"AFL Draftees Should Be Paid More" - Scott Lucas (What The ??)

[MightyHawks]

Top 70 may be true, however a few points.

• I still wouldn't call that a lot of fields
• Footballers BASE is around 65-74k...plus incentives those positions don't usually get offered. Fair chance Weitering earns over $140k next year
• Footballers get money from sponsorship/endorsements
• Graduates in those fields will usually be AT LEAST 22 before they start their job, at which point a highly rated footballer is likely to have signed his second contract for well over $150k.
• Up to the point where they get their first job, graduates have to pay universities for their education, so first year pay is cancelled out basically to cover cost

I don't really care what Weitering earns next year - he'll do fine out of footy over his career. Even were he to do a knee preseason they'll still recontract him for years 3 and 4 at a higher rate than $74k

It's the bottom 10 on the list that need more coin

 

[Kappa]

average paramedic career is 9 years ... and I never got a chance to get paid and not respond to cases (ie not play games and get paid) for 2 seasons mimium

Yes because all AFL players do is rock up saturday arvo and play games

 

[Balony_pony16]

Yes because all AFL players do is rock up saturday arvo and play games

The ones that do get 74k to train all week (which I know is tough)... but people bang on about the average AFL career life spam, when really yes a lot fail but get 74k a year to do so. Players that play 4-15 years do well off. The majority that fail in the early years do so getting 74k per year.

The problem with going all rookies need more cash is that it takes away from the people that actually make it and thus deserve the $$... Id rather increase the $$ for guys that make it and play AFL long term. A player that is in and out of the system and earns 74k in the process hardly deserves a pitty party

 

[Phone]

afl draftees shouldnt even be paid because there's 200000 people who would gladly do the job for free! waht a bunch of spoit brats these kids are





Honestly, what an insane series of posts in this thread. Of course, they should be paid more. They just signed a 2 billion TV rights and it only makes sense for the set wages for draftees to increase following the next CBA. God knows Weitering would be making at least 500K next year if he actually got to negotiate a contract. It's not a normal industry, don't make stupid comparisons to 'other' 18yos or jobs, it just makes you look bitter.

 

[Damon_3388]

I'm sorry, but if you're an 18-19 year old who's fresh out of high school with no qualifications, who's just moved out of home or (depending on where you got drafted to) are still living with parents or boarding with club supporters or teammates, and have no real responsibilities (family, mortgage, etc.), if you can't live on $55K-$74K a year, then you need to seriously analyse what the hell you're doing with your money.

The whole "they deserve a bigger slice of the pie" thing is separate, and possibly a valid point, but to base the argument around it being hard for them to live on that money is farcical.

 

[theyellowsash]

Unsuccessful afl players are no different to ordinary people who try a career and fail. In fact those ordinary people will start on a lower base wage and most likely have uni debt to pay back so the failed afl rookies are still far far ahead.

 

[D-N-R]

I think they are just angling for an extension to the minimum contract of two years to be increased to a minimum of 3 years. Making an ambit claim is just the first step in the negotiation. I wouldn't be surprised if the payment stays the same, but with a longer minimum contract.

I don't have a problem with the players being paid more. As long as the money is coming from the game itself (TV rights deal, for example), and is unlikely to bankrupt the game then they should get an increase. I'd prefer the players get a bigger cut over administrators and the like.

 

[WowWeee]

Unsuccessful afl players are no different to ordinary people who try a career and fail. In fact those ordinary people will start on a lower base wage and most likely have uni debt to pay back so the failed afl rookies are still far far ahead.

They're way more well off than ordinary people who try a career and fail though. The perks you get from being inside the afl system is huge, they become extremely well connected aswell.

Nowadays players are encourage to spend there free time pursuing something they're interested in other than footy (for when they retire or if they get delisted after a couple of years). If a player is keen on learning about finance or construction I've no doubt they can easily get part time work/ work experience with company such as Pwc/commbank/Multiplex and the likes.

 

[Jugada]

The perks you get from being inside the afl system is huge, they become extremely well connected

BS

 

[Bomberboyokay]

If they don't make it, the fact they played AFL football for a short time opens all kinds of doors others just dream about.

The perks you get from being inside the afl system is huge, they become extremely well connected aswell.

A lot of ex-players have jobs in the football industry. Opportunities to rub shoulders with sponsors and promote yourself. Of course, you need to have something to offer.

Then there's the women...

This is such bullshit.

