Opinion Do the players deserve a bigger slice of the pie?

[Blue Doormat]

Have no issue whatsoever with the players earning plenty, and yes they deserve more.

The people whinging about it would have even less of a life if they couldn't talk about football online.

Ouch

 

[Wiggo4PM]

Wow wasnt I ranting about this very thing the other day. To save you the trouble and walls of text the simple answer is NO ******* WAY.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

Do the players deserve a bigger slice of the pie? Well it depends what pie we are talking about.

Kristian Jaksch needs a bigger slice of the meat pie.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

If the league is making substantial profits, the players deserve more.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

I personally have an objection to mediocre AFL players being paid on anywhere near a comparable scale to our talented surgeons ($350000 per year average) who keep you and I ticking along.
I understand the argument is moot as commercial pressure dictates that Football players and sportspeople can demand this money.
It just irks me.
So my answer is a philosophical NO

But that's not how it works. The only relevant comparison is how much the league makes. What a surgeon makes is irrelevant.

They have a skill that is valuable. They deserve a large chunk of any proceeds because it's their money. While the league makes near 20m profits, they deserve more.

Why does Gil deserve 4 million a year? In business terms he's a fair to average CEO, behind CEOs of other large organisations. At least the players are the best at their craft.

 

[therubbernub]

Its all about sustainability. If you are " just" an afl player then you contribute nothing to the financial aspects of the game. Merely being on an afl list doesnt entitle you to great rewards. Base rates should stay at current levels. But once you show that you have the courage and talent and determination to be a regular player, then your pay goes up...and it does. Once you become a true star of the game, you become a draw card. You actually contribute to memberships and attendance and viewing on tv. All of which adds to the viability and sustainability of the game. Just like a great actor , the actors that bring in the oeople into the cinemas and make a movie viable. They are paid enormous sums because they make a difference. Just because you are an actor does not entitle you to millions of dollars per movie. You have to be a draw card. If you cant see this, then you dont understand how business works.
The afl reinvests its profits into making the game more sustainable. It does this by trying to increase the games visability and attractiveness in many varied ways. It cant all go to the players, this would reduce the afls ability to support and promote the game. Without these activities rugby , soccer and other sports would take over.

Already the game is changing. The numbers of really highly paid players are reducing and in their place are the more evenly spread payments. Look at hawthorn and geelong to see how to manage player payment and still keep a premiership list together.

 

[Blue Doormat]

But that's not how it works. The only relevant comparison is how much the league makes. What a surgeon makes is irrelevant.

They have a skill that is valuable. They deserve a large chunk of any proceeds because it's their money. While the league makes near 20m profits, they deserve more.

Why does Gil deserve 4 million a year? In business terms he's a fair to average CEO, behind CEOs of other large organisations. At least the players are the best at their craft.

Like I said. I know how it works. I just don't like it.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Its all about sustainability. If you are " just" an afl player then you contribute nothing to the financial aspects of the game. Merely being on an afl list doesnt entitle you to great rewards. Base rates should stay at current levels. But once you show that you have the courage and talent and determination to be a regular player, then your pay goes up...and it does. Once you become a true star of the game, you become a draw card. You actually contribute to memberships and attendance and viewing on tv. All of which adds to the viability and sustainability of the game. Just like a great actor , the actors that bring in the oeople into the cinemas and make a movie viable. They are paid enormous sums because they make a difference. Just because you are an actor does not entitle you to millions of dollars per movie. You have to be a draw card. If you cant see this, then you dont understand how business works.
The afl reinvests its profits into making the game more sustainable. It does this by trying to increase the games visability and attractiveness in many varied ways. It cant all go to the players, this would reduce the afls ability to support and promote the game. Without these activities rugby , soccer and other sports would take over.

Already the game is changing. The numbers of really highly paid players are reducing and in their place are the more evenly spread payments. Look at hawthorn and geelong to see how to manage player payment and still keep a premiership list together.

