"AFL Considering September Shake-Up For 2026"

[glengowan]

So the suggestion is:

Final 10
Week 1 - 2 games for 7th-10th (Top 6 teams bye)
Which then reverts to current Final 8:
Week 2 - 4 games
Week 3 - 2 games (2 teams bye)
Week 4 - 2 games
Week 5 Grand Final

What if it was a Final 10, but split into 2 groups of 5 like the old days:

i.e. Group 1: 1st/4th/5th/7th/10th
Group 2: 2nd/3rd/6th/8th/9th

Week 1 - 4 games (Top 2 teams bye)
Week 2 - 4 games
Week 3 - 2 games (2 teams bye)
Week 4 - 2 games
Week 5 Grand Final

It's a similarly fair system, but gives you two extra finals.

 

[Dan26]

The fact that only one team outside of the top five has won a GF shows it's nothing more than a cash grab by the league.

You could bring it back to the top 5 and next to nothing would change GF results wise.

Adding 2 more teams to make it top 10 will have even less of an impact on the finals.

Just a money grab.

Of course it's a money grab. It's a business and the AFL should try to maximise their profits which then assists with putting much of that money back into the game.

You talk like making money is a bad thing. Making money is a good thing. Reducing dead rubbers increases fan engagement, increases TV viewership and attendances. That is not a bad thing. The AFL is in the entertainment business as much as it's in the sporting business - that's a fact.

If you think that no one outside the top 5 will win the flag, then why would you care if 6,7 and 8 all make it? A.) Either 6th, 7th and 8th are all allowed make the finals and then don't win the flag. Or, B.) they don't make the finals and don't win the flag. Either way, they don't win the flag, but at least with "A." the run to the finals is more interesting and you make more money too. Win/Win

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Of course it's a money grab. It's a business and the AFL should try to maximise their profits which then assists with putting much of that money back into the game.

You talk like making money is a bad thing. Making money is a good thing. Reducing dead rubbers increases fan engagement, increases TV viewership and attendances. That is not a bad thing. The AFL is in the entertainment business as much as it's in the sporting business - that's a fact.

If you think that no one outside the top 5 will win the flag, then why would you care if 6,7 and 8 all make it? A.) Either 6th, 7th and 8th are all allowed make the finals and then don't win the flag. Or, B.) they don't make the finals and don't win the flag. Either way, they don't win the flag, but at least with "A." the run to the finals is more interesting and you make more money too. Win/Win

Making money is a terrible thing for clubs, not allowed to use it.

 

[RedV3x]

the AFL should try to maximise their profits

Over the long term. Reducing FTA exposure may come back to haunt the AFL.
It did for RA.

which then assists with putting much of that money back into the game.

As long as it's not WAFL, SANFL or overseas.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Often I think the AFL admin buys into the messaging of the very small and incestious AFL media industry without realising that they largely pedal, and often manufacture, sensationalized garbage purely to give them something to talk about all season long.

By and large I don't think their opinions are representative of the wider football following population.

It’s the other way around.

The AFL wants the wildcard round so it can sell two extra games, and they’re using the media to sell the idea to fans.

 

[Do the Dew]

Of course it's a money grab. It's a business and the AFL should try to maximise their profits which then assists with putting much of that money back into the game.

You talk like making money is a bad thing. Making money is a good thing. Reducing dead rubbers increases fan engagement, increases TV viewership and attendances. That is not a bad thing. The AFL is in the entertainment business as much as it's in the sporting business - that's a fact.

If you think that no one outside the top 5 will win the flag, then why would you care if 6,7 and 8 all make it? A.) Either 6th, 7th and 8th are all allowed make the finals and then don't win the flag. Or, B.) they don't make the finals and don't win the flag. Either way, they don't win the flag, but at least with "A." the run to the finals is more interesting and you make more money too. Win/Win

You know the AFL is a non-profit right? All this extra money that they'll make will go straight to the execs as it always does. There won't be any trickle down to the grassroots. Changes to the finals, rules etc. are just execs making changes to justify their pay packets.

 

[Whiskers]

So the suggestion is:

Final 10
Week 1 - 2 games for 7th-10th (Top 6 teams bye)
Which then reverts to current Final 8:
Week 2 - 4 games
Week 3 - 2 games (2 teams bye)
Week 4 - 2 games
Week 5 Grand Final

What if it was a Final 10, but split into 2 groups of 5 like the old days:

i.e. Group 1: 1st/4th/5th/7th/10th
Group 2: 2nd/3rd/6th/8th/9th

Week 1 - 4 games (Top 2 teams bye)
Week 2 - 4 games
Week 3 - 2 games (2 teams bye)
Week 4 - 2 games
Week 5 Grand Final

It's a similarly fair system, but gives you two extra finals.

Yes this is what I keep posting.
What you’re doing is adding 3v6 and 4v5 in week 1. Winners are in the top 4 and week 2 proceeds from there like the final 8 is now.

Of course this should be done, it makes even more money. I have absolutely no idea why the AFL plan on stopping at 2 games in the 1st week.

 

[Billy ray]

Yes this is what I keep posting.
What you’re doing is adding 3v6 and 4v5 in week 1. Winners are in the top 4 and week 2 proceeds from there like the final 8 is now.

Of course this should be done, it makes even more money. I have absolutely no idea why the AFL plan on stopping at 2 games in the 1st week.

they will revise to this system in 2027