Collingwood misses out on Ball

[Chander Bing]

Another idiot with no clue about free agency.

Obviously the salary cap will still be in place and stop this, as per the current NRL situation.

Free Agency with a salary cap is not the deathnell of Clubs.

But at least players will be able to go to teams of their choice in a mutual deal.

Imagine if someone told you, that you had to go and work in Perth if you lived in Melbourne.

Obvious restraint of trade.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Obviously the salary cap will still be in place and stop this, as per the current NRL situation.

Free Agency with a salary cap is not the deathnell of Clubs.

But at least players will be able to go to teams of their choice in a mutual deal.

Imagine if someone told you, that you had to go and work in Perth if you lived in Melbourne.

Obvious restraint of trade.

People have been howling "Restraint of Trade" for nearly 20 years now... big effect that has had.

From what I understand, the players are technically employees of the AFL itself, not the individual franchise. The AFL as the employer therefore has the ability to send you anywhere. It is not restraint of trade, because you are free to go and play Rugby League or Soccer if you don't like it.

Regardless, Cartel/anti-competitive behavior is simply an accepted reality of the economics of professional sporting leagues... the courts understand this.

 

[Chander Bing]

I am afraid you are wrong in every single ruling from a court around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

The case was an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfers of football players

 

[DeanoT]

People have been howling "Restraint of Trade" for nearly 20 years now... big effect that has had.

From what I understand, the players are technically employees of the AFL itself, not the individual franchise. The AFL as the employer therefore has the ability to send you anywhere. It is not restraint of trade, because you are free to go and play Rugby League or Soccer if you don't like it.

Regardless, Cartel/anti-competitive behavior is simply an accepted reality of the economics of professional sporting leagues... the courts understand this.

Nope.

As mentioned by the previous poster, this issue has been raised in several jurisdictions, and with the exception of MLB, which has an ancient exception, it has been ruled restraint of trade in every case. Doesn't matter how the AFL arranges the contracts, the courts will look at the substance of player arrangements.

The only justification courts have considered for restraint of trade is whether the structure of the system is reasonable to keep the competition healthy, alive, and does not lead down a path of the competition falling apart.

And that is a very difficult argument for the AFL to make, if it truly believes that the salary cap works as intended.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I am afraid you are wrong in every single ruling from a court around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

The case was an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfers of football players

Thats an interesting artical. The one point that I think is very different to the local condition is that he was attempting to move from a club in one league to a club in a seperate league, in a different country.

In the local scene you could argue that a player is free to break the AFL rule, and go and play for another club of his choice, as long as it is not an AFL club. Perhaps the ACCC should have been more active at the time that the AFL was formed, effectively creating a Monopoly of top level football.

 

[DeanoT]

Thats an interesting artical. The one point that I think is very different to the local condition is that he was attempting to move from a club in one league to a club in a seperate league, in a different country.

In the local scene you could argue that a player is free to break the AFL rule, and go and play for another club of his choice, as long as it is not an AFL club. Perhaps the ACCC should have been more active at the time that the AFL was formed, effectively creating a Monopoly of top level football.

Any mechanism which results in two willing parties being unable to engage in an employment contract is automatically a restraint of someone's trade. You can guess, and make arguments this way or that way, but the fact remains that, at law, professional sportsment have been considered to be employees engaging in trade for a long time now, including in Australia, and therefore have the same employment rights as any other employee, including the right to choose their place of employment.

Any arrangement which prevents a player playing for a club of his choosing is restraint of trade. The test is whether the restraint is reasonable. The current arrangements are clearly not reasonable, and is one of the reasons why the NRL did not introduce a national draft in addition to the salary cap, as it did not believe it would stand a legal challenge.

If you want to read up on a good article on restraint of trade, including local and international context, I suggest the following link.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=slej

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Any mechanism which results in two willing parties being unable to engage in an employment contract is automatically a restraint of someone's trade. You can guess, and make arguments this way or that way, but the fact remains that, at law, professional sportsment have been considered to be employees engaging in trade for a long time now, including in Australia, and therefore have the same employment rights as any other employee, including the right to choose their place of employment.

Any arrangement which prevents a player playing for a club of his choosing is restraint of trade. The test is whether the restraint is reasonable. The current arrangements are clearly not reasonable, and is one of the reasons why the NRL did not introduce a national draft in addition to the salary cap, as it did not believe it would stand a legal challenge.