If you're a 10-year, 200-game player there's opportunities opened up to you. But if you're delisted after 2-3 years (this happens to a third of draftees - and of the remaining 66% less still go on to the 10-year/200-game household name career) nobody gives a s**t about you.

(And the women would disappear as fast as they appeared.)

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I'm sorry, but if you're an 18-19 year old who's fresh out of high school with no qualifications, who's just moved out of home or (depending on where you got drafted to) are still living with parents or boarding with club supporters or teammates, and have no real responsibilities (family, mortgage, etc.), if you can't live on $55K-$74K a year, then you need to seriously analyse what the hell you're doing with your money.

The whole "they deserve a bigger slice of the pie" thing is separate, and possibly a valid point, but to base the argument around it being hard for them to live on that money is farcical.

No you're not.

 

[Mr Commissioner]

These blokes are in the top 1% of their field - of course they should get paid more.

 

[Jugada]

The argument "Im a _____, and i only make $_____ in my first year" for a reason why they shouldnt get pay increase are hilarious

 

[Ron The Bear]

These blokes are in the top 1% of their field - of course they should get paid more.

How about the top female footballers, what do they get paid? More money for everyone!

There was a time not too long ago when footballers needed to find a sympathetic employer in order to be let off work in time for training, and Australian Olympic athletes were paying their own way to the Games. Sportspeople have never had it so good. No, it's not for everyone, so make your choice.

 

[swiftdog]

I'm sorry, but if you're an 18-19 year old who's fresh out of high school with no qualifications, who's just moved out of home or (depending on where you got drafted to) are still living with parents or boarding with club supporters or teammates, and have no real responsibilities (family, mortgage, etc.), if you can't live on $55K-$74K a year, then you need to seriously analyse what the hell you're doing with your money.

The whole "they deserve a bigger slice of the pie" thing is separate, and possibly a valid point, but to base the argument around it being hard for them to live on that money is farcical.

Nailed it. Not to mention that many clubs look after your food for you, put you up in a house if you move interstate. I'm sure you can get a little something from sponsors, maybe a nice little discount on a new vehicle if your club is sponsored by a car company. Anyone who struggles to live on 55k a year at 18-21 years old (barring exceptional circumstances) needs to get their s**t together.

As for the "being thrown out after 4 years" argument, is it any different from people who spend 3-4 years at uni and can't find a job in their field? I mean apart from the one that now has a HECS debt to pay off and the one that has earnt $220k+ over the same time period.

 

[Furn2]

Why do people keep comparing their run of the mill careers with an AFL footballers ?

Each year there are what ? 20000 engineering graduates ? 15000 medical students ? 5000 paramedics ?

The majority of those are capable of performing those jobs at a competent level.

Now each year there is year between 30 and 40 players come through the junior system that will be able to perform long term at AFL level.

It's simple supply and demand.

heaps of people can do what most of us do, very few people play football in the AFL or even show the potential to do so.

Obviously they should be paid more.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Why do people keep comparing their run of the mill careers with an AFL footballers ?

Each year there are what ? 20000 engineering graduates ? 15000 medical students ? 5000 paramedics ?

The majority of those are capable of performing those jobs at a competent level.

Now each year there is year between 30 and 40 players come through the junior system that will be able to perform long term at AFL level.

It's simple supply and demand.

heaps of people can do what most of us do, very few people play football in the AFL or even show the potential to do so.

Obviously they should be paid more.

I don't know about obvious.
How is it obvious?

There are many sports where competitors live in their cars, should they be paid more?

I think AFL players are paid ok, but if they get more good on em, but i certainly don't think it is obvious they should get more.

 

[Furn2]

I don't know about obvious.
How is it obvious?

There are many sports where competitors live in their cars, should they be paid more?

I think AFL players are paid ok, but if they get more good on em, but i certainly don't think it is obvious they should get more.

Supply AND demand, if they are living in their car the demand isn't that high.


AFL is a $1billion a year industry where 30-40 people a year enter the system that can do it.

Yeah, they should get the same as an engineering graduate.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Supply AND demand, if they are living in their car the demand isn't that high.


AFL is a $1billion a year industry where 30-40 people a year enter the system that can do it.

Yeah, they should get the same as an engineering graduate.

