The AFL wants 22 teams. Name your next four.

[Coolangatta]

It is my understanding that that Darwin isn't quite as bad as the Cairns area in March April, plus I think Darwin is more AFL friendly than Cairns.
We are getting ahead of ourselves on this matter and see Canberra as team 20 after Tassie.

Oh, yeah, I definitely have a habit of doing that.

Still, it sounds like from what you’re saying, a full time NQ side can never happen because of the weather.

Maybe the best the AFL can get out of NQ is a Northern Australia side that plays 3 games in Cairns.

It’s a lot of travel, though.

In any case, you’re right, Canberra for 20 and never say never beyond that.

 

[wormy]

Agree with most of this but why does an NT/Northern team make it a truly national game but ACT does not?

It is a point I see being made ad nauseam and I just don’t get it.

Sure, Canberra is a tiny blip on the map of Australia but it’s the capital city and is what, 4x more the population than Darwin, way more livable, better infrastructure, etc.

Either way, I’d love to see those inclusions you suggested but swap Canberra with Brisbane as I’m sure Manuka gets that upgrade.

I think the AFL would be tempted by Brisbane 2 but it’ll be interesting to see if they pivot towards Sunny Coast instead and get in before the NRL does.

Or, if the AFL did go for a hybrid northern team then they might do the same with a second Brisbane side and have them play 2-3 home games at the SC.

I would say never say never with Auckland or Newcastle but they do seem much further away than ACT, WA3 and a 3rd SEQ side.

Never said that. I specifically put Canberra as having a team before a Northern one so not sure how you got that idea.

But in regards to representation, a kid growing up in the NT or FNQ currently doesn't have a single AFL team that represents them.

GWS claims to represent the western NSW and the ACT as shown by the fact their kit and logo is literally a G in the shape on NSW with eastern Sydney cut out.

I know that GWS isn't a Canberra team, that's obvious and canberra deserve a team. But a kid in Canberra does have some limited degree of representation for their area currently, and that team also plays games there. A kid in the NT has none. So that's why people bring the national game argument into the NT team concept. Because kids born in northern Australia are currently not even remotely being represented by any team anywhere based anywhere near their region.

 

[wormy]

Canberran here.

As long as Andrew Barr is chief minister there's more chance of a new oval stadium being built in Canberra than a rectangle.

No matter how much the city needs it, as Bruce is genuinely a failed public safety inspection from the western grandstand being closed at this point, there's next to no chance of a new rectangular stadium being built here in this decade or the next. Realistically the best the Raiders and Brumbies can hope for is a glorified upgrade that extends Bruce's useful life by another decade or so.

The NRL themselves aren't really actively involved in lobbying for the new stadium in Canberra either. The only time they comment on it is on the odd occasion that somebody contacts them for their opinion, aside from that they've pretty much ignored it.

Though I agree that the AFL would probably demand a new stadium, you wouldn't really need it. You could definitely get away with a major overhaul of Manuka.

New stadium or not, a third team in SEQ would be a horror show. Maybe it could work in a few decades, but all putting a second team in Brisbane would do is split the market at the moment.

Good to hear.

For the record, I don't think think that the AFL will demand a stadium to the extent of what's being proposed in Tasmania in Canberra. I think they will however just want it to be modern and not some bandaid venue with bad amenities. From what I hear manuka is a great location so I think it should just undergo a modern redevelopment.

As someone who has been involved in lobbying for the Tasmanian team, the reasons are as follows:
Tasmania had represented a way bigger risk to the AFL than Canberra because of population, and secondly, because a Tasmanian team would need to play games both south and north, splitting the population and the home games.

Therefore, the business case to build the stadium becomes much harder to justify when only 7 home games will be played there. A Canberra team will play all of its home games at one ground so that problem won't apply. With only 7 home games at the proposed new stadium, it would need to attract other events to become viable. Plenty of which, such as concerts, need the assurance they won't get wet, therefore roof.

Also with the Tasmanian stadium proposal, Ninja stadium is in a terrible spot, making it near impossible for a tourist to come from interstate, stay at a hotel, watch the game, and go out for a drink afterwards. There's also a whole bunch of council stuff preventing Ninja from being upgraded, hence why the new stadium needs to be built from scratch in a central location rather than redevelopment. If we are doing that we may as well make it state of the art.