If you want to read up on a good article on restraint of trade, including local and international context, I suggest the following link.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=slej

How about workers compo?

My personal opinion is that Lawyers love contesting things like this because they can make a dollar out of it and don't care what they stuff up in the process. No doubt a case can be made for unlawful restriction of trade. What is doubtful is that it will improve our sport.

An example is the processing of illegal immigrants or refugee's, where the immigrant, upon being found to be illegal seems to have access to an unending amount of appeal. To the extent that the government now makes every effort possible to prevent them from setting foot on Australian soil. ( Howard paid Narau , Rudd is paying Indonesia ).

 

[DeanoT]

How about workers compo?

My personal opinion is that Lawyers love contesting things like this because they can make a dollar out of it and don't care what they stuff up in the process. No doubt a case can be made for unlawful restriction of trade. What is doubtful is that it will improve our sport.

An example is the processing of illegal immigrants or refugee's, where the immigrant, upon being found to be illegal seems to have access to an unending amount of appeal. To the extent that the government now makes every effort possible to prevent them from setting foot on Australian soil. ( Howard paid Narau , Rudd is paying Indonesia ).

Having an anti-lawyer bent should not mean that you advocate systems which contravene the law.

As for refugee lawyers, I doubt they are the Minters/Clayton top tier folk charging $2,000 per hour.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Having an anti-lawyer bent should not mean that you advocate systems which contravene the law.

As for refugee lawyers, I doubt they are the Minters/Clayton top tier folk charging $2,000 per hour.

I'm not sure you can claim that the current system clearly contravene's the law. However I'm sure there are Lawyers who would claim it does.

Not every court decision is correct, and hence not every law is correct.

 

[DeanoT]

I'm not sure you can claim that the current system clearly contravene's the law. However I'm sure there are Lawyers who would claim it does.

Not every court decision is correct, and hence not every law is correct.

Who do you want to argue the legality or otherwise of the system, if not a lawyer ??

Did you read the document in the link I provided above ? If not, a few excerpts here, from the author/lawyer...

"The common law doctrine of restraint of trade permits a person to carry out legal trade in ‘such a matter as he chooses’. Thus, any restraint on a person’s right to work is prima facie void. However, if the restraint is regarded as ‘reasonable’, then this provision can be rebutted".

"The cap and draft impose restrictions on athletes’ salaries and ability to choose their employer. The cap and draft provisions are generally found in a player’s contract or a collective agreement. If considered in regard to law in general, these restrictions are clear cut violations of restraint of trade laws".

In relation to a legal challenge by a player against the NRL... "The court held that the cap, which had already existed for a number of years, was reasonably necessary to ensure the continuance of the league. The addition of the draft, however, was unreasonable, because the salary cap was already protecting the interests of the league. The draft which limited the athletes’ ability to choose their employer was held to be unreasonable and therefore void".

"Australia tends to compromise between the US and European positions by generally allowing caps but by usually deeming the addition of drafts an unreasonable restraint of trade. Yet, Australia’s AFL uses the draft; however, it has not, to the author’s knowledge, been challenged in court".

"Whereas the US leans more towards the interests of the clubs and leagues, Europe leans further towards the interests of the athletes. Australia appears willing to use the reasoning behind the US and European courts in making decisions in an attempt to balance the interests of the athletes with those of the clubs/leagues. However, Australia’s present well balanced position will face difficulties as its leagues become more commercial in nature and more inline with US leagues".

Remember, the AFL system is the only one in the world which has a draft, a salary cap, and no free agency.

Pretty clear that the current AFL system is unlawful.

 

[TradeDraft]

If Ball goes anywhere accept the Saints they are the Biggest Losers because they get nothing in Return.

Pies dont lose anything

 

[StFly]

Pretty clear that the current AFL system is unlawful.

Then why has no one tested it to prove as such and force the issue? Surely every single player that has rolled over at any instance of a threat, genuine or implied would simply do what is in their best interests if it was so clear and so concise that if they took it to the courts the AFL would be found wrong.

 

[DeanoT]

I'm not sure you can claim that the current system clearly contravene's the law. However I'm sure there are Lawyers who would claim it does.

Not every court decision is correct, and hence not every law is correct.

