AFLPA again threaten to strike

[HairyO]

Once again the pay talks are in limbo as the AFL and the AFLPA refuse to budge on their demands for the new pay deal.

Once again the media are ramping up the anger against the players for being greedy because "they earn enough to pay off a mortgage in a couple of years" and "they get paid to run around and keep fit" and "they are greedy because they earn way more than the average punter on struggle street".

While all of the above may be true, it deliberately glosses over the fact that those working for the AFL also earn massive amounts of money. Gil earns approximately double what the highest paid AFL player earns ($2.5m to $3m for Gil compared to around the $1.25m to $1.5m that GAJ and Buddy are on).

It also glosses over the fact that those working for the AFL earn more as the AFL makes more, while the players are not able to receive the same sorts of performance bonuses.

So which side of the fence is BF on?

As a part of the discussion, and maybe to keep this different to other threads which may have been started, how do other sports around Australia and around the world go in terms of how much the Executives earn compared to how much the top players in those sports earn?

I dare say US sports as well as European soccer the players are earning far more than the Execs running the comps...

 

[Yakker]

the market determines the value so an AFL elite player will get better payed than a forklift driver. I would like to see a little more payed to the lower pay scale AFL boys and a little less to the top end.

 

[L_W_P]

Not really worried about what the executives make. The top dogs in every business will find ways to get paid.

The players deserve a a bigger share of the pie though. They are the ones putting on the show, bringing in the punters, engaging the community, letting the media invade their lives to provide content for TV/Radio/Papers/Websites...

 

[FRUMPY]

The problem with unions is they only look after one group, their own. They say they want a % of revenue and if in the future revenue falls then so do their wages. However they have surely done their homework and have worked out that the % will mean a decent pay increase from when it kicks in and would know that in the foreseable future revenue is going to increase.

Then they will ask to increase their % at the next bargaining agreement. Unions just want more and more and don't care about anything else. Wether they get their % or an agreed wage they will continue to ask for more.

In all honesty I don't care which way it goes, as long as it doesn't increase the cost of gameday entry I couldn't give a s**t.

The stuff that annoys me is the arguments for it:
1. Its such a short life span being an AFL footballer they need to be rewarded - but they know this going in. You know the average lifespan of a footballer is around 4 years.
2. Players cop injuries and lifelong effects on their bodies - well so do local footballers who get paid peanuts or nothing. You choose to play the sport and can quit any time you like

The players union keep asking for more (more money, free agency, clubs cant trade players without agreeing to it) yet dont ever want to compromise.
My opinion, give them a % of revenue, give them free agency after 6 years - but - give them set wages for the first 4 years (if you are good enough to last 4 years you will get rewarded on later contracts, if you are not then you don't deserve big money and will be out of the system), let teams trade them in the first 6 years without consent (if you get drafted by an interstate team you have to play there, no different if teams want to trade you, if you don't like it then quit, there are 1000's out there who would take your spot)

 

[Rotayjay]

In all honesty I don't care which way it goes, as long as it doesn't increase the cost of gameday entry I couldn't give a s**t.

Agreed. I couldn't care less as long as a decent single-match ticket for Adelaide Oval doesn't go up from $55 to $65 this year.

If the AFLPA had its way, there wouldn't even be a draft - each talented youngster would simply go to Hawthorn, the Bulldogs or whichever club is in fashion that year. They'd also want contracts to be even more of a one-way street: 'You have to pay me according to this contract for the next five years, but at any one time I can spit the dummy and demand a trade to the oppo club of my choice.'

 

[FreoMonocle]

The wages are at unprecedented levels compared to yesteryear, they aren't exactly hard done by. The lower tiers could do with more funds (auskick, wafl/sanfl/vfl etc) and the AFL players wouldn't have gotten there without them. So do I think they are being greedy, no, but they aren't being mindful that they owe the rest of the competition.

 

[mehow2g]

Good.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

99% of the players would still play if the wages were cut by 70%, they are in a privileged position, don't like it? * off then.

 

[madmug]

the market determines the value so an AFL elite player will get better payed than a forklift driver. I would like to see a little more payed to the lower pay scale AFL boys and a little less.

I think the base payment should rise. Lots of AFL players only last a short period in the game. They should get some reward for their time & effort to get into the system. Luck & injury has an effect on how long they last in the system. The top players are ok.
The AFL takes the responsibility for game development, so they need to assist lower & development competitions.
The AFL also have an obligation to operate efficiently. ie monitor their administration costs & performance. That applies to AFL clubs as well. They seem hell bent on spending as much as they can on their football departments. They need to work together to monitor that sort of expenditure too.