Mate, the game relies on teams trotting out 25 blokes every week. It's not just the draw cards. Without them, the game is nothing. People can say they would kill for the opportunity bur I can assure you that I am not parting with a single cent to watch any of you play footy.

People need to stop discussing this in terms of "they earn enough already, don't be greedy". Whether they earn alot is irrelevant, it's about whether they take away enough of the pie of which they are the essential ingredient.

 

[ParapMarkets]

Mate, the game relies on teams trotting out 25 blokes every week. It's not just the draw cards. Without them, the game is nothing. People can say they would kill for the opportunity bur I can assure you that I am not parting with a single cent to watch any of you play footy.

People need to stop discussing this in terms of "they earn enough already, don't be greedy". Whether they earn alot is irrelevant, it's about whether they take away enough of the pie of which they are the essential ingredient.

Great post.

 

[therubbernub]

Mate, the game relies on teams trotting out 25 blokes every week. It's not just the draw cards. Without them, the game is nothing. People can say they would kill for the opportunity bur I can assure you that I am not parting with a single cent to watch any of you play footy.

People need to stop discussing this in terms of "they earn enough already, don't be greedy". Whether they earn alot is irrelevant, it's about whether they take away enough of the pie of which they are the essential ingredient.

Yes your point wasnt ignored. How much of the pie should they get? Surely the clubs ability to pay their salary cap is relevant? At the moment it is a struggle for many clubs. Should they be paid an extra 2 million a year? That means our disastrous 2.0 m loss would be doubled to 4.0 m . Is that what you want? Dont you feel that it should be taken into account?

 

[BlueJet]

Given how many clubs struggle to stay afloat as it is.. no.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I think the "slice of pie" they are getting now is very fair in % terms. same with the clubs and grassroots. What we have to realise is if the players get a 20% pay rise so will the clubs and grassroots so it's fair in my book.
Especially because it hardy matters how much you give the clubs they will just keep spending it on facilities, medical staff, coaches ect because although they have to be responsible their job is to try and win a premiership for the members not make huge profits. It really just causes inflation. For me the only place that should maybe get a higher % increase besides players is grassroots.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

If the question was 'do the players earn ENOUGH money?', then my answer would be yes. But enough compared to what? Compared to professional athletes from other codes around the world? Probably not. Enough compared to the average Joe? Absolutely. Enough considering their limited time in the game and limited opportunities outside of the game post career? Probably not. It's all relative.
Seeing as though the question was 'do the players deserve a bigger slice of the pie?', my answer is still yes. If the money is being made and the profits have to go somewhere, why not to the blokes that ultimately put bums on seats and put their bodies and careers on the line each week?

In fact, just give it all to Cripps.

 

[mediumsizered]

If the question was 'do the players earn ENOUGH money?', then my answer would be yes. But enough compared to what? Compared to professional athletes from other codes around the world? Probably not. Enough compared to the average Joe? Absolutely. Enough considering their limited time in the game and limited opportunities outside of the game post career? Probably not. It's all relative.
Seeing as though the question was 'do the players deserve a bigger slice of the pie?', my answer is still yes. If the money is being made and the profits have to go somewhere, why not to the blokes that ultimately put bums on seats and put their bodies and careers on the line each week?

In fact, just give it all to Cripps.

This part I don't get at all.

AFL players get access to opportunities external to the game that most people don't get & are able to set themselves up very nicely for life post football & this is not a recent development either. As an example, my best friend when I was a child was the son of an ex-North Melbourne player of the '50s & '60s. As a result of being a VFL player, his father got the opportunity to get into a business as a partner & eventually bought the other bloke out & it is now a very, very successful business which my mate now runs. Several of my mate's father's North Melbourne teammates also did very well post their VFL careers & this was in an era when footy wasn't their full time gig.

Nowadays, if an AFL player isn't financially set up by the end of their footy career or hasn't set them self up with a career outside footy, it is most likely because of poor decision making or poor lifestyle choices.

