Reviewing the Health of the Competition

[The_Wookie]

You left out, when you partially quoted me, my full sentence, and my important qualifier..."WORKING CLASS"/ common man.. etc.

The AFL isnt a charity.

 

[BringBackTorps]

Minimum wage isnt used as a standard for anything.

According to Dr L. Frost, from 1920-1970 the Minimum Wage (Basic Wage) for a full time worker was used by the VFL as an approx. standard -"The VFL's adult admission (for the Outer) averaged 1% of the weekly Basic Wage".

I agree that the AFL is not a charity, & that good profits are very important.

I am discussing whether GA ticket prices are too high for many working class/low income people who would like to attend, but cannot as often as they might like (or not all) due to the high price of tickets. There are often many thousands of empty seats at AFL matches. If GA prices were lower for the "worst" seats (perhaps restricted view, or back 10 rows of the grandstands), most likely we would have higher average crowds.
Do you think there should be a trial at some grounds to determine if such an approach would lead to higher crowds and higher net ticket revenues for the AFL?
( I am not including games predicted to have a very low crowd in this trial)

 

[BringBackTorps]

The AFL Fans Association says some price rises under Dynamic Pricing are excessive, and prices many fans out of good seats. GWS also increased GA prices, which are not supposed to rise under Dynamic Pricing. The AFL was praised for keeping Melb. GA prices at $25 for an adult.

Are AFL GA adult tickets affordable in other states for working class/low income fans? And in Melb.?
What are the long term consequences if many working class/low income fans cant afford GA ticket prices, so don't go to the football?

www.footyalmanac.com.au/almanac-fan-issues-round-1-ticket-pricing-analysis-from-the-aflfa/

 

[deltablues]

View attachment 474421

Surely median wage is a more relevant criterion?

For example, Stateside median wages are currently ~ 65% of average wages, according to below

//www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

Don't know about Oz, but same math is applicable.

 

[deltablues]

The AFL isnt a charity.

Is not the AFL a tax exempt non-profit organization? As an npo the role of the AFL is, inter alia, to promote the game of aussie rules.

Assisting working class Australians to attend games c/f ticket pricing may not be as virtue-signalling as buying football gear for refugees [as per an AFL site], but it sure falls within the scope and intent of the AFL's non-profit raison d'etre.

I read somewhere else on BF that 12 or 14 of the AFL's nabob class are each pulling in over double the Oz PM's salary. If so, then one can certainly see why ticket prices are so high for working class/low income fans (who, incidentally, don't want no stinkin' charity).

 

[Sunfire]

Big crowds (per capita & raw nos.) will only return with game styles that are, generally, more open -with more long kicking/contested high marking/more goals being kicked. Fans want to see these UNIQUE skills of AF. Historians agree that these factors attract much higher crowds.
Also, traditional one-on-one duels generate much interest & excitement in AF- "battle within a battle".

The current flooding game styles are the antithesis of this. We have now:-
. tackleball (tackle nos. now are about double the rate of the average in the 80's). In a Footscray game in late 2016, there were a record total of c.192 tackles.
. constant, massive flooding -which causes ugly scrappy play, due to insufficient time for players to execute their skills in such congested conditions
. very high & very ugly stoppage nos. & rolling mauls of players.
. despite current pristine, non muddy grounds generally (& less wind, due to more extensive grand stand "barriers"), and full time professional players, total goals kicked have declined to their lowest since 1969.

Only when the cancer of the 4 man bench (revert to two), & Interchange (revert to SUBSTITUTIONS only -or max. of 2 Interchanges per team, per match) are eliminated, will we see traditional, attractive AF game styles. Then, crowds should flock back.
Former AFL Chief Commissioner M. Fitzpatrick wanted to reduce Interchanges to 30 per team per match, but his view was outvoted on the Commission!

Some believe that coaches are in favour of the Interchange because it makes it a "coaches' game" ie more coaches/exercise scientists etc. are needed/employed/paid higher wages. Having only two subs. make decision making by players on the ground more paramount -it becomes a "players' game".

In Sept. 2016, a women's standalone All Star game was played between Melb. & Footscray. MSM praised it for its lack of heavy flooding/congestion/stoppages, was regarded as a good spectacle, the women could display their skills, many goals kicked & attracted, IIRC, a peak TV audience of c.1,200,000.

In contrast in the AFLW, coaches have reverted to their massive flooding/congestion tactics. This ugliness is, IMO, a major reason we have seen such a significant retreat in average AFLW ratings in 2018 - c.130,000 per match (FTA & Foxtel combined). The women simply don't have the time & space to execute their skills -hence, the scrappiness/stoppages' feast.
(The main reason, IMO, for the disturbing 2018 decline in Ratings was the AFLW had direct TV competition from cricket & Winter Oly. Games -unlike in 2017. Average 2018 AFLW crowds of c.6400, world class for stand alone H & A non-international comp., female team sport, are still obviously excellent)

My whole childhood people around me would derisively call AFL "aerial ping-pong" and write it off. When I finally sat down to give it a proper chance in 2010 the game I saw was much more akin to an intense game of hot potato. First team to fumble it over the line wins.

 

[NoobPie]

My whole childhood people around me would derisively call AFL "aerial ping-pong" and write it off. When I finally sat down to give it a proper chance in 2010 the game I saw was much more akin to an intense game of hot potato. First team to fumble it over the line wins.

Actually, fumbling it over the line isn't going to help. You need to kick it cleanly between the posts. As a ball skill in achieving a major score, this contrasts with the skill of "not dropping the ball" which is the requirement of the rugby football codes

 

[Sunfire]

Actually, fumbling it over the line isn't going to help. You need to kick it cleanly between the posts. As a ball skill in achieving a major score, this contrasts with the skill of "not dropping the ball" which is the requirement of the rugby football codes

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[NoobPie]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

No probs, seemed like you needed it

It's a bit of a paradox but a big reason the rugby football is so lacking in skill is because of the punishment for fumbling it forward