AFL 2023 funding

[Aussie in exile]

The Suns and Giants have received a lot of funding so far in a short amount of time. It's not totally unexpected, but at a certain point, Gold Coast in particular, you need to start getting some lift out of that. GWS have at least made a Grand Final and played/won several finals.

Gold Coast never making finals despite the long term high investment is pretty poor.

In my opinion the Gold Coast have a better long term future than GWS

 

[RUNVS]

Should be doable... the summary data is now in excel so its pretty flexible now

Edit - will take a bit longer than i thought.... i will need to hardcode ( in excel ) a lookup for "non vic clubs"... give me a couple of days

Thanks a lot. I think the results would be really interesting.

 

[What else we can do]

Probably not possible but could you do an average list of crowd figures for Victorian teams playing home games in Melbourne against non-Victorian teams as I think that is the best way to determine true support among the Victorian teams, especially if it is done over 10 years or so?

No for example most supporters are more likely to go to watch a game against Geelong than Gold Coast Suns. It is not an accurate way to determine true support amongst Vic clubs.

 

[Papa G]

The crowds touted, like virtually everything in the AFL are weighted for Victorian advantage.

Derby games held in Vic will generally allow for 10, 15, 20 or 30,000 oppo fans in. Couple this with the AFL/Vic Governement engineered promoted and preferentially treated "Blockbusters" it gives huge advantage in crowd numbers to the Vic clubs, the bigger ones especially and really aren't a true reflection of their actual support. The bigger Vic clubs are never sent to the regions either. Playing in front of 5,603 in Alice Springs or Hobart or Cairns also greatly effects these numbers.

Comparing these figures is pointless as a true indicator, but for dick measuring, between the already entitled, it is fantastic.

 

[What else we can do]

The crowds touted, like virtually everything in the AFL are weighted for Victorian advantage.

Derby games held in Vic will generally allow for 10, 15, 20 or 30,000 oppo fans in. Couple this with the AFL/Vic Governement engineered promoted and preferentially treated "Blockbusters" it gives huge advantage in crowd numbers to the Vic clubs, the bigger ones especially and really aren't a true reflection of their actual support. The bigger Vic clubs are never sent to the regions either. Playing in front of 5,603 in Alice Springs or Hobart or Cairns also greatly effects these numbers.

Comparing these figures is pointless as a true indicator, but for dick measuring, between the already entitled, it is fantastic.

The home Victorian clubs still get big numbers to games against Vic clubs bigger stadium MCG compaired to Adelaide oval. eg Essendon Vs Carlton get 85K to an Essendon home game guaranteed Essendon have 50K home fans to away Carlton 35K. Play that at Adelaide Oval 50K Essendon fans to Carlton 5K.

Carlton played Geelong last year at the MCG 68,000 attend 50-55K Carlton home supporters to 15K or so away Cat fans. still 50K Carlton supporters. Play that at Adelaide Oval 50K home fans to 5K away.

 

[Kanga Commando]

Thanks a lot. I think the results would be really interesting.

I have to go back and sanity check this... I had to hard code a lot of things to get it to work, and that always makes me nervous...
Remember this goes back to 2012 only. Some of the data used a pivot table, but with the last 2 columns I could not.... The "Count distinct" feature of Excel pivot tables counts null and zero values. i couldnt get around it so i had to code extra columns in the data sheet... lazy stuff but time is against me.

When i get some more time i will post the excel sheets to google drive so others can play with it.

No warranties given or implied as I have not done any decent data validation checks yet....

 

[Rob]

Ideally, if half of GWS, Suns, Dogs, Saints, North, Dees, Lions can be self-sustainable within the next two decades, and the others hold firm, then I guess they could, in theory, bring in the NT as a feeder club, which they would be for several decades. Climate is a big problem for them, too, and player retention.

Realistically the only club in that lot that has a prospect of being self sustainable is Brisbane, and that's because they were at one stage about 15-20 years ago.
Expecting clubs that have been around for over 100 years to suddenly gain shitloads of extra fans without doing much differently is fanciful nonsense.

 

[sleep]

The home Victorian clubs still get big numbers to games against Vic clubs bigger stadium MCG compaired to Adelaide oval. eg Essendon Vs Carlton get 85K to an Essendon home game guaranteed Essendon have 50K home fans to away Carlton 35K. Play that at Adelaide Oval 50K Essendon fans to Carlton 5K.

Carlton played Geelong last year at the MCG 68,000 attend 50-55K Carlton home supporters to 15K or so away Cat fans. still 50K Carlton supporters. Play that at Adelaide Oval 50K home fans to 5K away.

absolute shyte

 

[What else we can do]

absolute shyte

Lucky you had 10k there it was like playing the Crows at home that night * all away support.

