Competitive balance in the AFL

[Footynomics]

The AFL has a number of measures in place to ensure competitive balance between its clubs. The National Draft held in November each year and the salary cap are the two main weapons in ensuring clubs are not dominant over extended periods of time. Revenue sharing and manipulation of the lopsided fixture also enable the smaller clubs to compete with the larger. Does this controlled market actually work though? That is, has the AFL achieved competitive balance with these measures?
As usual it depends which statistics we use and apply. All current teams excluding Gold Coast and GWS have been part of the AFL since 1997 which I am defining as the modern era. If Premierships are the ultimate measure of success, 10 of the 16 clubs (again excluding Gold Coast and GWS) have achieved that ultimate success. If we expand our measure of success to a Top 4 finish then every club has experienced this level of success at least once in the modern era. Not a bad result for the AFL’s competitive balance then. 100% of the clubs excluding Gold Coast and GWS have experienced some form of success and 62.5% have achieved ultimate success.
While Premierships and Top 4 finishes may measure success do they accurately measure competitive balance? To this I’d say no. In the 2006 book Wages of Wins (Berri, et.al) there is a chapter devoted to competitive balance across the North American professional sports leagues and some of the major soccer competitions around the globe. Unfortunately the AFL doesn’t get a mention, which is the reason you see this analysis before you. The authors of the book use the Noll-Scully measure of competitive balance where a score as close to 1.00 is ideal. You can find how to calculate the Noll-Scully measurement at the Wages of Wins website. Below I have presented some of the data contained within Wages of Wins comparing the different leagues.

League…………………….. Sport……………..Years……………..No. of observations….Ave. level of ............................................................................................................................Noll-Scully

Major League Soccer….…..Soccer…….….1996 to 2005……………..10…….…………..1.28
French Ligue 1……….…….Soccer….....….1976 to 2005……………..30…….…………..1.40
Spanish Primera Division.....Soccer...........1976 to 2005……………..30…….…………..1.42
German Bundesliga 1..........Soccer...........1976 to 2005……………..30…….…………..1.45
Italian Serie A.....................Soccer...........1976 to 2005……………..30…….…………..1.58
EPL...................................Soccer...........1976 to 2005……………..30…….…………..1.61
NFL...........................American Football....1986 to 2005..................20…….…………..1.49
NHL................................Ice Hockey.........1984-85 to 2003-04.........20…….…………..1.70
MLB.................................Baseball...........1976 to 2005………….....20…….…………..1.77
NBA................................Basketball.........1985-86 to 2004-05.........20…….…………..2.86

What is interesting is that the football codes are the most competitive and that the NBA despite basketball’s global popularity is the least competitively balanced. The author’s explanation for the NBA being so unbalanced is that there is a short supply of tall people. That is, to play in the NBA you most likely need to be very tall, 190cm or above. Only a small percentage of the population is taller than this and even fewer are co-ordinated enough to play basketball well. Those exceptional few that are tall and co-ordinated dominate the rest. So how does the AFL stack up?

League.Sport......................Years...............No. of Observations.......Average level of Noll-Scully
AFL.....Australian Football....1997 to 2012....16................................1.74
AFL.....Australian Football....1987 to 1996....10................................1.70
AFL.....Australian Football....1981 to 1986....5..................................1.86
AFL.....Australian Football....1981 to 2011....31................................1.75

So it turns out that the AFL is the third least competitively balanced league over the last 30 years among those measured, but it was getting better before 2011. If we remove 2011 and 2012 from the data the average level of Noll-Scully for the modern era is 1.68, slightly better than the previous 10 seasons. 2011 and 2012 represent 2 of the 3 least competitively balanced seasons, the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 80’s. The mid 80’s saw the then VFL commission recognise this in-balance and introduce the aforementioned National Draft and salary cap measures to create a more balanced competition. While expansion of the competition has occurred, turning the VFL state based competition into the national AFL competition, 4 of the first 5 expansion clubs have come from traditional football states. We should expect that the competitive balance of the league would decrease with the addition of new clubs as the requirements for players with the ability to play AFL football increases. This has not been the case however until 2011, as the majority of new players for the expansion clubs have been provided by the strong respective state competitions. This certainly isn’t the case for the Gold Coast and GWS markets. The combination of draft concessions and subsequent dilution of the talent pool for the remaining 16 clubs has brought the level of competitive balance within the competition back to the state of the early 80’s.
There are a few questions to be asked. It is often noted that the AFL models a good number of its practices on its North American counterpart, the NFL. While expansion in the NFL hasn’t seemingly drained its vast talent pool can the same be said for the AFL? Can the AFL ever reach the competitive balance found within the NFL where on “any given Sunday” there’s no knowing which teams will win or lose? Does a lower competitive balance than we are accustomed to affect our interest in the game? Does the introduction of free agency create more competitive balance or will we see free agents flock to the most successful clubs? If the so-called best draft choices have been taken before most uncompetitive clubs have a chance to pick, what unconventional strategies can they use to regain their competitiveness?

