Pay all the players the same?

[76woodenspooners]

Imagine what a team would be like if all players got paid the same money?

Once upon a time it was actually like this at Collingwood.

But don't think Collingwood, because we have a few superstars who we've grown a bit attached to, and we're doing alright.

But think of it more for a team like Melbourne, where many of the players are getting paid a lot of money, but they're sure not earning it.

Each player would simply get their equal slice of the salary cap. That'd be around a lazy quarter million each. Perhaps adjust it a little for rookies and first year players etc, but the point is, every player would know exactly where they stand.

Of course, such a scheme wouldn't attract the best players, but the key question is, would it create the best team?

It'd remove all that bickering we hear from players when a big name takes a big slice out of the salary cap pie (sure, it's light hearted, but it's there). It'd remove any jealousy between teammates. it'd remove any doubts that the club doesn't respect them or is trying to screw them.

Not sure if it'd make the player agents redundant, but if it did, then there's probably another 10% in the pot there that the players can have.

It'd mean the players are playing for the jumper. And any player who gets complacent because they don't have a financial incentive to do well would quickly get reminded by their team mates (on the same money) to pull their head in.

I'm sure the football managers would love it because it takes away all that negotiating. Sure, there'd be speculation of the best players leaving for greener pastures, but let's face it, that happens anyway.

Look, this is an anti-capitalist approach. But so is the salary cap. Andrew Demetriou can work hard and smart to generate more income for his employer so they can afford to give him a pay rise. Likewise for Nathan Buckley. But it doesn't work that way for players - Travis Cloke getting paid more simply means Cameron Wood gets paid less. And what do you think that does for team building and team morale?

Teams that win premierships are often well balanced teams that don't necessarily have superstars. It was only a few years ago that we were proud of the fact that we were a great team with no superstars.

 

[10571z]

Oh god.

 

[jathanas]

This approach would remove one of the strongest motivators in modern society from the equation i.e. money.

I'm not sure we're "enlightened" enough that I would consider experimenting with this approach...

What do we give our best player to recognise his contribution? Hugs and high-fives...

 

[entourage]

We could be the first capitalist AFL team :/

 

[thecig]

 

[Jelly Bean]

Teams that win premierships are often well balanced teams that don't necessarily have superstars. It was only a few years ago that we were proud of the fact that we were a great team with no superstars.

But we also had no recent premierships.

Teams who win flags almost always have superstars. It is the flag moments that create them.

Geelong - Johnson, Chapman, Ablett, Scarlett, Bartel, Corey, + 3-4 others
Hawthorn - Franklin, Hodge, Mitchell, Roughead (in 08), etc.
Collingwood - 5 AA's in 2010.

I know you are saying this conceptually, but I think it is a bad idea. It would be good for clubs, but terrible for players. And therefore the input per player would drop off and the game as a whole would suffer.

 

[Pie eyed]

Imagine what a team would be like if all players got paid the same money?

Once upon a time it was actually like this at Collingwood.

But don't think Collingwood, because we have a few superstars who we've grown a bit attached to, and we're doing alright.

But think of it more for a team like Melbourne, where many of the players are getting paid a lot of money, but they're sure not earning it.

Each player would simply get their equal slice of the salary cap. That'd be around a lazy quarter million each. Perhaps adjust it a little for rookies and first year players etc, but the point is, every player would know exactly where they stand.

Of course, such a scheme wouldn't attract the best players, but the key question is, would it create the best team?

It'd remove all that bickering we hear from players when a big name takes a big slice out of the salary cap pie (sure, it's light hearted, but it's there). It'd remove any jealousy between teammates. it'd remove any doubts that the club doesn't respect them or is trying to screw them.

Not sure if it'd make the player agents redundant, but if it did, then there's probably another 10% in the pot there that the players can have.

It'd mean the players are playing for the jumper. And any player who gets complacent because they don't have a financial incentive to do well would quickly get reminded by their team mates (on the same money) to pull their head in.

I'm sure the football managers would love it because it takes away all that negotiating. Sure, there'd be speculation of the best players leaving for greener pastures, but let's face it, that happens anyway.

Look, this is an anti-capitalist approach. But so is the salary cap. Andrew Demetriou can work hard and smart to generate more income for his employer so they can afford to give him a pay rise. Likewise for Nathan Buckley. But it doesn't work that way for players - Travis Cloke getting paid more simply means Cameron Wood gets paid less. And what do you think that does for team building and team morale?

Teams that win premierships are often well balanced teams that don't necessarily have superstars. It was only a few years ago that we were proud of the fact that we were a great team with no superstars.

It's simply an issue with the cap.

The AFL gives each side a limit that it can pay it's list.
The sole reason for this is to make it impossible to keep a list of valuable players.

AS long as the cap exists the problem will exist.

 

[vjknight]

for anyone interested in the topic, research the late 60's/early 70's period when des tuddenham, len thompson & others threatened to walk.

 

[handy point]

for anyone interested in the topic, research the late 60's/early 70's period when des tuddenham, len thompson & others threatened to walk.

Was about to post the same thing... going back further ... Ron Todd, Bobby Rose etc...

 

[jonbe54]

for anyone interested in the topic, research the late 60's/early 70's period when des tuddenham, len thompson & others threatened to walk.

Yep vj Len's a cousin, he went through hell and back along with Desi whilst they were the focus of the players revolt.

 

[speedytiger]

It's simply an issue with the cap.

The AFL gives each side a limit that it can pay it's list.
The sole reason for this is to make it impossible to keep a list of valuable players.

AS long as the cap exists the problem will exist.

