Riewoldt Wants Players To Get Fair Share Of AFL Earnings

[donbooger]

They do ok.

No point bringing up demetriou, he can and will be a CEO elsewhere so the AFL always need to be competitive with his salary and the next one as well. Unfortunately for the players The AFL have a monopoly on AFL players and while the clubs choose to adhere to the salary cap they have little power besides a mass strike.

 

[IanW]

will they share the losses as well?

Ziad,

As the code's revenue changes, players pay will too.

And when I say 'players', I dont just mean the ones at the top end of the pyramid either.

 

[Spluff]

I'm getting a little sick of the AFLPA's constant greed, especially when they're playing the 'poor me' card. These players are getting paid absurd amounts already, I wish they'd stop acting like they're getting shafted. Be honest and just say 'I want more money', don't bring fairness into it.

 

[Tas]

Lets start with a percentage of the overall revenue of the code, and make the players partners rather than employees.

Lets not.

 

[Taylor]

Direct Comparison? Both 2011.
NFL TV deal = 27 billion dollars. Average pay 1.9million (0.007% each)
AFL TV deal = 1.253 billion dollars. Average pay 288k (0.023% each)

So yeah, avoiding quantity of scale efficiencies, AFL players don't get paid enough if AFL wants to be a world class competition attracting world class athletes.

Oooo I was way out. AFL players get a good deal on that.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Problem is a lack of pathways programs

The AFL should fund a 3 yr course for all players, ensuring they have a failsafe post-career
Should have a technical/trade component

Its more then a game now, but many players spend like the money will always be there

 

[headache1]

Vlad's bonus is sure to be a contentious point, especially the bonus he just earnt, but do players really deserve more than what they are getting now ??

If the salary cap was increased, it wouldn't be all 40 on the list who got a pay rise, it would be used to pay a star player more so he'd leave his existing club via FA or prevent a player from leaving via FA. In other words, it would be more of the Buddy/Tippett fiasco.

How does that work? If every team was getting it, then a players existing team would also have more money to keep him.

 

[I am Jack]

I'm getting a little sick of the AFLPA's constant greed, especially when they're playing the 'poor me' card. These players are getting paid absurd amounts already, I wish they'd stop acting like they're getting shafted. Be honest and just say 'I want more money', don't bring fairness into it.

Commodities aren't supposed to speak, these ones have their own association.

 

[theflea]

When you consider Vlads recent paycheck I can understand the players wanting a bigger slice of the pie.

When the players actually run the competition, then maybe they can get a ceo's salary.

 

[theflea]

Problem is a lack of pathways programs

The AFL should fund a 3 yr course for all players, ensuring they have a failsafe post-career
Should have a technical/trade component

Its more then a game now, but many players spend like the money will always be there

I think most of that is already in place.

 

[theflea]

I think I would agree to player pay rises, as any CBA will give, however none of this massive increases they want. I think they earn a damn good wage as it is and all players who retire seem to complain about the wages difference when going into the workforce as an employee, which suggests they do ok.

 

[JeffDunne]

Since Fat Andy has been running the show :

AFL Revenue : up 84%

Andrew Demetriou's earnings : up 221%

AFL Executive average earnings : up 58%

Average player earnings : up 28%



The players should be pissed.

 

[Keys]

While the equalisation debate has focused on the health of the 18 clubs, and how to quell the widening gap in football department spending, players are concerned their slice of the AFL pie will be cut unless they can share in the added revenue to be generated from a proposed luxury tax and a tax on overall revenue

I think its fair enough that the players look to get a set percentage of AFL revenues (what is considered a fair percentage is a matter of conjecture though) but they'll need to brush up on what should be considered revenue.

The luxury tax is really just a means of redistributing money between the clubs and isn't extra revenue within the AFL system

 

[WesternSaint84]

The thing to remember is that a average career in footy is only 3.9 years and Vlads wage has increased by 275% since 2004 while players have increased by I think 30% and to be honest with the things that the AFL expect the players to deal with like rule changes ect they deserve more

 

[WesternSaint84]

Since Fat Andy has been running the show :

AFL Revenue : up 84%

Andrew Demetriou's earnings : up 221%

AFL Executive average earnings : up 58%

Average player earnings : up 28%



The players should be pissed.

Article from 2011 http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-truth-about-salaries-in-the-afl-20110624-1gjpa.html

 

[Ketchup]

Considering the vast majority of the clubs (including Riewoldts own) can not run a sustainable business and continue to record losses every season. Id say the players are getting too much. Dont know what Riewoldt is smoking.

 

[Nutsngum]

At $10 mil salary cap per club, the players have a collective slice of the pie of approx $180,000,000.


What you're worth to someone else?

The players don't have an alternative employer to the afl.

How is that questioning my point? Your wages are dictated by what your worth is to your employer. If you make someone else a million dollars you deserve greater compensation then someone who only makes their employer $100,000.

