telsor
Hall of Famer
Having an actual or ostensible fiduciary obligation re the good of the game on the one hand, and seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows such as TV media on the other, is what the lawyers call a conflict of interest.
The AFL is hopelessly conflicted. Tas is an example.
To the cynical and hypocritical bloviating AFL hucksters Tasmania is just collateral damage - a footy heartland sacrificed on the Ponzi-scheme altar of robbing Peter to pay Paul [or now, possibly, Pauline]. Grow the game, baby.
And Paul in the rugby league heart of Q can't believe his good luck in being a $30M AFL trust fund baby.
Conflict of interest? No way, says the AFL. Hey, listen, we gotta hit our TV revenue KPIs for our bonuses. Oops, no, wait...
I think you need to do some more research if you're going to suggest it's a legal issue.
not for profit organisations like the AFL need to make money in order to pay for what they pay for, so having at least some of their focus on "seeking to maximize profits by bending over to cash cows" isn't a conflict, it's a necessary function.
What you want is for them to change their focus when it comes to spending money and so long as they have an arguable case for how they spend it (and they do), that would be pretty hard to get a court to do anything about.