It's the floor in the cap that makes things so uneven. Melbourne players getting paid the same as ours or Geelongs is crazy

 

[MarkT2]

In a professional era the better players should get more and the best should get the most. Entitlement is already killing the country and it isn't doing the AFL much good either.

The problem is that an average player at a bottom club can get significantly over paid because the salary cap sets the salary rather than player performances. Lowering the floor doesn't help either as clubs will still pay close to the limit to ensure front loading leaves capacity to recruit. That is even the case where clubs can't acually fund the cost.

Meanwhile some poor kid will go to Melbourne just for being one of the best 18 year old footballers in the country.

 

[vjknight]

Was about to post the same thing... going back further ... Ron Todd, Bobby Rose etc...

i was about to say 'go and ask jonbe'............




and then right on cue

Yep vj Len's a cousin, he went through hell and back along with Desi whilst they were the focus of the players revolt.

bullshit 57 - keep going lol

 

[jonbe54]

i was about to say 'go and ask jonbe'............




and then right on cue




bullshit 57 - keep going lol

second cuz on dad's side I believe - a distant relative. Hellavu ruckman and a sensational fellow to boot.

 

[Pie eyed]

It's the floor in the cap that makes things so uneven. Melbourne players getting paid the same as ours or Geelongs is crazy

You mean "floor" or "flaw".
The minimum wage?

 

[76woodenspooners]

This approach would remove one of the strongest motivators in modern society from the equation i.e. money. ...

No, the money motivation would still be there - players would be getting approx $250,000 a year which is more than most would get post football. Play well and they continue to earn good money, play badly and don't.

And I'd like to think that there are other motivators apart from the money - winning games of football for example.

... I'm not sure we're "enlightened" enough that I would consider experimenting with this approach...

This wouldn't work for Collingwood because we're doing well and we have grown attached to our stars. I was thinking more for a team like Melbourne - it couldn't make things worse over there, surely?

 

[jathanas]

No, the money motivation would still be there - players would be getting approx $250,000 a year which is more than most would get post football. Play well and they continue to earn good money, play badly and don't.

The best Players should earn more IMHO.

 

[dubber]

How about a four tier system ranging from rookies to top players. Within each tier there is a range of what a player could be on depending on their years with club etc. so for example tier 1 will have all of Swan, Pendles, Cloke, thomas etc.

The base payment starts at 350 to 500. Plus you get bonus for things like being in the leadership group, winning medals (Anzac day, Coleman, brownlow). Then you can set additional kpis such as doing rehab, improving on a stat from previous year (contested possession, clearances etc). You get marked harshly if you break team curfew, get drunk n disorderly during season, or get suspended for striking intentionally in a game.

The tiers all have a different base and top range dollar value but they are all eligible for the bonuses above.

Basically you are creating a high performance culture that rewards players who are continually improving.

 

[76woodenspooners]

for anyone interested in the topic, research the late 60's/early 70's period when des tuddenham, len thompson & others threatened to walk.

I'm sure Des, Len and others would have been very happy to earn what the average AFL player gets today (accounting for inflation of course).

Hey Des, Hey Len, how about we pay you enough money so you don't need to work a day job? And you can afford a nice sports car? And a nice overseas holiday each year? And you'll own your own home after about 6 seasons of playing? And we'll throw in top shelf health insurance as well. Whataya reckon about that lads?

 

[magpielicious]

The OP makes a valid point. I see no problem with the salary cap, however I do see a fundamental problem with any player getting $1 million a year. If the AFL can insist on a salary cap then they can bloody well also have a cap on what a player can earn within that salary cap. What are they going to do ? Threaten to quit ? Where will they go ? Back to their local suburban league ?

Anyone who thinks having one or two players getting a quarter of their clubs salary cap will not have an effect on other players, should only look at their own job and the jealousy that occours within when someone gets paid more than the guy next to them doing the same job.

What's wrong with a bonus system ? We all have KPI's to meet in our jobs, why can players be paid a bonus based on their output ?

 

[Swooop]

How about a four tier system ranging from rookies to top players. Within each tier there is a range of what a player could be on depending on their years with club etc. so for example tier 1 will have all of Swan, Pendles, Cloke, thomas etc.

The base payment starts at 350 to 500. Plus you get bonus for things like being in the leadership group, winning medals (Anzac day, Coleman, brownlow). Then you can set additional kpis such as doing rehab, improving on a stat from previous year (contested possession, clearances etc). You get marked harshly if you break team curfew, get drunk n disorderly during season, or get suspended for striking intentionally in a game.

The tiers all have a different base and top range dollar value but they are all eligible for the bonuses above.

Basically you are creating a high performance culture that rewards players who are continually improving.

Like this system a lot better.

Think you have to reward excellence, and have incentives in place to do so.

The top players wouldn't stay happy for too long being paid what the novices are, especially if the other 17 clubs retained the current system.

 

[76woodenspooners]

...

Think you have to reward excellence, and have incentives in place to do so.

...

But the flip side to this is that it validates mediocrity. Perhaps there are players who are content that their salary reflects their low place in the pecking order? That's not a good thing.

 

[76woodenspooners]

... What's wrong with a bonus system ? We all have KPI's to meet in our jobs, why can players be paid a bonus based on their output ?

Environments that heavily reward individual KPI's (Car salesmen, Real Estate Agents, etc) often don't have healthy team environments. They're cut-throat. Those industries can usually get away with it because the product doesn't require a team effort to deliver it. But footy does require a team effort.

 

[Alexander323bc]

I will give you two words why it would not work:
Russia
China

 

[76woodenspooners]

I will give you two words why it would not work:
Russia
China

These two countries have created enormously successful sporting cultures - even more successful than ours if you use the Olympics as a KPI.