 

[beta_condition]

Since Fat Andy has been running the show :

AFL Revenue : up 84%

Andrew Demetriou's earnings : up 221%

AFL Executive average earnings : up 58%

Average player earnings : up 28%



The players should be pissed.

Whats % increase has the average Australian had in the decade? They can cry me a river, Andrew Demetriou's baseline salary is in the range as the top few player's in the competition. Some of the team now can hardly keep up with player payments now, lets just increase player payment by 200% stuff self efficiency.

 

[master bate]

Problem is a lack of pathways programs

The AFL should fund a 3 yr course for all players, ensuring they have a failsafe post-career
Should have a technical/trade component

Its more then a game now, but many players spend like the money will always be there

I'm sick of hearing how we should protect people who get a fascinating opportunity from their own stupidity.

One thing we should look at is increasing draft age to 19 (even if it stay at 18 in WA) so all players get a fair and equal shot at finishing their final year of school without training flat out for the draft. Or alternatively shortening the under 18 season and having draft camp all over by August.

But first and second year players still get decent money and then from there on they get great money. If you crash out after 1-2 years in the system you can go enroll in uni, tafe or an apprenticeship just like every other school leaver. Plus instead of a part time job paying $20 an hour you can get $1000 a week playing country or state league footy during season. If you make it through to years 3, 4 or 5 you'll be on a contract that gives you a significant head start over anyone else your age although these are the guys who might be vulnerable to throwing it away quickly. Make it through to year 6 or more in the system and you've probably pocketed over a million in earnings of the course of your career at minimum, enough to buy a house at least.

 

[Gooroombat]

Considering the vast majority of the clubs (including Riewoldts own) can not run a sustainable business and continue to record losses every season. Id say the players are getting too much. Dont know what Riewoldt is smoking.

Yes that would be a fair call if all players work places operated under similar conditions and restrictions.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

How is that questioning my point? Your wages are dictated by what your worth is to your employer. If you make someone else a million dollars you deserve greater compensation then someone who only makes their employer $100,000.

But because there is no competition the players have no leverage except striking.

Sure the AFLPA can argue effectively but the question will eventually come:

"What happens if we don't give you a pay rise?"

If nick doesn't like the situation and decides to walk out in protest it won't really affect the league's earnings, so individual value to the league is quite low.

As a collective the players have all the value, they are the game, but no real course of action. To trigger a strike they would have to be so criminally underpaid that players were seeking other avenues of employment. The league offers a lot of value to the players beyond their paycheck though, so it does go both ways.

In terms of fairness I have no idea what a fair percentage of total revenue is though.

 

[Heisenberg_]

First and final warning, keep to the thread topic and not past off field scandals unless you want infractions.

 

[blaze036]

Since Fat Andy has been running the show :

AFL Revenue : up 84%

Andrew Demetriou's earnings : up 221%

AFL Executive average earnings : up 58%

Average player earnings : up 28%



The players should be pissed.

The CEO's value to the AFL is about 1000 times more important than any player

 

[master bate]

But because there is no competition the players have no leverage except striking.

Sure the AFLPA can argue effectively but the question will eventually come:

"What happens if we don't give you a pay rise?"

If nick doesn't like the situation and decides to walk out in protest it won't really affect the league's earnings, so individual value to the league is quite low.

As a collective the players have all the value, they are the game, but no real course of action. To trigger a strike they would have to be so criminally underpaid that players were seeking other avenues of employment. The league offers a lot of value to the players beyond their paycheck though, so it does go both ways.

In terms of fairness I have no idea what a fair percentage of total revenue is though.

Why can't they strike? The AFL isn't going to draft VFL players in to replace them. They wont get paid but all players could survive for a few weeks without cash and the top guys could survive a long time. The reason I think they can't strike is because it would be very hard to get the public on board. We care about the battling teachers and nurses, not many of us care much about battling AFL players.

Percentage of revenue is a tricky situation because the AFL put a heap of money in to game development, Auskick and especially the expansion clubs. The expansion clubs are pretty much the AFL spending money to employ 88 more players.

It's interesting the footy department spending and salary cap are both nearing the same amount. 44 players = x amount of coaches, recruiters, sports science, medical, physio etc. Just like some players some of the footy department staff are extremely talented, experienced and highly trained. Others like junior development coaches who have exploded in number are probably not highly skilled or trained just like young players. Although the most inexperienced part time development coach is probably earning more money than an AFL rookie.

The players have a case to say they should be the biggest expenditure of the club seeing as though they are the reason we go to games. Increasing rookie and draftee pay from the current levels around 40 and 55k to above 70k probably makes more sense than worrying about Nick Riewoldt.

 

[Big_Luch]

one valid point is clubs are finding more and more money to spend on footy departments yet the players arent being paid in line with all this extra money in the game.