 

[forwardflanker]

I blame Richmond

 

[Jade]

I blame Richmond

Agreed.

 

[Footynomics]

Haha, Richmond usually finish 9th though so they're very balanced. It's more clubs like Geelong and Collingwood belting everyone else that throws it out. Melbourne's ineptitude and desire to lose rather than win hasn't helped either.

 

[Kwality]

I'd suggest the biggest impediment to any form of competitive balance is the FIXture which shamelessly favours some clubs over others as is demonstrated by grants from the AFL.
In your research footsy, is there anything approaching the FIX anywhere in the codes/competitions studied?

 

[Footynomics]

The NFL have a very complicated and biased fixture which doesn't seem to affect the competitive balance. All the US sports have uneven fixtures, which the conference system tries to fix. All it means is that you might be lucky to play a weak conference or division one year and unlucky to play a strong one the next. In the AFL I'd say that it's the shortage of talent or the identification of the talent that leads to the in-balance. 18 teams may well be too many to ensure the most even competition but it is possible that supporters don't care too much and the popularity of the game will continue to increase.

 

[mianfei]

If we remove 2011 and 2012 from the data the average level of Noll-Scully for the modern era is 1.68, slightly better than the previous 10 seasons. 2011 and 2012 represent 2 of the 3 least competitively balanced seasons, the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 80’s.

I've studied that myself a great deal. I haven't seen the figure for 2012, but I knew 2011 was the most unbalanced season since 1982, but I was not sure about 2012.

It is often noted that the AFL models a good number of its practices on its North American counterpart, the NFL. While expansion in the NFL hasn’t seemingly drained its vast talent pool can the same be said for the AFL? Can the AFL ever reach the competitive balance found within the NFL where on “any given Sunday” there’s no knowing which teams will win or lose? Does a lower competitive balance than we are accustomed to affect our interest in the game? Does the introduction of free agency create more competitive balance or will we see free agents flock to the most successful clubs? If the so-called best draft choices have been taken before most uncompetitive clubs have a chance to pick, what unconventional strategies can they use to regain their competitiveness?

Actually, the AFL is in many ways much closer to the NBA than the NFL. The AFL's recent success has been achieved by competing with basketball, as seen in the NBL's decline since the 1990s.

If we divide the period of sixteen clubs into:

1. Waverley Era (1997 to 1999) and
2. Docklands Era (2000 to 2010)

we notice that the lowest Noll-Scully index for the Docklands Era (1.66 in 2005) was still far higher than that for 1997 and 1998. I suspect a closed roof stadium - and a hotter, drier football season climate - has made the AFL susceptible to the problem of a “short supply of tall people” that so limits competitive balance in the NBA. Without the influence of rain and wind that encourage lower-height kicking and ground-level play, the athlete who plays in the AFL has probably (though I lack hard data) become taller much more rapidly than the general population. If this is the case, it would be expected that competitiveness would decline, especially since requirements for vast areas of open space prevent Australian Rules football establishing itself outside Australia - and to some extent even in the east coast and hinterland. This requirement for Australia’s uniquely spacious land supply is probably why Australian Rules football has never achieved the competitive balance found in soccer, rugby or gridiron.

It is probably true, though, that even if uncertainty of outcome disappeared from most matches, people would still watch AFL games. In “Tilting the Playing Field”, Stefan Szymanski argues that in fact a league owner would prefer a very low level of comeptitive balance because teams with small externalities in attracting audiences will lose little financially if they never or almost never win. This may have been true in the extremely unbalanced 1930s and 1960s: weak clubs like Hawthorn may have had no externality, whereas strong clubs like Carlton had larges ones.

 

[Debris]

My thoughts is that you don't really need competitive balance, what you need is to maintain hope for every club that success is possible. Competitive balance may not even be desirable and having Collingwood win 3 times as many premierships as Melbourne, say, might even be a good thing for the competition. As long as Melbourne is not constantly at the bottom of the table.