Plus there's obviously the perception that the new stadium in Tas needs to be a magnet for tourists to make money back, plus be attractive for players. Therefore it needs to be good for prime time viewing on TV.

A Canberra team would play all 11 home games in one place. Manuka is already in a good central spot with infrastructure set up already. There's a way larger population than hobart, and they all in one place. Plus a Canberra stadium wouldn't as heavily rely on the justification that it needs to supercharge tourism in order to be viable. Putting an extra game a week on TV and packing out a stadium with locals would probably be enough to get it off the ground.

 

[Coolangatta]

Never said that. I specifically put Canberra as having a team before a Northern one so not sure how you got that idea.

But in regards to representation, a kid growing up in the NT or FNQ currently doesn't have a single AFL team that represents them.

GWS claims to represent the western NSW and the ACT as shown by the fact their kit and logo is literally a G in the shape on NSW with eastern Sydney cut out.

I know that GWS isn't a Canberra team, that's obvious and canberra deserve a team. But a kid in Canberra does have some limited degree of representation for their area currently, and that team also plays games there. A kid in the NT has none. So that's why people bring the national game argument into the NT team concept. Because kids born in northern Australia are currently not even remotely being represented by any team anywhere based anywhere near their region.

Gold Coast play two games a year in Darwin. I know they aren’t called the Northern Suns or whoever, but at least they’re getting something.

I know Cairns isn’t but that might change in a few years with Hawthorn.

Thing is, NT isn’t viable as the 20th side. So, if 3 games is enough for people to feel Canberra are “included” in national representation of the game, if that’s the concern, they can make team 20 the Northern Falcons and have them play 9 games a year at Optus (two away) and 4 in Darwin.

Then we’d have a “truly national” comp and we can stop the rhetoric about our game not having true national representation.

And yes, I know you included Canberra, but my thinking is that if NT get a side before Canberra (which many are proposing), then Canberra is stuck with 3 games and not truly represented.

Personally, I wouldn’t consider it a truly national game, ACT would also need a full time presence and the AFL could very well stop expansion if NT are team 20.

Given ACT are far more viable, I think it should be them first. As do you, I know.

Personally, I still think WA3 is needed eventually.

I’d be leaning towards:

20. Canberra
21. Brisbane/Sunshine Coast
22. South West WA

Beyond that, hard to say yet.

 

[wormy]

Gold Coast play two games a year in Darwin. I know they aren’t called the Northern Suns or whoever, but at least they’re getting something.

I know Cairns isn’t but that might change in a few years with Hawthorn.

Thing is, NT isn’t viable as the 20th side. So, if 3 games is enough for people to feel Canberra are “included” in national representation of the game, if that’s the concern, they can make team 20 the Northern Falcons and have them play 9 games a year at Optus (two away) and 4 in Darwin.

Then we’d have a “truly national” comp and we can stop the rhetoric about our game not having true national representation.

And yes, I know you included Canberra, but my thinking is that if NT get a side before Canberra (which many are proposing), then Canberra is stuck with 3 games and not truly represented.

Personally, I wouldn’t consider it a truly national game, ACT would also need a full time presence and the AFL could very well stop expansion if NT are team 20.

Given ACT are far more viable, I think it should be them first. As do you, I know.

Personally, I still think WA3 is needed eventually.

I’d be leaning towards:

20. Canberra
21. Brisbane/Sunshine Coast
22. South West WA

Beyond that, hard to say yet.

True, I agree with you there.

I think the point we differ on that I don't at all think a kid growing up in Darwin has the same level of representation from the Gold Coast suns playing a couple of games there, as a kid growing up in Canberra who is somewhat represented by the Greater Western Sydney giants who claim go represent all of NSW/ACT beyond east Sydney.

That being said I think Canberra deserve a team of their own, moreso than a Northern tram and will get one first.

 

[Coolangatta]

True, I agree with you there.

