Are AFL clubs getting a fair deal when it comes to off-field finances?

[The_Wookie]

Very detailed analysis here. Recommended reading.

Are AFL clubs getting a fair deal when it comes to off-field finances?

As well as competing for points on the field, AFL teams face some tough battles off it. Some clubs earn more money than others, so how does your team fare when it comes to off-field financials?

www.abc.net.au

 

[Kwality]

Very detailed analysis here. Recommended reading.

Are AFL clubs getting a fair deal when it comes to off-field finances?

As well as competing for points on the field, AFL teams face some tough battles off it. Some clubs earn more money than others, so how does your team fare when it comes to off-field financials?

www.abc.net.au

Isolate the Melbourne clubs for a clearer picture of how different the various markets across the country are:
From the ABC article:
'There's a loose relationship across the AFL between broadcast audience and the amount of corporate income being earned by clubs. More exposure can greatly improve a team's financial position.
There are exceptions, notably in the corporate-friendly cities of Perth and Sydney.

The Eagles take in many millions in corporate funding in resource-rich Western Australia, despite rarely receiving national television exposure.

In the nation's financial hub of Sydney, even the ironically named Giants have found sponsorship dollars relatively easy to come by, out-earning several more widely-watched and supported teams.

By and large, though, it's the usual heavyweights with large fanbases that make the biggest sponsorship deals.'

Thanks to The_Wookie for the work put into this for we consumers.

 

[eastfreo75]

Very detailed analysis here. Recommended reading.

Are AFL clubs getting a fair deal when it comes to off-field finances?

As well as competing for points on the field, AFL teams face some tough battles off it. Some clubs earn more money than others, so how does your team fare when it comes to off-field financials?

www.abc.net.au

Fremantle had only 6 prime spots in 5 years.

Yet the AFL gives Fremantle 13th funding.

Carlton get $5m more funding year than Fremantle each year and yet they had 37 prime time slot vs 6.

Total BS

 

[The_Wookie]

Fremantle had only 6 prime spots in 5 years.

Yet the AFL gives Fremantle 13th funding.

Carlton get $5m more funding year than Fremantle each year and yet they had 37 prime time slot vs 6.

Total BS

Most of Carltons additional funding is due to either MCG/Docklands income distributed by the league or Ikon Park funding.

 

[eastfreo75]

Most of Carltons additional funding is due to either MCG/Docklands income distributed by the league or Ikon Park funding.

Maybe what you get from the AFL is fair but Fremantle's isn't.

6 Prime time slots in 5 years is a massive loss in revenue, yet 13 clubs get more funding from the AFL than Fremantle.

Carlton had 37 prime slots in 5 years which is 6 times the amount that the Dockers get.

 

[Kwality]

Maybe what you get from the AFL is fair but Fremantle's isn't.

6 Prime time slots in 5 years is a massive loss in revenue, yet 13 clubs get more funding from the AFL than Fremantle.

Carlton had 37 prime slots in 5 years which is 6 times the amount that the Dockers get.

One set of rules for the Melbourne clubs ? So many teams.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Fremantle had only 6 prime spots in 5 years.

Yet the AFL gives Fremantle 13th funding.

Carlton get $5m more funding year than Fremantle each year and yet they had 37 prime time slot vs 6.

Total BS

Most of Carltons additional funding is due to either MCG/Docklands income distributed by the league or Ikon Park funding.

And AFL membership club support monies of which Carlton would get far more than Freo.

Not sure I've heard or read that the AFL directly distributes money from the MCG to tenant clubs, though there are substantial payments ($6m annually back in 2011 and likely to be more $1-2m more today) by the AFL to the MCG which would help clubs get better returns at that venue.

The difference in total AFL distributions in 2021 between these two clubs was $2.4m but most of want to know what the disequal or variable element is as this is not apparent in the information the AFL now provides.

Whilst prime time matches are obviously are very important so are broadcasting deals which enable total or near total FTA coverage to the home states of non-Vic clubs (which can be helpful in attracting major sponsors like GFG and Woodside who are targeting specific markets). Foxtel has long wanted and would pay much more for exclusive coverage of matches of non-Vic teams in their home markets.

 

[Rob]

Maybe what you get from the AFL is fair but Fremantle's isn't.

6 Prime time slots in 5 years is a massive loss in revenue, yet 13 clubs get more funding from the AFL than Fremantle.

Carlton had 37 prime slots in 5 years which is 6 times the amount that the Dockers get.

That's because AFL funding has nothing to do with marquee timeslots, the fixture, or anything like that.

It's about who needs the money.

There will be a correlation between the 2, simply because the better timeslots are generally given to clubs that are winning. Because they're winning, they're getting more fans through the gates and consequently make more money and are less likely to need extra dollars from the league. But correlation does not mean causation.