 

[Spluff]

we notice that the lowest Noll-Scully index for the Docklands Era (1.66 in 2005) was still far higher than that for 1997 and 1998. I suspect a closed roof stadium - and a hotter, drier football season climate - has made the AFL susceptible to the problem of a “short supply of tall people” that so limits competitive balance in the NBA. Without the influence of rain and wind that encourage lower-height kicking and ground-level play, the athlete who plays in the AFL has probably (though I lack hard data) become taller much more rapidly than the general population. If this is the case, it would be expected that competitiveness would decline, especially since requirements for vast areas of open space prevent Australian Rules football establishing itself outside Australia - and to some extent even in the east coast and hinterland. This requirement for Australia’s uniquely spacious land supply is probably why Australian Rules football has never achieved the competitive balance found in soccer, rugby or gridiron.

I'm not sure a short supply of tall people is necessarily the explanation (or at least the whole explanation) in this case. Short supply of tall people works in the NBA because to be a good player, it is (usually) necessary to be very tall and coordinated. The potential talent pool is thus limited to people who are very tall and coordinated. Only a very small percentage of people are very tall and coordinated, and thus the potential talent pool is very small, even though its drawing from a worldwide scope. So the ultimate explanation for the NBAs problem is a small potential talent pool, meaning that not every team can acquire talented talls, and thus the sides that do will typically dominate the sides that don't.

I would suggest that the AFL has the same ultimate problem (small talent pool), but the proximate explanation is different (it's not a short supply of tall people). In AFL, you do not need to be very tall to be a good player (many of the greatest players have not been very tall). Even with increasing average height, a relatively large percentile of people still fall within the range of heights filled by good AFL players. Physically, a reasonably high percentage of people (in comparison to say, NBA) are equipped to play AFL. However, because the AFL is not drawing from a worldwide stage like the NBA is, and is instead just drawing from a select few australian states, the potential talent pool is still low, and thus not every team can get star players.

It seems to me that a bigger contributing factor to decreasing balance in the game is definitely expansion causing the talent pool to be spread thinner and thinner, rather than increasing height/athletic requirements causing the talent pool to shrink.

Of course, it's hard to directly correlate this with the results over the course of the seasons, due to the small sample sizes presented by AFL seasons. They're obviously subject to a lot of natural variability - for example, the dominance of Geelong could very easily just be due to variability, and not due to any problems with the potential talent pool.

 

[Go GWS!]

There was a paper published on this topic in 2005. Here's a link: http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/2005/0205competitivebalancesports.pdf

It was entitled "COMPARING COMPETITIVE BALANCE IN AUSTRALIAN SPORTS LEAGUES, THE AFL, NBL AND NRL: DOES THE AFL’S TEAM SALARY CAP AND PLAYER DRAFT MEASURE UP"

Here's the conclusion:

Over the period 1970-2004 (1979-2004 in the NBL), average ASD/ISD ratios were lowest in the
NRL (1.706) followed by the AFL (1.786) and highest in the NBL (1.917). This is also true for both
sub-periods, firstly 1970-1984 with the NRL (1.757), the AFL (1.886) and (for 1979-1984) the NBL
(1.981), and secondly 1985-2004 with the NRL (1.668), the AFL (1.711) and the NBL (1.887).
Using ASD/ISD ratios as our measure, we conclude that within-season competitive balance has
increased in all three leagues in the period 1985-2004 compared with the pre-1985 period, and has
been consistently highest (but only slightly) in both periods in the NRL, followed by the AFL, and
lowest of all (but only slightly) in the NBL.

 

[autocol]

It seems to me that a bigger contributing factor to decreasing balance in the game is definitely expansion causing the talent pool to be spread thinner and thinner, rather than increasing height/athletic requirements causing the talent pool to shrink.

I looked into this a while ago, and found that over the last 40 years, thanks to population growth there's almost always been close enough to 1.25 million Australians per AFL team. Unless this growth has been concentrated in "non-AFL" areas, I don't think your hypothesis holds water.

 

[Kwality]

I looked into this a while ago, and found that over the last 40 years, thanks to population growth there's almost always been close enough to 1.25 million Australians per AFL team. Unless this growth has been concentrated in "non-AFL" areas, I don't think your hypothesis holds water.

1.25 million population per AFL team in Aus is a stat relevant only to stats.

 

[le dominateur]

When the EPL is listed as having a more competitive balance than the AFL, you know these stats are basically rubbish.

 

[Tas]

wut?

 

[autocol]

1.25 million population per AFL team in Aus is a stat relevant only to stats.

Fine. So explain to me how a competition that is expanding at EXACTLY the same rate as the population supplying it with players is "spreading the talent pool thinner and thinner" then.

 

[Kwality]

Fine. So explain to me how a competition that is expanding at EXACTLY the same rate as the population supplying it with players is "spreading the talent pool thinner and thinner" then.