 

[CarnTheScray]

The home Victorian clubs still get big numbers to games against Vic clubs bigger stadium MCG compaired to Adelaide oval. eg Essendon Vs Carlton get 85K to an Essendon home game guaranteed Essendon have 50K home fans to away Carlton 35K. Play that at Adelaide Oval 50K Essendon fans to Carlton 5K.

Carlton played Geelong last year at the MCG 68,000 attend 50-55K Carlton home supporters to 15K or so away Cat fans. still 50K Carlton supporters. Play that at Adelaide Oval 50K home fans to 5K away.

55k Carlton fans? They were pretty quiet that night if that was the case.

 

[What else we can do]

55k Carlton fans? They were pretty quiet that night if that was the case.

You could hear a pin drop

 

[Blackas87]

Realistically the only club in that lot that has a prospect of being self sustainable is Brisbane, and that's because they were at one stage about 15-20 years ago.
Expecting clubs that have been around for over 100 years to suddenly gain shitloads of extra fans without doing much differently is fanciful nonsense.

Who said the clubs aren’t self sustainable? Every club gets funding from the AFL.

Divide the tv rights per year, per club and it’s about $24 million each. Gil said adding a 19th team would add $17 million to the TV rights deal, so assuming a low rating club (Gold Coast) are worth about $17 million, a high rating club (Melbourne or the Bulldogs) would be worth about $30 million at the moment.

If you look to the United States, teams in the NBA sell their own tv rights to their local market and take the cash for themselves. If you look at the LA Lakers (2018) they made $316 million in revenue, just less than half of that came from selling their tv rights for $149 million a year.

The AFL make their money from the clubs, then hand it back. So who saying they aren’t self sustainable? Let the clubs sell their own games to their own market and be done with AFL funding

 

[AstonSouffle]

I have to go back and sanity check this... I had to hard code a lot of things to get it to work, and that always makes me nervous...
Remember this goes back to 2012 only. Some of the data used a pivot table, but with the last 2 columns I could not.... The "Count distinct" feature of Excel pivot tables counts null and zero values. i couldnt get around it so i had to code extra columns in the data sheet... lazy stuff but time is against me.

When i get some more time i will post the excel sheets to google drive so others can play with it.

No warranties given or implied as I have not done any decent data validation checks yet....


View attachment 1603309

These numbers are actually quite good, do wonder what the optimal amount of clubs would be so that it was a sellout constantly vs interstate sides?

 

[Prince Imperial]

I have to go back and sanity check this... I had to hard code a lot of things to get it to work, and that always makes me nervous...
Remember this goes back to 2012 only. Some of the data used a pivot table, but with the last 2 columns I could not.... The "Count distinct" feature of Excel pivot tables counts null and zero values. i couldnt get around it so i had to code extra columns in the data sheet... lazy stuff but time is against me.

When i get some more time i will post the excel sheets to google drive so others can play with it.

No warranties given or implied as I have not done any decent data validation checks yet....


View attachment 1603309

This data seems to include matches which took place during the heavily affected 2020 and 2021 seasons when there were plenty of games with zero attendees or very low numbers.

The red figures also seem to include "home" matches played by Melbourne clubs at secondary venues outside Melbourne and Victoria for reasons of government sponsorship.

Can you please confirm whether this is the case? If so, they need to be read with considerable caution for those evaluating clubs' level of support by reference to these figures as there would be considerable understatement.

 

[Kanga Commando]

This data seems to include matches which took place during the heavily affected 2020 and 2021 seasons when there were plenty of games with zero attendees or very low numbers.

The red figures also seem to include "home" matches played by Melbourne clubs at secondary venues outside Melbourne and Victoria for reasons of government sponsorship.

Can you please confirm whether this is the case? If so, they need to be read with considerable caution for those evaluating clubs' level of support by reference to these figures as there would be considerable understatement.

1 - Zero attendee games were excluded - that was part of the issue of “distinct count” usage in pivot tables so they were coded manually. Low attendee games were not excluded. If you think that makes a difference help yourself
2 - I can only include games that AFL tables deemed F,H or A. If they are sold, tassie or otherwise, so be it.

I’ll post the raw csv later and you can find a way to fudge the data

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Melbourne is very bad considering this is as good as Melbourne can get. They don't even have the excuse of being at the bottom of the ladder and as a result their fans not turning out

We got the same amount as Sydney (and Port) and you lot made the GF - what's your excuse?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Clubs like Carlton got rubbish scheduling for years.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Prince Imperial]

1 - Zero attendee games were excluded - that was part of the issue of “distinct count” usage in pivot tables so they were coded manually. Low attendee games were not excluded. If you think that makes a difference help yourself
2 - I can only include games that AFL tables deemed F,H or A. If they are sold, tassie or otherwise, so be it.

I’ll post the raw csv later and you can find a way to fudge the data

Thanks. I doubt I have the technical skills though!

