

What does this tell us about how many followers of the game an area needs to sustain a team? Well, some people say Melbourne has too many teams (acknowledging that teams can't be compelled to move or merge any longer), some say Perth has too few, and some said Tasmania didn't have enough people to justify a team before they were awarded one. So none of those places have a followers per team figure that's considered by almost everyone to be perfect.

By contrast, almost everyone agrees Adelaide has the interest to justify two teams, no greater, no fewer. And while a few people still think the Gold Coast didn't deserve a team, a lot of this is down to the Suns being an embarrassment for their first 13 years, whereas they've averaged nearly 17 000 in attendance at Carrara this year. If that continues then I think almost everyone will agree Queensland has the following to justify two teams.

So that would suggest the magic number for a team to be financially viable on their own is 400 000. While it's a bit lower than that for Tasmania right now, I think once they have their own team playing games and a few more years of population growth, the number taking an interest will rise to be close to 400 000. And they'll have government support for the first few years to cover any shortfall.

So which places have anywhere close to 400 000 followers to justify a(nother) team? Well, not the NT, they only have have 253 600 people total. That's including everyone who isn't interested in Aussie Rules. As many people have said in this thread, they'd be a complete basket case financially, and would need permanent government support.

Canberra-Queanbeyan has a population of about 503 400. They'd need 60% of the population taking an interest to match Tasmania's level right now, which won't be the case. But consider, Canberra grows fast. Its population growth percentage from 2011 to 2023 was comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and comfortably ahead of Hobart and Darwin. They'll probably get up to 570 000 by the time the league wants a 20th team to come in.

Plus, I know Canberra Pear reckons they'd get plenty of interest from country towns, so the true catchment area population is higher, but I don't know how much higher. Perhaps CP or others can help estimate this?

If Perth had a third team and no increase in the number of followers total, their followers per team would be 373,930. So yes, they could justify a third team pretty much immediately. But as we've discussed in this thread, the followers won't split evenly, the vast majority will stay with the Eagles and Dockers. Might work in the long term.

 

[Canberra Pear]

So which places have anywhere close to 400 000 followers to justify a(nother) team? Well, not the NT, they only have have 253 600 people total. That's including everyone who isn't interested in Aussie Rules. As many people have said in this thread, they'd be a complete basket case financially, and would need permanent government support.

Canberra-Queanbeyan has a population of about 503 400. They'd need 60% of the population taking an interest to match Tasmania's level right now, which won't be the case. But consider, Canberra grows fast. Its population growth percentage from 2011 to 2023 was comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and comfortably ahead of Hobart and Darwin. They'll probably get up to 570 000 by the time the league wants a 20th team to come in.

Plus, I know Canberra Pear reckons they'd get plenty of interest from country towns, so the true catchment area population is higher, but I don't know how much higher. Perhaps CP or others can help estimate this?

It depends how wide you consider the catchment. If it's within an hour drive, we're already at 570k. We're at 600k if you allow 65 mins (Goulburn's just a touch outside that hour radius).

If you're including places like Burnie and Devonport in Tasmania, then for comparison's sake, Wagga and Nowra are closer to Canberra, and the catchment grows beyond 800k.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It depends how wide you consider the catchment. If it's within an hour drive, we're already at 570k. We're at 600k if you allow 65 mins (Goulburn's just a touch outside that hour radius).

If you're including places like Burnie and Devonport in Tasmania, then for comparison's sake, Wagga and Nowra are closer to Canberra, and the catchment grows beyond 800k.

Interesting. The issue after that is to find out what percentage of people are interested in the sport in all those areas.

 

[Bjo187]

I looked up the ABS population data for each significant urban area (and Tasmania's state population) to estimate how many followers there are per club in each place. There's a complicating factor with Melbourne/Geelong and Brisbane/Gold Coast, in that each pair is close enough to each other to have significant overlap in followers, so I combined each city pair for this calculation and assumed the smaller had the same percentage of interest as the bigger city.

Sydney: 554,540
Brisbane/Gold Coast: 402,936
Melbourne/Geelong: 302,712
Adelaide: 399,505
Perth: 560,895
Tasmania: 310,341

What does this tell us about how many followers of the game an area needs to sustain a team? Well, some people say Melbourne has too many teams (acknowledging that teams can't be compelled to move or merge any longer), some say Perth has too few, and some said Tasmania didn't have enough people to justify a team before they were awarded one. So none of those places have a followers per team figure that's considered by almost everyone to be perfect.