 

[feenix67]

Use the opportunity to abolish player veto of trades. If the players want more cash, they should be prepared for mobility. They have free agency now, the clubs need to regain some power.

Want more money? Give up trade veto rights. Deal.

 

[Marmik]

Once again the pay talks are in limbo as the AFL and the AFLPA refuse to budge on their demands for the new pay deal.

Once again the media are ramping up the anger against the players for being greedy because "they earn enough to pay off a mortgage in a couple of years" and "they get paid to run around and keep fit" and "they are greedy because they earn way more than the average punter on struggle street".

s**t mentality. Maybe the average punter should get off their ass if it is so easy to make it in the AFL. Just because they earn more doesn't mean they don't deserve more. You work hard to get where you are, you should get paid accordingly so I think the players deserve more.

 

[GreyCrow]

s**t mentality. Maybe the average punter should get off their ass if it is so easy to make it in the AFL. Just because they earn more doesn't mean they don't deserve more. You work hard to get where you are, you should get paid accordingly so I think the players deserve more.

This doesn't make sense. It seems you are saying players deserve more and more each year. ''just because they earn more doesn't mean they don't deserve more'' is saying if you pay them $1 this year then they ''deserve'' $2 next year and $3 the year after. They don't ''deserve'' anything.

Sure they work hard and they have dedicated a lifetime to making it, but so do other professions.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Unsubtle union bashing thread.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

99% of the players would still play if the wages were cut by 70%, they are in a privileged position, don't like it? **** off then.

That is quite an irrational argument.

 

[HairyO]

99% of the players would still play if the wages were cut by 70%, they are in a privileged position, don't like it? **** off then.

Would Gil still be running the AFL if his pay was cut by 70%?

Unsubtle union bashing thread.

As shown in the bit where I talk about how much the AFL Execs get paid compared to the players? Or was that bit unsubtle rich toffs bashing thread?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Use the opportunity to abolish player veto of trades. If the players want more cash, they should be prepared for mobility. They have free agency now, the clubs need to regain some power.

Want more money? Give up trade veto rights. Deal.

Never going to happen, and nor should it.

 

[Marmik]

This doesn't make sense. It seems you are saying players deserve more and more each year. ''just because they earn more doesn't mean they don't deserve more'' is saying if you pay them $1 this year then they ''deserve'' $2 next year and $3 the year after. They don't ''deserve'' anything.

Sure they work hard and they have dedicated a lifetime to making it, but so do other professions.

Just because they earn more than the average punter, doesn't mean they don't deserve to get paid more than what they are at the moment. And I don't mean more and more $ each year. Maybe just a percentage increase or a bonus based on the AFLs revenue?

Edit: Also not sure how you can say they don't deserve anything .. ?

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

Need to be able to afford a hyperbaric chamber

 

[Frank Gallagher]

That is quite an irrational argument.

How about the players give 20% of their wages to past players who grew the game to what it is today for nothing more than rent money?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

How about the players give 20% of their wages to past players who grew the game to what it is today for nothing more than rent money?

You're trolling, but...

Do you pay money to the person who filled your position before you did?

 

[GreyCrow]

Edit: Also not sure how you can say they don't deserve anything .. ?

I meant the use of the word deserve.

They earn their money they don't deserve it just as I earn my money I don't get showing up money.

 

[HairyO]

How about the players give 20% of their wages to past players who grew the game to what it is today for nothing more than rent money?

Do you give 20% of your wages to the guy who used to do your job?

The AFL now has a serious super scheme as well as funding set aside for long term injuries and even money to help them find jobs. So I would say they are well compensated.

 

[PerfectFooty]

Do it! it'll be quite entertaining

 

[Frank Gallagher]

You're trolling, but...

Do you pay money to the person who filled your position before you did?

I'm not trolling at all mate, I'm quite passionate about this actually, todays players want want want but if it wasn't for the past players who played for a meat pie (often finishing with serious ongoing and unfunded injuries) the game wouldn't be where it is now, but do the AFLPA give a stuff about them? Do the current players give a stuff about them? No, they only care about themselves.


As for the Admins, well, you get what you pay for.

 

[ShanDog]

AFL CEO earning twice that of the top players seems fair. They are responsible for the league.

Having said that, good luck to the player's association - if you can get more money, then power to you.