I think the point we differ on that I don't at all think a kid growing up in Darwin has the same level of representation from the Gold Coast suns playing a couple of games there, as a kid growing up in Canberra who is somewhat represented by the Greater Western Sydney giants who claim go represent all of NSW/ACT beyond east Sydney.

That being said I think Canberra deserve a team of their own, moreso than a Northern tram and will get one first.

Yeah, I’d love to see an NT or Northern Australia side, I just think they’re at least 50 years away, if ever, from happening.

The safest three options next are probably Canberra and I could see a second Brisbane side in 30 odd years working while the Sunshine Coast would be riskier.

And I think the south west could be big enough to support a team in a few decade and would be nice to balance things out as I don’t think Victoria should have 5x more teams than WA.

Would base them in Bunbury or Busselton, whichever ones gonna work better and give them 3 home games at Optus plus two away derbies.

With that set up, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would all have two teams each.

New Zealand and Newcastle would definitely require some work as has been discussed in this thread.

Not too bothered about them, would rather see teams in the NT and NQ if we ever went to 24 teams.

Then just shut up shop there and have everyone play each other once.

 

[mephisto_red]

Yeah, I’d love to see an NT or Northern Australia side, I just think they’re at least 50 years away, if ever, from happening.

The safest three options next are probably Canberra and I could see a second Brisbane side in 30 odd years working while the Sunshine Coast would be riskier.

And I think the south west could be big enough to support a team in a few decade and would be nice to balance things out as I don’t think Victoria should have 5x more teams than WA.

Would base them in Bunbury or Busselton, whichever ones gonna work better and give them 3 home games at Optus plus two away derbies.

With that set up, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would all have two teams each.

New Zealand and Newcastle would definitely require some work as has been discussed in this thread.

Not too bothered about them, would rather see teams in the NT and NQ if we ever went to 24 teams.

Then just shut up shop there and have everyone play each other once.

NZ or Newcastle is absolutely a fantasy.
A second brisbane team would have less support than GWS.

 

[Coolangatta]

NZ or Newcastle is absolutely a fantasy.
A second brisbane team would have less support than GWS.

Well, I guess that’s up to the AFL. All I know is, there’s no golden rule that says they can’t expand ever again when they reach 20 teams.

I would go with Canberra and then the goal from there would be to get the 20 existing clubs to be profitable and self reliant.

A GC Southport takeover and rebranding could help with them, then the Giants going full time in Sydney should see eventual growth. Tassie and the rest should be fine long term.

How long it takes, I don’t know, but by the 2050s I think the AFL could consider expansion to teams 21 and 22.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Well, I guess that’s up to the AFL. All I know is, there’s no golden rule that says they can’t expand ever again when they reach 20 teams.

I would go with Canberra and then the goal from there would be to get the 20 existing clubs to be profitable and self reliant.

A GC Southport takeover and rebranding could help with them, then the Giants going full time in Sydney should see eventual growth. Tassie and the rest should be fine long term.

How long it takes, I don’t know, but by the 2050s I think the AFL could consider expansion to teams 21 and 22.

GWS should have gone full time in Sydney from start.

 

[wormy]

One option that nobody has really considered is 21 teams.

I know the AFL would prefer an even amount, but North Melbourne didn't relocate to the Gold Coast so here we are.

• Tassie is a lock
• Canberra is the next obvious market
• Northern team is regarded by most as being necessary to represent the whole country.

Those 3 are crucial and everybody isn't going to be satisfied until they all exist.
In regards to the 22nd - people are talking about QLD3, WA3, SA3, blah, blah, blah. If any of those come in, they are already entering a represented market so it doesn't have as much urgency.

If I were the AFL I would focus on the above 3 and start creating a media spin so that the ACT and NT/FNQ governments can start building infrastructure, so get people excited.

If North would relocate to Canberra or Darwin it would be helpful, but I feel like we already passed that opportunity. And if they did relocate, it would be a sad day for the comp.

 

[troybe]

2027 - Tasmania
2032 - Canberra
2047 - Cairns
2052 - WA3

 

[Coolangatta]

One option that nobody has really considered is 21 teams.

I know the AFL would prefer an even amount, but North Melbourne didn't relocate to the Gold Coast so here we are.

