AFL salary cap will hurt

  • Thread starter Oldfashioned Supporter
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None

Remove this Banner Ad

O

Oldfashioned Supporter

Guest
I sometimes wonder if the average AFL supporter really understands what is happening with the game he / she loves. We saw a bunch of disasters in Season 2000 but I am sure not many fans have given much thought to this one:

The AFL salary cap for this season of $4.75 million for each club for 40 players means that each player on average earns $118,750 (that will come as a shock to some players in the Reserves who are actually getting less than $60,000 but many are not worth even half that). Next year's salary cap of $5.25 million spread over only 38 players will mean an average payment per player of $138,150, that is, a pay rise of 16%. How many other employees in this country have gained a 16% pay increase recently? Are AFL footballers really worth this sort of money? If this 16% is added to the cost of the daily entry fee next season (now $15.40) it will raise the price to almost $18. The 11-game season ticket will rise to about $130 (but still good value). The question I ask is, How many clubs especially in Victoria, can afford a 16% increase in their running costs? The rise in the cost of living for the rest of the population is nowhere near that figure.

Certainly the richer clubs in Victoria will make the grade but I fear for the poorer clubs who will simply get even poorer. Wayne, Collo and Ross Oakley must be looking forward to seeing the headlines soon that "a couple of Victorian clubs have finally folded". Beauty, we finally got 'em!

Have no doubts, footy fans, the salary cap is aimed at getting rid of your club. The AFL wants only six left in Victoria and the salary cap is the hidden way of doing the trick.

A thirsty man can go to the the well only so many times until the well runs dry. I hope every AFL footballer and manager realises that the footy money well is also not bottomless. When the bucket eventually starts to produce muddy water, that will be the time when some clubs will begin to sink into the quicksand.

My suggestion would be to remove the rule that all clubs must pay at least 95% of the cap. Let the clubs decide for themselves what they can afford to pay. If they then cannot meet the AFL playing standards on the field then let them go out of business by their own hands, not by an organisation determined to crush them by a hidden agenda.

Oldfashioned Supporter
 
Want a 16% pay rise? Try working in I.T.
biggrin.gif
 
I'd sympathize, but then I remember that I live in a country where athlete salaries are TEN TIMES that amount.

Where a .225 hitter in baseball is paid $2 million a season. A left-handed pitcher throws one inning every two days, gives up three runs and loses, and is paid $2 million a season.

Where a starting NFL quarterback on a losing team throws 3 interceptions every week and gets paid $2 million a season.

Pray it doesn't get that bad there. Otherwise, you'll be looking at $60 game tickets, $8 beers and $10,000 memberships.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Oldfashioned supporter,

You make a lot of sense.

There is no doubt that the large annual increases in the salary cap is aimed at reducing the number of teams in Melbourne.

However, I suppose we should remember that the salary cap has gone a long way to providing some equality in the competition. If some of the larger clubs were able to throw their chequebooks around with no restrictions, many Victorian teams would already have been forced to the wall.(Hypocritical idiot Elliott
wink.gif
)

As for removing the rule forcing clubs to pay 95% of the cap, I agree entirely. Although I think the main reason this rule should be removed is because clubs such as St Kilda, Port Adelaide and Collingwood, using 2000 as an example, should not have to pay their players as much as an Essendon or a Melbourne.

A talkback caller spoke about this rule and how Collingwood should not have to pay their players a similar amount to Essendon, not just because of their respective win/loss ratios but because of the large portion of young players at Collingwood. Essendon have more players to spread their cash around with while a Collingwood were forced by the AFL to play some of their younger players a lot more than they deserved at the time.

I think you are 100% right about the intention of the salary cap today, but until now it has proven to act as some sort of a lifeline to some clubs. The next 5 - 10 years will be very interesting, particularly for those barracking for smaller clubs.
 
Just because teams lose doesn't mean that players aren't trying hard. I'm not sure about this 95% of salary cap thing because even before they had that rule in place clubs were spending in excess of 80% of the salary cap anyway.