Most footballers love what they do, most other sportspeople are the same, you take that risk to do what you love.
If you don't make it, that's the risk you took.
And many who don't make it, will tell you, "i give it a shot, and wouldn't have it any other way"
Actors, musicians etc, same thing, it's a risk, but they love it, that's why they do it.
When a club picks a player in the draft, they are taking a risk on potential, now if you raise the wages of potential, what is stopping clubs from trading for someone they know can play?

 

[Richo83]

I'm sorry, but if you're an 18-19 year old who's fresh out of high school with no qualifications, who's just moved out of home or (depending on where you got drafted to) are still living with parents or boarding with club supporters or teammates, and have no real responsibilities (family, mortgage, etc.), if you can't live on $55K-$74K a year, then you need to seriously analyse what the hell you're doing with your money.

The whole "they deserve a bigger slice of the pie" thing is separate, and possibly a valid point, but to base the argument around it being hard for them to live on that money is farcical.

Sure, I would say though that given a lot of these draftees work pretty hard and then often get turfed out pretty quickly, they deserve a bit more. But I think the best argument for paying draftees more is the argument that all AFL players deserve to be paid more, given how much money is in the game. The highest paid player in the game is paid around a million, and there's only a handful around that rate, which is pretty small compared to other leagues. And the AFL is basically sitting on a goldmine, it's how they've been able to fund the suns and giants.

 

[Furn2]

Most footballers love what they do, most other sportspeople are the same, you take that risk to do what you love.
If you don't make it, that's the risk you took.
And many who don't make it, will tell you, "i give it a shot, and wouldn't have it any other way"
Actors, musicians etc, same thing, it's a risk, but they love it, that's why they do it.
When a club picks a player in the draft, they are taking a risk on potential, now if you raise the wages of potential, what is stopping clubs from trading for someone they know can play?

Nothing, clubs trade draft picks all the time.

they will also do almost anything to get their hands on the best young talent. The demand for top junior footy talent is huge and the supply is tiny.

That's simply not the case with a uni graduate with a 68 average.

Whether draftees are paid enough compared compared to other proven players is a different story.

The argument that they are no different to your average person doing something most people can do just doesn't make sense.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Nothing, clubs trade draft picks all the time.

they will also do almost anything to get their hands on the best young talent. The demand for top junior footy talent is huge and the supply is tiny.

That's simply not the case with a uni graduate with a 68 average.

Whether draftees are paid enough compared compared to other proven players is a different story.

The argument that they are no different to your average person doing something most people can do just doesn't make sense.

I am not arguing this though, am i?
What i am arguing is, you said "it is obvious"
I just can't see it being "obvious"
74k for a draftee is not bad cash, especially for something you love doing.
If you are good enough and get to play games, then that 74k goes up, so it gets even better.
If you are not good enough and don't make it, why should clubs have to lump all the risk?
The clubs are already paying 74k for the risk, many don't make it, so there is many x74k's being paid for no return.
Now raise those wages and the risk gets more expensive doesn't it?
I think what should happen is the "AFL" puts cash into a redundancy scheme.

 

[the_interloper]

I don't think Scott Lucas is a very clever bloke.

 

[coryne]

They're in the top fraction of a percent of talent in their field for their age in a league that makes squillions.

Not many would begrudge top graduate students entering the banking industry from asking for a very good salary. These aren't kids looking for part time work at Coles.

And there are many people who have a PhD who have a starting wage which is significantly less than what an 18 yr old draftee can earn, and that is after 8-9 years of education.

+70k base rate for players who are predominantly still learning their craft is huge money, and if they are playing games they are earning significantly more. Complaining that they are not being paid enough, then turning around and saying that they get into trouble because they have too much expendable income and time on their hands, is ridiculous and shows how much the afl is out of touch with the rest of society.

 

[Furn2]

I am not arguing this though, am i?
What i am arguing is, you said "it is obvious"
I just can't see it being "obvious"
74k for a draftee is not bad cash, especially for something you love doing.
If you are good enough and get to play games, then that 74k goes up, so it gets even better.
If you are not good enough and don't make it, why should clubs have to lump all the risk?
The clubs are already paying 74k for the risk, many don't make it, so there is many x74k's being paid for no return.
Now raise those wages and the risk gets more expensive doesn't it?
I think what should happen is the "AFL" puts cash into a redundancy scheme.

It is good cash compared to what though ?

what other 18 year olds get or uni graduates or Phds get isnt relevent to what an AFL draftee gets, its no more relevent than the fact a rookie F1 driver can earn over $5mil a year based only on potential.

Its still way less than they would earn if it wasn't artifically restricted by the rules.