 

[Kanga Commando]

This table is games played on specific days
it would be difficult to define a game as "prime time", especially some days have multiple games on the same evening. if we simply assume any game played from 7:00 PM onwards is "prime time" then i can probably calculate it

 

[Demonic Ascent]

For those whining about not getting prime time slots, the question you need to ask is 'why?'.

I'm sure the AFL is about maximising revenue. If North, St Kilda, Gold Coast, GWS etc were drawing consistently high crowds or viewers, there would be no reason why the AFL would schedule, for instance, Collingwood v Essendon over North v St Kilda.

Carlton v Richmond to start the season has been a success. I'm sure the boradcasters love it. Why then change that for Port Adelaide v Western Bulldogs? The AFL would just be throwing money away, which incidentally, is being used to fund these smaller clubs.

It's a short term view that has helped exacerbate the gap between the wealthy and poorer club's though. Looked at in isolation in a given year, sure. But over a period of 3 decades (which is how long these policies have been in place) it creates a two-tier system where it is impossible for the smaller club's to make ground and stand on their own two feet.

It's not just broadcast slots either, it's fixturing of home games and stadium deals. The Docklands deal has been amended now I think but there is still the legacy of that that the club's are dealing with. Similarly with the home game scheduling, the big Vic club's basically play a round robin against each other every year and it's been happening since the early 90s. This is to the detriment of the competition as a whole.

The reason for the disequal funding is to create a competition where each club can be strong and compete. All club's except St Kilda, GWS and GC are basically there now so it shows it is working. This creates a stronger competition overall which is better for everyone (based on the NFL model of revenue sharing which is another step on the road towards equalisation).

 

[Papa G]

Prime time probably equals in terms of FTA on a 10 to 1 scale might go something like this:
Friday Night: 10
Stand Alone Pubic Holiday: 10
Thursday Night: 8
Sunday Arvo: 6
Sat Arvo: 5

Nothing else is Prime Time.

 

[Rob]

Who said the clubs aren’t self sustainable? Every club gets funding from the AFL.

Every club - being an equal "shareholder" of the AFL, has a right to an equal share of AFL profits. Some clubs get more than that though, don't they? If those clubs were to receive only an equal share they'd be in deep financial s**t.

Divide the tv rights per year, per club and it’s about $24 million each. Gil said adding a 19th team would add $17 million to the TV rights deal, so assuming a low rating club (Gold Coast) are worth about $17 million, a high rating club (Melbourne or the Bulldogs) would be worth about $30 million at the moment.

Laughable that you're trying the break the TV ratings up into a sum of parts. It doesn't work that way. There's a reason why the state leagues were going broke in the 80's, and their TV rights were worth nothing.

"High rating clubs" lol.

If you look to the United States, teams in the NBA sell their own tv rights to their local market and take the cash for themselves. If you look at the LA Lakers (2018) they made $316 million in revenue, just less than half of that came from selling their tv rights for $149 million a year.

The AFL make their money from the clubs, then hand it back. So who saying they aren’t self sustainable? Let the clubs sell their own games to their own market and be done with AFL fundingView attachment 1603457

There's potentially some merit to that, but I suspect that most clubs would end up significantly worse off as the whole is a lot bigger than the sum of the parts. The national appeal of the AFL is a major selling point.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

Just answering your question Bojan.
Some need more funding just to survive.

Being debt free but getting the financial crutch from the AFL means that they can’t demand blockbusters. Plenty of work for these clubs to do off the field, let alone on it.

How many Friday/Sat night games did you get when you were shithouse years on end? I am not interested in hearing Rich/Carlton/Collingwood/Essendon supporters crap on about how hard done by they are. They get prime fixturing irrespective of playing ability. Good timeslots get good crowds = more money. Means more exposure = more sponsorship = more money. They play less interstate = lower costs = more money. More money = better facilities and football departments (the post covid changes not withstanding). If some clubs got 2-3 million more, you should thank your lucky stars that is all it cost to give you a massive leg up.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The fact remains that Melbourne on average gets $2 million more in AFL funding than the Swans do and they don't provide the same benefit to the competition.

We created the sport, what bigger benefit could we provide??

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yes, diminishing returns per additional game, I get that, but I'm pretty confident in saying that we're not at the point that adding an extra game brings no/negative value (compared to the money spent propping up the most in need established clubs). Otherwise the 9th game wouldn't exist and there certainly wouldn't be discussion about adding a 10th with Tasmania and another team.

Your argument about there being so many Victorian based clubs that you might as well get rid of some doesn't hold much weight when they all significantly outperform a number of other clubs including your own in their local markets. Again, what's the metric that you're using to prove this argument as a basis to boot out 1 or 2 clubs but not your own?

Anyone suggesting getting rid of club's is an idiot not worth listening to. The AFL is not going to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of supporters and ~150k paying members in favour of club's in expansion markets with no supporters and no viewers. It's not even worth discussing, it's just not going to happen.