 

[therubbernub]

The only reason this is being raised at all is the amount if extra money now in the game. Without the advertising dollar in the form of tv rights, we would be discussing pretty much nothing.

But the fact is, that the game has been taken over by advertising . As such it has to be a business, as such it will be market forces that dictate.

I am sure the afl would love the players to earn more, but is it feasible? Where would that extra money come from? We already know that the clubs cannot afford it, so it must come from afl subsidies. Then you are robbing peter to pay paul. Something else will suffer. Ground roots promotion, interstate expansion etc, all of these things are designed for the ultimate betterment (financially) of the game which allows for the players to eventually get more. The pie must get bigger so that the players slice gets bigger-but it should never do it at the expense of funds going towards promoting the game. That is not sustainable and ultimately would lead to failure.

You could argue about the efficiencies of the afl spending- just like you can about government spending. Thats a different argument, and one ultimately decided by the market and the performance of the ceo.

Any balanced argument has to take into account, the alternative uses of any increase to player pie . Opportunity cost. If you get a pay rise for example , then you have the option to pay off the mortgage, invest, or blow the money on short term benefits...holidays, clothes. The short term sugar hit gives instant gratification. But is it the wisest choice? In the same way the afl could make themselves very popular by granting big player payment increases- that would be the cheap sugar hit decision, but ultimately not in the best interests of the game.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Simply put. No.

Whilst they might be the best in our country at the particular sport, they are the top 800 from 22ish million people. And this is incredibly generous given that half that population is female, then at least half of that population is over 35 (and then more than half of the remaining group would be under 18). In 2000 a study showed that less than 500,000 people registered for football across the country.

When you compare this to international leagues - EPL, NFL, NBA, NHL etc, the pools of available players is much higher, therefore the ability to actually be the best in those leagues is harder, and is one of the reasons they are paid so much more.

The base wage of circa $70k is the median wage of Australians. If they are any good they will earn significantly more in the future.

The one thing the AFL should look at is a way to pay the players to minimize their tax obligations. I don't think its very fair that a player has 5-6 years earning significant coin, but loses almost half of that in tax, then when they retire, move to a more modest wage because they have spent their 20's playing football rather than getting experience in a trade or studying, and don't get to really see the full benefits of their career. If they were to be taxed on the basis of average earnings, and were to receive offsets in the future for the significant rate of tax paid during their football career, that would be a more equitable way of taxing them.

 

[thylacine60]

Wiggo got gawn.

 

[gbatman]

I would argue that athletes around the world are grossly overpaid much rather than AFL players are overpaid. AFL players get a good wage, especially if they are good. I think upping the player payments would put more unnecessary strain on clubs.

 

[AceAndy]

Not sure the comparison with overseas athletes is particularly relevant as the revenue models and amounts is likely to be quite different.

I am not sure how the AFL revenue pie is broken down or what other areas are funded beside player payments.

The_Wookie - Do you have any data on how revenue is being spent ? I am not sure what proportion of the AFL pie players are getting so difficult to form a view on whether they deserve a bigger slice.

 

[The_Wookie]

Not sure the comparison with overseas athletes is particularly relevant as the revenue models and amounts is likely to be quite different.

I am not sure how the AFL revenue pie is broken down or what other areas are funded beside player payments.

The_Wookie - Do you have any data on how revenue is being spent ? I am not sure what proportion of the AFL pie players are getting so difficult to form a view on whether they deserve a bigger slice.

From memory it works out to about 23%-25%. The tricky part is that the AFL funds development of the game, as well as the league itself - something that most other international leagues dont have to worry about.

My concern is that if the AFLPA gets its way and takes into account ALL revenue (it currently doesnt take into account some club revenues), it will absolutely kill clubs, and I dont see how reducing the amount of jobs available helps the AFLPA's members. They need to be real careful with this.

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

As Stan Gable once said, hey that's my pie!

Big shout out to ctacp