• Tassie is a lock
• Canberra is the next obvious market
• Northern team is regarded by most as being necessary to represent the whole country.

Those 3 are crucial and everybody isn't going to be satisfied until they all exist.
In regards to the 22nd - people are talking about QLD3, WA3, SA3, blah, blah, blah. If any of those come in, they are already entering a represented market so it doesn't have as much urgency.

If I were the AFL I would focus on the above 3 and start creating a media spin so that the ACT and NT/FNQ governments can start building infrastructure, so get people excited.

If North would relocate to Canberra or Darwin it would be helpful, but I feel like we already passed that opportunity. And if they did relocate, it would be a sad day for the comp.

I think WA3 would be a safe and profitable option, though. Besides, Victoria having 10 teams and WA having only 2 is kinda bullshit.

I like your thinking, but I’d go:

20. Canberra
21. Northern Australia
22. South West WA

While I’m bullish on expansion in all kinds of places, I do think we have to be mindful of having too many teams and how no Victorian team is going to relocate.

Plus 22 teams means we don’t need conferences. Everyone playing each other once + two rivals is easy to fixture.

 

[craffles]

Make Brisbane go back to being the bears and introduce the Sunshine Coast Lions wearing traditional Fitzroy kit.

AFL is growing massively in that region with the post covid influx of southerners. Beat the NRL to it. Tap into nostalgia. It makes sense.

 

[Coolangatta]

Make Brisbane go back to being the bears and introduce the Sunshine Coast Lions wearing traditional Fitzroy kit.

AFL is growing massively in that region with the post covid influx of southerners. Beat the NRL to it. Tap into nostalgia. It makes sense.

There’s more chance of me winning the Powerball tonight than the Lions going back to being the Bears.

You can blame the AFL and their unwillingness to go to 18 teams back in the 90s for that.

They could have let Fitzroy move to Canberra, Bears stay Bears and introduce Tassie as team 18 in 1999.

Then GC (Sharks) and WS Giants as teams 19 and 20 with the Giants being a full time Sydney team from day one.

 

[craffles]

There’s more chance of me winning the Powerball tonight than the Lions going back to being the Bears.

You can blame the AFL and their unwillingness to go to 18 teams back in the 90s for that.

They could have let Fitzroy move to Canberra, Bears stay Bears and introduce Tassie as team 18 in 1999.

Then GC (Sharks) and WS Giants as teams 19 and 20 with the Giants being a full time Sydney team from day one.

I agree but a man can dream. I still think a team on the sunny coast makes a lot of sense. I would have

1. Tasmania
2. Canberra
3. Sunshine Coast (relocation or club folds)

 

[Professor Knowall]

I have posted this purely as a reference source for this thread. The ABS has just released the 2025 population and growth stats for Australia’s major cities. If anyone is puzzled about the absence of Central Coast City (population of 348,930 as of June 2022), it’s because the ABS puzzlingly include the Central Coast City population as part of Sydney, (even though the NSW State Govt count it as a separate regional city, which clearly it is), thus artificially boosting Sydney’s population from the actual correct figure of 5.2 million.

Cairns is strangely missing from the table - I have no idea why, but it’s population is around 170,000 and from my frequent visits there, I’ll attest it’s still growing strongly. Also, Canberra is in both tables - the regional table, which has the combined metro population with Queanbeyan, is the one more relevant for the purposes of this thread.

Population change by capital city​

Capital city	ERP at 30 June 2024	2023-24 (no.)	2023-24 (%)
Sydney	5,557,233	107,538	2.0
Melbourne	5,350,705	142,637	2.7
Brisbane	2,780,063	72,930	2.7
Adelaide	1,469,163	22,125	1.5
Perth	2,384,371	72,742	3.1
Hobart	254,930	946	0.4
Darwin	152,489	1,367	0.9
Canberra	473,855	7,496	1.6

Growth of regional centres​

City	2019	2024	Change
Gold Coast	682,344	750,997	10%
Newcastle-Maitland	494,958	534,033	7.9%
Canberra-Queanbeyan	472,792	510,641	8%
Sunshine Coast	370,253	417,982	12.9%
Wollongong	302,440	318,258	5.2%
Geelong	277,059	308,915	11.5%
Townsville	180,239	189,356	5.1%
Toowoomba	140,465	152,687	8.7%
Ballarat	107,970	119,284	10.5%
Bendigo	100,711	106,022	5.3%
Albury-Wodonga	95,221	101,370	6.5%​