Laws are not made by courts, they are made by parliament.

 

[DeanoT]

Then why has no one tested it to prove as such and force the issue? Surely every single player that has rolled over at any instance of a threat, genuine or implied would simply do what is in their best interests if it was so clear and so concise that if they took it to the courts the AFL would be found wrong.

It is highly unlikely that any single player would be willing to take up a legal challenge against the AFL. Such an exercise would likely cost millions in legal fees, regardless of the likelihood of success. The AFL would be willing to appeal all the way to the highest court, likely exhausting the individual player's financial resources to continue to contest. And if the player won, they would likely be lampooned by the media as selfish, and of wanting to compromise the system.

The AFL Players Association would have a greater ability to take up the fight, but unlike many sporting players associations, the AFLPA is built upon a history of co-operation, not confrontation, and as such it has tolerated the current arrangements for the time being. That trend is beginning to change, and the Luke Ball scenario is a prime example of why some form of free agency is inevitable.

The AFL is aware that it is the only league in the world to get away with the current player arrangements, and does not want it challenged in court. Hence, you can expect to see some agreement on free agency between the AFL and the AFLPA in the next few years, possibly after the establishment of the Gold Coast and Western Sydney teams.

 

[Hard Yakka]

Laws are not made by courts, they are made by parliament.

Except common law - apart from that, you're 100% right!!!

 

[NeilElvis]

Except common law - apart from that, you're 100% right!!!

There's also a bit of a catch to all you closet lawyers sprouting 'unfair', 'restraint of trade', 'Ball should be free to play where he wants'.

While restraint of trade applies to many professions, it is very rarely tested by sportspeople in an attempt to 'ply their trade where they see fit'. This is because a sporting competition is permitted to enact laws that aim to create a level competition (like a salary cap, draft and transfer system). In order to protect such a competition, sporting organisations are permitted to restrict the earning capacity, freedom to move and a number of other 'working rights' that the majority of other workers enjoy.

We can argue whether the AFL competition is really as fair & even as Andy D likes to proclaim but what does ensure there is somewhat of a level playing field is the salary cap & draft system.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I'd rather miss out on Ball than accelerate the advent of free agency. I hate the idea with a passion. The only way I'd accept it is if a player only becomes eligible for free agency at the same time he becomes eligible for the veterans' list.

 

[HFF]

I'd rather miss out on Ball than accelerate the advent of free agency. I hate the idea with a passion. The only way I'd accept it is if a player only becomes eligible for free agency at the same time he becomes eligible for the veterans' list.

Unfortunately TRS, you would be fighting a losing battle.

Our code is the only game in the world where players have no control over their futures.

The game is all about the players- this should be paramount. They are the ones that put on the spectatcle and showcase what is AFL football, it is the reason we attend football matches.

It is coming and it won't be under any criteria such as "only when they reach veteran list status" for then the system is obsolete and flawed and serves no purpose.

Free Agency will be a good thing for the game. It will free up player movement and clubs won't be treating players like meat or holding them to ransom no more. As a player, I do not want clubs telling me where I can and can't go. It is my playing future, I will decide what is the best career move for me- not the club.

At the end of the day, every club will win some and lose some.

 

[collingwill]

Re: Did St Kilda and Coll stuff up

You're obviously 13 & have no grasp on how the system works or struggling a bit intellect wise so I'll let your rambling incoherent post slide.

One point though champ, if/when free agency does come in, Collingwood will suffer just as much as any other club. You will lose players as well. Lock that in.[/quote]

we will all lose, the interstate teams (WA and adel) will have a field day, it just wont happen IMO, out of the Victorian teams collingwood, Essenscum, carlscum id think will be better off than the other vic clubs and brisbane and the syd clubs will struggle as well, it just wont happen, hopefully anyways.

 

[collingwill]

Unfortunately TRS, you would be fighting a losing battle.

Our code is the only game in the world where players have no control over their futures.

The game is all about the players- this should be paramount. They are the ones that put on the spectatcle and showcase what is AFL football, it is the reason we attend football matches.

It is coming and it won't be under any criteria such as "only when they reach veteran list status" for then the system is obsolete and flawed and serves no purpose.

Free Agency will be a good thing for the game. It will free up player movement and clubs won't be treating players like meat or holding them to ransom no more. As a player, I do not want clubs telling me where I can and can't go. It is my playing future, I will decide what is the best career move for me- not the club.

