Clubs are throwing out higher salaries than ever to both chase players and retain their own.
While true that every team has the same salary cap to work with, there are more and more instances where clubs are shooting themselves in the foot, both by choice and with one arm tied behind their back as players and agents seek the best possible deal, as any employee is within their rights to do.
This can have implications for the whole league in certain cases. We saw a couple of years ago Gold Coast trading Jack Bowes and Pick 7 to an ever-competitive Geelong for a future 3rd round pick, just to get his salary off the books. Ridiculous stuff.
The AFLPA would probably never agree to this hypothetical as it restricts potential income for the stars of the league, but hear me out and just picture this. Communism can work here.
Every player earns the exact same salary that rises with each year they are within the system, let's say up to 10 years. From then on, they are free to sign for any deal they can get.
For example:
1st year 100k
2nd year 150k
3rd year 250k
4th year 300k
5th year 400k
6th year 500k
7th year 650k
8th year 700k
9th year 750k
10th year 800k.
Now I just made that off the top of my head in 20 seconds so there's probably room to move there but you get the general idea.
Clubs will no longer lose their younger players purely for financial reasons.
The draft won't be compromised for the whole league just because one team made a stupid contract.
Players no longer hold their clubs to ransom as they know they will get paid the same no matter where they are.
They no longer question why their team is offering 15 million to some kid on the other side of the country while they get the scraps even though they've cemented a place in the 22 and put in the hard work.
After 10 years, they still have the potential to earn whatever they think they're worth for however long they can continue to play for, while clubs have had enough time with them to either convince them to stay or at least get a lot of decent football out of them.
Players could and would still leave for family reasons/homesickness but I think with the same financial offers at every potential club, it opens it up a bit for the club losing the player to sell to the highest bidder (in regards to draft picks/player exchange) as players probably will be less likely to demand a trade to a particular club. Of course it will still happen, but it's not a perfect world.
As I mentioned earlier, the hardest part would be getting the players to agree to it. But I think this is something that maybe benefits just as many players as those that are losing out on potential earnings.
After all, they are all performing the same job. If they aren't good enough, you cut them and move on.
There also needs to be some exemptions for mature age recruits, DFA's etc which people much smarter than I would work out, but in principle I think this is a move that would benefit the league.
Now tell me your arguments against this and why it would never happen
While true that every team has the same salary cap to work with, there are more and more instances where clubs are shooting themselves in the foot, both by choice and with one arm tied behind their back as players and agents seek the best possible deal, as any employee is within their rights to do.
This can have implications for the whole league in certain cases. We saw a couple of years ago Gold Coast trading Jack Bowes and Pick 7 to an ever-competitive Geelong for a future 3rd round pick, just to get his salary off the books. Ridiculous stuff.
The AFLPA would probably never agree to this hypothetical as it restricts potential income for the stars of the league, but hear me out and just picture this. Communism can work here.
Every player earns the exact same salary that rises with each year they are within the system, let's say up to 10 years. From then on, they are free to sign for any deal they can get.
For example:
1st year 100k
2nd year 150k
3rd year 250k
4th year 300k
5th year 400k
6th year 500k
7th year 650k
8th year 700k
9th year 750k
10th year 800k.
Now I just made that off the top of my head in 20 seconds so there's probably room to move there but you get the general idea.
Clubs will no longer lose their younger players purely for financial reasons.
The draft won't be compromised for the whole league just because one team made a stupid contract.
Players no longer hold their clubs to ransom as they know they will get paid the same no matter where they are.
They no longer question why their team is offering 15 million to some kid on the other side of the country while they get the scraps even though they've cemented a place in the 22 and put in the hard work.
After 10 years, they still have the potential to earn whatever they think they're worth for however long they can continue to play for, while clubs have had enough time with them to either convince them to stay or at least get a lot of decent football out of them.
Players could and would still leave for family reasons/homesickness but I think with the same financial offers at every potential club, it opens it up a bit for the club losing the player to sell to the highest bidder (in regards to draft picks/player exchange) as players probably will be less likely to demand a trade to a particular club. Of course it will still happen, but it's not a perfect world.
As I mentioned earlier, the hardest part would be getting the players to agree to it. But I think this is something that maybe benefits just as many players as those that are losing out on potential earnings.
After all, they are all performing the same job. If they aren't good enough, you cut them and move on.
There also needs to be some exemptions for mature age recruits, DFA's etc which people much smarter than I would work out, but in principle I think this is a move that would benefit the league.
Now tell me your arguments against this and why it would never happen