By contrast, almost everyone agrees Adelaide has the interest to justify two teams, no greater, no fewer. And while a few people still think the Gold Coast didn't deserve a team, a lot of this is down to the Suns being an embarrassment for their first 13 years, whereas they've averaged nearly 17 000 in attendance at Carrara this year. If that continues then I think almost everyone will agree Queensland has the following to justify two teams.

So that would suggest the magic number for a team to be financially viable on their own is 400 000. While it's a bit lower than that for Tasmania right now, I think once they have their own team playing games and a few more years of population growth, the number taking an interest will rise to be close to 400 000. And they'll have government support for the first few years to cover any shortfall.

So which places have anywhere close to 400 000 followers to justify a(nother) team? Well, not the NT, they only have have 253 600 people total. That's including everyone who isn't interested in Aussie Rules. As many people have said in this thread, they'd be a complete basket case financially, and would need permanent government support.

Canberra-Queanbeyan has a population of about 503 400. They'd need 60% of the population taking an interest to match Tasmania's level right now, which won't be the case. But consider, Canberra grows fast. Its population growth percentage from 2011 to 2023 was comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and comfortably ahead of Hobart and Darwin. They'll probably get up to 570 000 by the time the league wants a 20th team to come in.

Plus, I know Canberra Pear reckons they'd get plenty of interest from country towns, so the true catchment area population is higher, but I don't know how much higher. Perhaps CP or others can help estimate this?

If Perth had a third team and no increase in the number of followers total, their followers per team would be 373,930. So yes, they could justify a third team pretty much immediately. But as we've discussed in this thread, the followers won't split evenly, the vast majority will stay with the Eagles and Dockers. Might work in the long term.

Great analysis well done.

 

[Bjo187]

It depends how wide you consider the catchment. If it's within an hour drive, we're already at 570k. We're at 600k if you allow 65 mins (Goulburn's just a touch outside that hour radius).

If you're including places like Burnie and Devonport in Tasmania, then for comparison's sake, Wagga and Nowra are closer to Canberra, and the catchment grows beyond 800k.

Whilst I agree the catchment for a Canberra team is bigger, I don't think it can be guaranteed that people in southern NSW will definitely have an attachment to the club, like all Tasmanian's will to the devils.

It's why I don't mind the idea of the team name being Canberra SNSW, as that recognition might draw in a lot more people from those regions to support the new club.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Interesting. The issue after that is to find out what percentage of people are interested in the sport in all those areas.

Hard to measure the smaller towns as the further north and east you go, it would start to favour league more. But then would start to favour AFL more west.

The Gemba Report that was included in Tasmania's report said AFL fanaticism was 28% in the ACT, compared to 30% in Tasmania. I think the ACT's levels would continue into Queanbeyan/Googong, then drop a bit for the smaller towns. So I think we could measure about 520k at 28%. Which makes ~145k AFL fanatics in Greater Canberra.

In this measure, Tasmania would have 171k fanatics, but Greater Hobart would only have 78k fanatics.

Fanaticism was counted as 12 times more likely to attend games, 4 times more likely to watch the team on TV, 30 times more likely to become members. I think Canberra might be boosted by the greater ability to afford to go to games and buy memberships.

I think this was measured in 2019, so I think it was at peak Tasmanian apathy, so I imagine that gap is wider now, but still an interesting insight.

Whilst I agree the catchment for a Canberra team is bigger, I don't think it can be guaranteed that people in southern NSW will definitely have an attachment to the club, like all Tasmanian's will to the devils.

I agree that somebody from Burnie will have more attachment than somebody from Wagga.

But in terms of attending, I think they're both pretty unlikely to attend frequent games at their primary grounds. Likewise, I think the number of fans travelling from Hobart to Launceston will be pretty minimal.

Together, the two Tasmanian markets have more AFL fans than Canberra, but Canberra has more than either of them individually. I guess time will tell just how much those two markets will overlap.

 

[kranger]

I looked up the ABS population data for each significant urban area (and Tasmania's state population) to estimate how many followers there are per club in each place. There's a complicating factor with Melbourne/Geelong and Brisbane/Gold Coast, in that each pair is close enough to each other to have significant overlap in followers, so I combined each city pair for this calculation and assumed the smaller had the same percentage of interest as the bigger city.

Sydney: 554,540
Brisbane/Gold Coast: 402,936
Melbourne/Geelong: 302,712
Adelaide: 399,505
Perth: 560,895
Tasmania: 310,341

What does this tell us about how many followers of the game an area needs to sustain a team? Well, some people say Melbourne has too many teams (acknowledging that teams can't be compelled to move or merge any longer), some say Perth has too few, and some said Tasmania didn't have enough people to justify a team before they were awarded one. So none of those places have a followers per team figure that's considered by almost everyone to be perfect.