At the end of the day, every club will win some and lose some.

for the good of the game we cannot let FA happen, it will allmost certainly favour WA and ADEL and penalise the Queensland and the NSWs clubs, it will also put the struggling Vic clubs to the wall.

as for clubs not telling you were you can and cant go id say if you dont like it, find another league to play in, the AFL in its current format has worked pretty well so far and its as even as we can get it and the players are paid very well on top of this, why fix something that isnt broken.

i think it may be a good idea for mature age players 30 + but thats all. i dont know why FA is linked to luke ball, fact is the only person to blame for lukes situation is luke ball, if he didnt nominate another club as a fallback option for the saints then i have no sympathy for him.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Laws are not made by courts, they are made by parliament.

Ha ha , but the courts interpret them. Then if the interpretation is bad enough parliment needs to change the law again to make it what it was meant to be in the first place.

 

[DeanoT]

for the good of the game we cannot let FA happen, it will allmost certainly favour WA and ADEL and penalise the Queensland and the NSWs clubs, it will also put the struggling Vic clubs to the wall.

You make this statement, yet you give no reason as to why it will favour some clubs over others. The maintenance of the salary cap will prevent a small number of clubs accumulating a list of champions at the expense of other teams. Also, the QLD and NSW teams will likely have salary cap concessions, so you could argue that they will be the ones able to best exploit free agency, not be disadvantaged by it.

as for clubs not telling you were you can and cant go id say if you dont like it, find another league to play in, the AFL in its current format has worked pretty well so far and its as even as we can get it and the players are paid very well on top of this, why fix something that isnt broken.

Yes, let's absolutely screw the interests of the players at the expense of "the game". Newsflash - the players ARE the game. Look up the 1994 Major League Baseball strike. Do you want to get to a situation where the season is cancelled half way through, with no finals series or GF to watch ? We should be grateful that the AFL players and the AFLPA are not that way inclined, but let's see what happens if the threat of a legal challenge is raised, which will only be a matter of time, if the AFL doesn't come to the party on free agency.

As for players being very well paid, that is nonsense. Just because the Judds, Abletts, Riewoldts get paid top dollar does not equate to all players rolling in cash. The average playing career lasts 4 years, and the average salary per player is about $180K pa, yet when you consider the top players get the majority of the cap, most players would get $120-$180K pa. If your career only lasts 3 - 6 years, and your name isn't Ablett, Judd, etc, then you aren't exactly setting yourself up for life.

i think it may be a good idea for mature age players 30 + but thats all. i dont know why FA is linked to luke ball, fact is the only person to blame for lukes situation is luke ball, if he didnt nominate another club as a fallback option for the saints then i have no sympathy for him.

Very few players over 30 are tradeworthy.

Luke Ball is linked to free agency because the system has left him in limbo. Him nominating one club is irrelevant, St Kilda were never going to trade him. He has given adequate service to his club, a more than healthy return for a number 2 draft pick, and wants to move on. He should be able to choose where he wants to go, and have it done. The belligerence of St Kilda and Collingwood on this issue has only accelerated the inevitable debate about the introduction of free agency.

You may not like it, but it will happen. It will make player movements much easier, and more effiicent. And if the AFL believes that the salary cap works effectively as intended, then introducing free agency should have no adverse affect on any club.

 

[DeanoT]

There's also a bit of a catch to all you closet lawyers sprouting 'unfair', 'restraint of trade', 'Ball should be free to play where he wants'.

While restraint of trade applies to many professions, it is very rarely tested by sportspeople in an attempt to 'ply their trade where they see fit'. This is because a sporting competition is permitted to enact laws that aim to create a level competition (like a salary cap, draft and transfer system). In order to protect such a competition, sporting organisations are permitted to restrict the earning capacity, freedom to move and a number of other 'working rights' that the majority of other workers enjoy.

We can argue whether the AFL competition is really as fair & even as Andy D likes to proclaim but what does ensure there is somewhat of a level playing field is the salary cap & draft system.

No-one is missing any catch. A sporting organisation can implement equality measures to maintain the overall health of the sport, so long as those measures are reasonable. It doesn't have an irrefutable right to do whatever it chooses in restricting player rights. While the AFL system is yet to be tested for reasonableness, it is the only professional league in existence which has a salary cap, a draft, and no free agency.