Regional population, 2023-24 financial year

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia's capital cities and regions

www.abs.gov.au

 

[Coolangatta]

I have posted this purely as a reference source for this thread. The ABS has just released the 2025 population and growth stats for Australia’s major cities. If anyone is puzzled about the absence of Central Coast City (population of 348,930 as of June 2022), it’s because the ABS puzzlingly include the Central Coast City population as part of Sydney, (even though the NSW State Govt count it as a separate regional city, which clearly it is), thus artificially boosting Sydney’s population from the actual correct figure of 5.2 million.

Cairns is strangely missing from the table - I have no idea why, but it’s population is around 170,000 and from my frequent visits there, I’ll attest it’s still growing strongly. Also, Canberra is in both tables - the regional table, which has the combined metro population with Queanbeyan, is the one more relevant for the purposes of this thread.

Population change by capital city​

Capital city	ERP at 30 June 2024	2023-24 (no.)	2023-24 (%)
Sydney	5,557,233	107,538	2.0
Melbourne	5,350,705	142,637	2.7
Brisbane	2,780,063	72,930	2.7
Adelaide	1,469,163	22,125	1.5
Perth	2,384,371	72,742	3.1
Hobart	254,930	946	0.4
Darwin	152,489	1,367	0.9
Canberra	473,855	7,496	1.6

Growth of regional centres​

City	2019	2024	Change
Gold Coast	682,344	750,997	10%
Newcastle-Maitland	494,958	534,033	7.9%
Canberra-Queanbeyan	472,792	510,641	8%
Sunshine Coast	370,253	417,982	12.9%
Wollongong	302,440	318,258	5.2%
Geelong	277,059	308,915	11.5%
Townsville	180,239	189,356	5.1%
Toowoomba	140,465	152,687	8.7%
Ballarat	107,970	119,284	10.5%
Bendigo	100,711	106,022	5.3%
Albury-Wodonga	95,221	101,370	6.5%​

Regional population, 2023-24 financial year

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia's capital cities and regions

www.abs.gov.au

The question is, what grows the game more? A team in a new city that doesn’t have one team representing it, or more teams in the most populated cities if you can grow demand in those cities?

Also, what is more important to the AFL, having the ACT and NT (latter is a tonne harder, I know) as part of the game to make it a truly national competition, or growing the game and making as much money as possible?

Because Canberra helps achieve that, but the NT doesn’t add **** all growth.

I’m just thinking ahead. If the AFL prioritises population, then you would think by the 2050s, Brisbane 2 and Sydney 3 would be next on their radar.

Of course, if the Giants can’t become a big club, that’ll make them reconsider, but it’s not far fetched to see the Lions with 100k members in 30 years filling out a 60k stadium. That would get the AFL talking.

 

[Canberra Pear]

I have posted this purely as a reference source for this thread. The ABS has just released the 2025 population and growth stats for Australia’s major cities. If anyone is puzzled about the absence of Central Coast City (population of 348,930 as of June 2022), it’s because the ABS puzzlingly include the Central Coast City population as part of Sydney, (even though the NSW State Govt count it as a separate regional city, which clearly it is), thus artificially boosting Sydney’s population from the actual correct figure of 5.2 million.

Cairns is strangely missing from the table - I have no idea why, but it’s population is around 170,000 and from my frequent visits there, I’ll attest it’s still growing strongly. Also, Canberra is in both tables - the regional table, which has the combined metro population with Queanbeyan, is the one more relevant for the purposes of this thread.