I don't even like the salary cap system really. While it has it's good points, it also has it's bad.
 
If the AFL is fuelling a wage spiral mainly to get clubs to go under and move from melbourne (fulfilling the 'master plan' which has benn proved faulty several times now) then the Irony will be that it will cost them that much more to establish a team in a new area - they probably won't be able to fund thet without a packer or a murdoch - and we all know what will happen then.

It's about time they stopped destroying the fabric of the game - or there will be no 'strength' to operate from.

And Dan 24, even a 'insignificant' club which has a melbourne tradition is one eleventh of the AFL tradition (the remaining ten clubs plus port adelaide - all the others are 'creations')and a significant part of sonmething which can never be recreated
 
The likes of Kouta though, take a larger proportion of the carved up pie.
Thats where the problem is at the top end of the scale.There are some players who are youngsters, like Heffenen etc who would be on the bottom end of the scale. They play just as well as some of the top end.
Maybe its the AFL's way of natural attrition with the clubs.
 
Salary cap increase from $4.75 miillion to $5.25 million = 10.5% increase to the club, not 16%. And with less players on the books, the 'on-costs' bill will also be less.

Paying the same total salary (or at least 95% of it) to the wooden spooners as for the premiers sounds stupid, but no one has criticised Saint Kilda for their efforts to climb off the bottom mext season. You need quality players to climb up the ladder and they have to be paid top dollar to move to an unsuccessful club.
 
To Stealth, Sainter, Pessimistic and Point Of Order

To Stealth Bomber: The USA has about 18 times our population and can therefore afford the higher fees paid to their sportspeople, although I personally believe that some of the fees paid to some of them are totally obscene. Considering also that the sporting dollar has to be spread across so many sports now, the AFL must eventually reach a point of saturation for its income and that is why the salary cap will kill off several clubs eventually. You are right about gate entry reaching $60. If it ever happens we can say byebye to the majority of AFL footy fans.

To Sainter: Good points you mentioned and I agree that the salary cap has worked to the advantage of all clubs so far, especially in that it has saved some clubs from going to the wall sooner. But the salary cap is now rising at a ridiculous rate and some clubs will struggle to match what is demanded by the AFL. If it goes up by a similar amount in season 2002 and again in 2003 (as is planned, I believe) I am sure that several of clubs will sink to their knees and beg for mercy. But they won't get it from the AFL because it wants four Victorian clubs to die. And mergers are totally out of the question ever since the Melbourne-Hawthorn debacle.

To Pessimistic: I feel you have missed my point. The AFL is not seeking to bring in another team. The AFL wants a total of 12 teams, letting them play each other twice over the current 22-round home-and-away season. They want six in Victoria, two in WA, two in SA, one each in Sydney and Brisbane. If (when) this happens we will then see the AFL very happy because they will only need two stadiums in Victoria, the MCG and Colonial. Optus Oval and Shell Stadium will not be required if the AFL has its way.

To Point Of Order: I stand by my mathematics on this one, the players have received a 16% pay rise, just read my figures and work them out on a calculator. The managers must be laughing all the way to the bank too. The bigger salary cap and the less players, the more percentage they get from each player. Oh to be a player manager!

So the next question I pose is: Which club(s) will be the first to go? Some supporters will think their club is forever safe. Well just remember that University, South Melbourne and Fitzroy all thought the same thing. Come on fans, write your opinions on who will be the first club to fold together with your reasons and, please, not because you simply hate the club you nominate, but sound and fair logic.

Signed - Oldfashioned Supporter
 
The 95% rule is not a rule the clubs pay any attention to anyway. ALL clubs pay 100% and in some cases more to their players.

Ditching the 95% rule would make no difference at all.

The really interesting point about player payments is going to arise when the TV rights deal is done. How much of that money will filter down to the clubs, how much will the salary cap rise? Time will tell.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL salary cap will hurt

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top