The NRL wanted to introduce a draft in 1991, and it was ruled an unreasonable restraint of trade by the courts in Adamson v NSWRL, as the NSWRL already had an equalisation measure in place, in the form of the salary cap. The court ruled that the addition of a draft on top of the already existing salary cap was unreasonable.

Fairly easy to draw that the conclusion that the same ruling would be applied to the AFL, if challenged.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Those who would benefit from an absolutely free trade would only be a few "Star" type players.
They would be able to maximise their money by going to the highest bidder.

The resultant pressure on the salary cap would serve to reduce the money earnt by non-stars, and any lifting of the salary cap would still go to the stars.

Forget about development of long term project players. Unless they can play effective footy at the time they are drafted the clubs won't want to know. Why waste time and effort developing a young ruckman/irish rookie/key position player, when they are likely to walk out when they become successful. These players will have to find their own way through the state level leagues.

 

[collingwill]

You make this statement, yet you give no reason as to why it will favour some clubs over others. The maintenance of the salary cap will prevent a small number of clubs accumulating a list of champions at the expense of other teams. Also, the QLD and NSW teams will likely have salary cap concessions, so you could argue that they will be the ones able to best exploit free agency, not be disadvantaged by it.



Yes, let's absolutely screw the interests of the players at the expense of "the game". Newsflash - the players ARE the game. Look up the 1994 Major League Baseball strike. Do you want to get to a situation where the season is cancelled half way through, with no finals series or GF to watch ? We should be grateful that the AFL players and the AFLPA are not that way inclined, but let's see what happens if the threat of a legal challenge is raised, which will only be a matter of time, if the AFL doesn't come to the party on free agency.

As for players being very well paid, that is nonsense. Just because the Judds, Abletts, Riewoldts get paid top dollar does not equate to all players rolling in cash. The average playing career lasts 4 years, and the average salary per player is about $180K pa, yet when you consider the top players get the majority of the cap, most players would get $120-$180K pa. If your career only lasts 3 - 6 years, and your name isn't Ablett, Judd, etc, then you aren't exactly setting yourself up for life.



Very few players over 30 are tradeworthy.

Luke Ball is linked to free agency because the system has left him in limbo. Him nominating one club is irrelevant, St Kilda were never going to trade him. He has given adequate service to his club, a more than healthy return for a number 2 draft pick, and wants to move on. He should be able to choose where he wants to go, and have it done. The belligerence of St Kilda and Collingwood on this issue has only accelerated the inevitable debate about the introduction of free agency.

You may not like it, but it will happen. It will make player movements much easier, and more effiicent. And if the AFL believes that the salary cap works effectively as intended, then introducing free agency should have no adverse affect on any club.

it will favour the non victorian football states (WA SA) because most of the talent form those states will want to play there, even if it does mean a paycut, i know a lot of WA and SA players play in victoria but if you make it "easy" for them to go home then a lot of them will, WA and SA will simply just pick the best of that talent.

i think our footballers are well paid, 50k+ for an 18 yr old doing something they love isnt pkt change.

this isnt an internationall game we"re talking about here, its our game, just becuase the yanks do it it doesnt mean we have too.

you know whos really pushing this thing ? the people who will do the best out of it, the bloody liam pickerings and the graig kellys of the world, bottom feeders who only want to line their own pkts at the cost of our game.

as far as i know brisbane arnt getting salary cap consessions at the moment, and i think all syd get is a cost of living allowence, clubs will not agree to give those 2 salary cap consessions again like they got in the past, no way.

as for the players legal rights, your probably right, but i just hope they dont do it because you can say goodbye to a few struggling melbourne clubs if they do, remember nrth, melb, doggies can only afford to pay around 92% of the salary cap and with WA and SA players returning home for even a 15/20% pay cut and with the WA and SA teams paying 100% of the salary cap (probably only port who doesnt) it make things very uneven. just IMO anyway.

i actually know very little about FA, im not trying to sound like an expert here, but these points are just concerns i have with the concept as a fan and remember without the fans there is no game just like if theres no players theres no game, as a fan id hate to get attached to players and just when their hitting their straps they piss off to the highest bidder, especially when my club made the bloke the player he was..