By contrast, almost everyone agrees Adelaide has the interest to justify two teams, no greater, no fewer. And while a few people still think the Gold Coast didn't deserve a team, a lot of this is down to the Suns being an embarrassment for their first 13 years, whereas they've averaged nearly 17 000 in attendance at Carrara this year. If that continues then I think almost everyone will agree Queensland has the following to justify two teams.

So that would suggest the magic number for a team to be financially viable on their own is 400 000. While it's a bit lower than that for Tasmania right now, I think once they have their own team playing games and a few more years of population growth, the number taking an interest will rise to be close to 400 000. And they'll have government support for the first few years to cover any shortfall.

So which places have anywhere close to 400 000 followers to justify a(nother) team? Well, not the NT, they only have have 253 600 people total. That's including everyone who isn't interested in Aussie Rules. As many people have said in this thread, they'd be a complete basket case financially, and would need permanent government support.

Canberra-Queanbeyan has a population of about 503 400. They'd need 60% of the population taking an interest to match Tasmania's level right now, which won't be the case. But consider, Canberra grows fast. Its population growth percentage from 2011 to 2023 was comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and comfortably ahead of Hobart and Darwin. They'll probably get up to 570 000 by the time the league wants a 20th team to come in.

Plus, I know Canberra Pear reckons they'd get plenty of interest from country towns, so the true catchment area population is higher, but I don't know how much higher. Perhaps CP or others can help estimate this?

If Perth had a third team and no increase in the number of followers total, their followers per team would be 373,930. So yes, they could justify a third team pretty much immediately. But as we've discussed in this thread, the followers won't split evenly, the vast majority will stay with the Eagles and Dockers. Might work in the long term.

Nice write up. Something that is normally missed from these population analysis per team, is the support for interstate teams.

For example, in WA, it’s hard to put a number on it, but it seems like half of AFL fans support West Coast, a quarter support Freo and then the other quarter support the other 16 teams. Essentially dividing the support up between 3 teams.

In VIC, there is still massive support for Swans and Lions as well as a bit for the other non-Victorians which makes it like there is 11 teams in VIC.

On the flip side, the amount of support there are for the Victorian teams in the other states, the VIC teams probably only have 3/4 of their supporters actually in Victoria, with the other 1/4 living in other states helping to bolster their viability with ‘interstate memberships’ and merchandise purchases.

Edit: so this might change the tally a bit, if we considers Aussie Rules interest in each location is divided by one additional team (being a amalgamation of all of the interstate teams from that location).

Also interesting the stats for a Sydney and Perth if a new team was actually added. But it is important to note that a new team added in the markets isn’t just going to instantly get a fair proportion of the population supporting them, or even necessarily ever catch up over time, they will struggle just like how in Victoria there are the big clubs vs the small clubs and we don’t need to be just adding small clubs for the sake of it.

Sydney:
554,540 for 2 existing
369,690 for 3 (factoring supporters of interstate teams)
277,270 for 4 (if a 3rd Sydney team was added)

Brisbane/Gold Coast:
402,936 for 2 existing
268,620 for 3 (factoring supporters of interstate teams)

Melbourne/Geelong:
302,712 for 10 existing
275,190 for 11 (factoring supporters of interstate teams)

Adelaide:
399,505 for 2 existing
266,330 for 3 (factoring supporters of interstate teams)

Perth:
560,895 for 2 existing
373,930 for 3 (factoring supporters of interstate teams)
280,440 for 4 (if a 3rd Perth team was added)

Tasmania:
310,341 for 1 existing supporters of interstate team
155,170 for 2 (factoring the Devils starting in 2027)

 

[RedV3x]

It depends how wide you consider the catchment.

Yes it's the size and the probability within that catchment.
So metro area can be considered solid potential with the prospects diminishing with distance.
I know people who travel from Bunbury to watch AFL.

I see the Tasmanian catchment as initially more fervent than anywhere else.
They have been waiting a very long time watching their stars bypass their heritage.
They have 200,000 "members", now one of the biggest clubs in the world and haven't played yet.
I see Tasmania as a Geelong - punching above their numerical weight.

I see Canberra support as potentially growing very fast.
The draw of a national AFL team in the nation's capital is a lot stronger than another AFL team in say Sydney.