How true is this.

Remove this Banner Ad

1. Clubs do a pretty good job of only picking kids who are physically and mentally resilient. Look at the number of true bolters taken each year (very few) compared with the number of talented kids who get on a state league list and are then asked to do a year or two at that level to show they have the talent. A decent example I think is Liam Ryan who clearly every AFL club would've rated after his first WAFL year and I'm sure they all knew they could be passing on a gun who went pretty high in the next years draft.

AFL players aren't normal. They are generally physically well developed and ready for the workload. And I think it should be said that by and large they are pretty good people too.

Every club does a lot of physical and psych testing to work out if the kids they will draft are up for it and I'd say overwhelmingly they are. Obviously AFL doesn't pan out for some, but I'd say most guys even if they last 1 or 2 years come out healthy. With the largest danger being concussion more than purely mental health, happiness or career opportunities.

2. Theoretically raising the draft age could give kids a more normal school environment by delaying everything by 1 year but there's not any evidence that will be true. Parents and schools are pushing AFL as a career and developing these kids strongly at 13-17 anyway, I'm not sure that will change. Their exams year might be less stressful but the league does try to clear the calendar to give them a fair go at sitting exams and clubs look for players who can do both.

3. Without a more professional (even paid) system for 18-19 year olds the delay of a year will cost these kids money and development. Some might even look for other spots. Some might lack structure and waste the year that is designed to help them.

Overall I'd say the draft age is fine at 18 but there needs to be a lot more investment in 19-21 year olds both those who miss the draft and those who get cut from clubs. Boosting the opportunities for those guys to get in to or back in to the AFL world and to do well if they are on the outside should be an aim.

VFL Reserves, increasing the juniors kept in the elite system at 19, creating a special footy and tertiary studies program. There's ways to help the guys on the fringes of AFL footy at that youthful age when they are investing a fair bit in trying to make it.
 
1. Clubs do a pretty good job of only picking kids who are physically and mentally resilient. Look at the number of true bolters taken each year (very few) compared with the number of talented kids who get on a state league list and are then asked to do a year or two at that level to show they have the talent. A decent example I think is Liam Ryan who clearly every AFL club would've rated after his first WAFL year and I'm sure they all knew they could be passing on a gun who went pretty high in the next years draft.

AFL players aren't normal. They are generally physically well developed and ready for the workload. And I think it should be said that by and large they are pretty good people too.

Every club does a lot of physical and psych testing to work out if the kids they will draft are up for it and I'd say overwhelmingly they are. Obviously AFL doesn't pan out for some, but I'd say most guys even if they last 1 or 2 years come out healthy. With the largest danger being concussion more than purely mental health, happiness or career opportunities.

2. Theoretically raising the draft age could give kids a more normal school environment by delaying everything by 1 year but there's not any evidence that will be true. Parents and schools are pushing AFL as a career and developing these kids strongly at 13-17 anyway, I'm not sure that will change. Their exams year might be less stressful but the league does try to clear the calendar to give them a fair go at sitting exams and clubs look for players who can do both.

3. Without a more professional (even paid) system for 18-19 year olds the delay of a year will cost these kids money and development. Some might even look for other spots. Some might lack structure and waste the year that is designed to help them.

Overall I'd say the draft age is fine at 18 but there needs to be a lot more investment in 19-21 year olds both those who miss the draft and those who get cut from clubs. Boosting the opportunities for those guys to get in to or back in to the AFL world and to do well if they are on the outside should be an aim.

VFL Reserves, increasing the juniors kept in the elite system at 19, creating a special footy and tertiary studies program. There's ways to help the guys on the fringes of AFL footy at that youthful age when they are investing a fair bit in trying to make it.
Isn't that the problem, we have academies set up for 13-17 year Olds, where they're fed info on how good they are and they'll play AFL. If they don't get drafted, after this what happens? They stop playing, if a kid gets chopped at 15 they stop, as the pathways aren't there. All academies should be scrapped in that age bracket, let kids develop within their clubs and school footy.

It's not only the 19-21 age bracket, most of the time they have ample time to find a good job where clubs help set them up, its the guys who have been in the system 10+ years become institutionalised by AFL, where they are used to having at leasta 200k salary, the hours of a footballer works are totally different to normal 9-5. Many struggle as how do they maintain that salary, they look at quick fixes as they struggle to keep a proper job as they aren't used to the hours
 
Raising the draft age would mean every club sits out of the draft for a year.
Who ever finishes last would sue the AFL and win.
18 year old are adults, Im not sure we could tell them they cant play footy until they are older.
I vaguely remember it happening a few years ago when the draft age was lifted from 17 to 18.
I think what happened was that each club was allowed to pick one 17 year old in that draft.
A few years prior it had been set at 17 from no lower age limit.
Didn't Tim Watson play his first VFL game at 16?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

90k for a career that lasts on average 4 years is terrible.
It's the minimum, and players can earn reasonable coin in leagues other than the AFL. But I agree that only a very few wouldn't need to supplement their footy income and even fewer would be able to retire at the end of their footy careers. You'd reckon even most of those with 8 or more years at an AFL club would need to be trying to establish an alternative career whilst they're playing at the top level.
 
90k for a career that lasts on average 4 years is terrible.
If you're a first round pick you on 110k base down to rookies on 85k. Name another profession where that occurs? After 4 years they have many doors open via connections at the club and probably playing ammos where they make 150k. If you're a teacher, you need to complete uni for 4 years then the most you're paid as a teacher is 110k with 15 years experience. No one is forcing anyone to play footy?

If you played in the 80s or 90s you worked as well most of the time, and you know what you played AFL because you liked it
 
90k for a career that lasts on average 4 years is terrible.

Not really when you consider that the draftees are usually studying something at the same time.
I know plenty of people who never bothered studying seriously until after the age of 22.
 

"An 18-year-old AFL draftee earns a minimum of $90,000 a year, which is more than junior doctors."

Damn, that's crazy.

The irony being that we draft kids too young, * up their bodies, causing them to be giving all of that money back to the junior doctors in the future.
 
Not really when you consider that the draftees are usually studying something at the same time.
I know plenty of people who never bothered studying seriously until after the age of 22.

Average career is 2.5 years I believe. Maybe even less. It's a distribution skewed by the many players who never or barely play and vanish into nothing.

I'd be curious to see university study statistics for draftees, but at any rate it'd be part time at best.
 
Average career is 2.5 years I believe. Maybe even less. It's a distribution skewed by the many players who never or barely play and vanish into nothing.

I'd be curious to see university study statistics for draftees, but at any rate it'd be part time at best.

I remember watching an interview with a senior coach who said the club will find a draftee a job if they're not enrolled in uni or doing an apprenticeship. Think it might have been Bolton when he was at Carlton, I imagine it's similar for most clubs.

I'm not saying professional sportsmen are underpaid btw. It's just a shitload of money as a minimum for a draftee, given a lot of them don't even play.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top