Population change by capital city​

Capital city	ERP at 30 June 2024	2023-24 (no.)	2023-24 (%)
Sydney	5,557,233	107,538	2.0
Melbourne	5,350,705	142,637	2.7
Brisbane	2,780,063	72,930	2.7
Adelaide	1,469,163	22,125	1.5
Perth	2,384,371	72,742	3.1
Hobart	254,930	946	0.4
Darwin	152,489	1,367	0.9
Canberra	473,855	7,496	1.6

Growth of regional centres​

City	2019	2024	Change
Gold Coast	682,344	750,997	10%
Newcastle-Maitland	494,958	534,033	7.9%
Canberra-Queanbeyan	472,792	510,641	8%
Sunshine Coast	370,253	417,982	12.9%
Wollongong	302,440	318,258	5.2%
Geelong	277,059	308,915	11.5%
Townsville	180,239	189,356	5.1%
Toowoomba	140,465	152,687	8.7%
Ballarat	107,970	119,284	10.5%
Bendigo	100,711	106,022	5.3%
Albury-Wodonga	95,221	101,370	6.5%​

Regional population, 2023-24 financial year

Statistics about the population and components of change (births, deaths, migration) for Australia's capital cities and regions

www.abs.gov.au

Not blaming you, you can only post the numbers provided, but it's also worth noting that the ABS chronically underestimates the ACT's population growth between censuses. I think the higher interstate immigration seems to mess with their algorithms.

Last census, the ACT had 22k more people than the ABS expected. Considering we grew by 57k, we grew 63% more than the ABS expected.

If the miscalculations have continued at that rate, we're probably growing at about 2.6%. And Canberra-Queanbeyan would be at about 524k.

But it's hard to tell until we actually get the 2026 numbers, so it's all speculation at this point.

 

[Run n Spread]

Tas NT WA3 SA3

 

[Whats a Battle]

There’s more chance of me winning the Powerball tonight than the Lions going back to being the Bears.

You can blame the AFL and their unwillingness to go to 18 teams back in the 90s for that.

They could have let Fitzroy move to Canberra, Bears stay Bears and introduce Tassie as team 18 in 1999.

Then GC (Sharks) and WS Giants as teams 19 and 20 with the Giants being a full time Sydney team from day one.

That would have made far too much sense for the Ross Oakley administration to ever consider.

 

[glengowan]

The question is, what grows the game more? A team in a new city that doesn’t have one team representing it, or more teams in the most populated cities if you can grow demand in those cities?

Also, what is more important to the AFL, having the ACT and NT (latter is a tonne harder, I know) as part of the game to make it a truly national competition, or growing the game and making as much money as possible?

Because Canberra helps achieve that, but the NT doesn’t add **** all growth.

I’m just thinking ahead. If the AFL prioritises population, then you would think by the 2050s, Brisbane 2 and Sydney 3 would be next on their radar.

Of course, if the Giants can’t become a big club, that’ll make them reconsider, but it’s not far fetched to see the Lions with 100k members in 30 years filling out a 60k stadium. That would get the AFL talking.

Darwin has about 280 million people closer to it than Melbourne (as the Crow flies).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Darwin has about 280 million people closer to it than Melbourne (as the Crow flies).

Darwin-Carins-Jakarta Barramundi has a good ring to it

 

[Aussie in exile]

Darwin has about 280 million people closer to it than Melbourne (as the Crow flies).

How man people can we expect to arrive by boat on the pretence that they have come to watch a game of football?

 

[Coolangatta]

Relocate the Saints or North to Canberra and bring the Royals, Falcons and Norwood into the comp. Also, merge the Suns and Southport.

That way, we have a stronger presence of traditional non Vic clubs in the league, better travel balance, some more great rivalries and 2x games per week at Optus.

Obviously the big flaws here are the viability of a 3rd Adelaide club and feasibility of relocating a Vic club but that’s what I’d be considering.

 

[Fire]

Relocate the Saints or North to Canberra and bring the Royals, Falcons and Norwood into the comp. Also, merge the Suns and Southport.

That way, we have a stronger presence of traditional non Vic clubs in the league, better travel balance, some more great rivalries and 2x games per week at Optus.

Obviously the big flaws here are the viability of a 3rd Adelaide club and feasibility of relocating a Vic club but that’s what I’d be considering.

I've pointed this out before, but...

3 Adelaide clubs = 1 club per 489,721 people.

9 Melbourne clubs = 1 club per 594,444 people.


A third Adelaide club would be significantly smaller than the smallest Melbourne clubs, regardless of traditionality.