NO, I'll explain that only half the population play our game.

 

[Masto]

The NFL have a very complicated and biased fixture which doesn't seem to affect the competitive balance.

No they don't. Sure they have set divisions and conferences but it's incredibly transparent and even the average fan you can work out who will play who based on last years results.

 

[AlibiMonday]

So it turns out that the AFL is the third least competitively balanced league over the last 30 years among those measured, but it was getting better before 2011.

Sorry, but are you able to explain what you mean by "competitiveness" and "balanced"? It's hard to digest your hypothesis without these terms being explicitly defined.

 

[Silent Alarm]

0 points for a loss, 0 points for a draw, 0 points for a win

 

[autocol]

NO, I'll explain that only half the population play our game.

So? Have you seen any statistics that suggest the population growth is happening in "non-AFL" territories? Because I seem to recall seeing some stats which said that the percentage of the population participating in Aussie rules is steadily increasing, and has been for many years. "Participants", by the way, are the group of people from which we draw the AFL talent pool.

It's alright though, if you'd like to ignore reality in order to cling to your preconceived idea, you're welcome to.

 

[Kwality]

So? Have you seen any statistics that suggest the population growth is happening in "non-AFL" territories? Because I seem to recall seeing some stats which said that the percentage of the population participating in Aussie rules is steadily increasing, and has been for many years. "Participants", by the way, are the group of people from which we draw the AFL talent pool.

It's alright though, if you'd like to ignore reality in order to cling to your preconceived idea, you're welcome to.

I'm happy with your inability to step out in the real world, good luck to you.

 

[autocol]

I'm happy with your inability to step out in the real world, good luck to you.

Ah, I see. I take it your argument is "my anecdotal evidence, taken from a sample size of one, trumps your normalized survey data".

Jolly good.

 

[Kwality]

Ah, I see. I take it your argument is "my anecdotal evidence, taken from a sample size of one, trumps your normalized survey data".

Jolly good.

My only conclusion is that your claim is flawed.

 

[autocol]

My only conclusion is that your claim is flawed.

A conclusion you arrived at before the discussion had even begun, and which you are clinging to despite logical commentary to the contrary.

 

[swiftdog]

Sorry, but are you able to explain what you mean by "competitiveness" and "balanced"? It's hard to digest your hypothesis without these terms being explicitly defined.

I've had a look at the wages of wins website (www.wagesofwins.com) and completed an analysis for the 2012 season. I'll try to explain how the analysis works as best as I can. Essentially, the Noll-Scully measurement for competitive balance is a comparison of the ideal standard deviation of wins in a sporting league to the actual standard deviation of wins in that league.

So, the first step to was to determine the ideal standard deviation for the AFL (note: formulas come from www.wagesofwins.com). This is achieved by dividing the average number of wins per team (11 wins in the AFL) by the square root of the number of matches per team (22^0.5). As such, the ideal standard deviation is calculated to be 2.35.

A quick explanation of standard deviations for people that don't know what they are: Standard deviations are used to describe the spread of data in a data set (in our case, the amount of wins of AFL teams in the 2012 season). A basic rule in a normal, randomly distributed data set (we'll assume that this is the case for the AFL) is that 68% of the data falls within one standard deviation of the mean (average), that 95% of the data falls within two standard deviations of the means and that 99.7% of the data falls within three standard deviations of the mean.

From the data two paragraphs ago and the basic rule last paragraph we can create a blueprint of what would be the ideal spread of wins for a perfectly competitive league. 68% of the teams should be within one standard deviation (2.35) of 11 wins, 95% of the teams should be within two standard deviations of 11 wins and 99.7% of the teams should be within three standard deviations of 11 wins. In lay terms:

12 teams should have between 8.65 - 13.35 wins (11 - 2.35 = 8.65, 11 + 2.35 = 13.35)
17 teams should have between 6.3 - 15.7 wins
18 teams should have between 4.0 - 18.1 wins


The next step was to calculate the actual standard deviation of wins in the 2012 season (which Excel did for me). The standard deviation turned out to be 5.05 wins. The Noll-Scully value is determined by dividing the actual standard deviation (5.05) by the ideal standard deviation (2.35). This gives a Noll-Scully value of 2.15 for competitive balance for the 2012 AFL season.

Hopefully this makes sense to people that may be interested. It's a little bit of a difficult concept to understand as the Noll-Scully value really is a unit-less number with no basis for comparison. One important thing to note is that it has nothing to do with winning premierships. I've got my own ideas as to why the AFL's value is relatively high (GWS and GC being two of the main reasons) but this post is long enough already.