I recently had a read through the thread about St Kilda and the lack of pressure on them, and a lot of comments you see suggest culling a number of Vic clubs, merging the less successful ones and (in the case of St Kilda) just abolishing them. Honestly, I don't agree with this in the slightest.
There's a lot of things in the AFL that I find less than desirable: the MCG deal, the quality of the product (on occasion), and especially the massive slant towards Victorian teams. Nevertheless, the answer to a problem like this shouldn't come at the expense of clubs that have existed for over a century, and it's for the very simple reason that history actually matters. That isn't an arbitrary reason to value the existence of these teams - the fact they have been around for so long makes them worthwhile. They have a character and essence that can't be replicated, ever. Those suggesting that clubs should be culled to "improve the product", or because they don't have a high number of flags and finals appearances, seem to be confusing their priorities in terms of what they value in sport.
The AFL, as a general rule, as a kind of aversion to commercialisation. That might seem odd given the actions they've taken in recent years, but in the 30 years since the VFL became a national competition, they've only approached the realm of how American sports operate. There's been changes, definitely, but none of them have altered the actual fabric of Aussie rules. For example, compare our system to the NBA:
* Players in the AFL can't be traded without their consent, NBA players can.
* AFL clubs have a salary cap to encourage equalisation, NBA (and American sports in general) don't.
* AFL clubs are formally owned by both the football commission of the state in which the are located in and the AFL itself (although the former isn't the case for Vic clubs, with the AFL having sole ownership of them). NBA clubs are usually owned by private entities (i.e. a company or individual).
* The AFL gives additional handouts seperate from the draft to struggling clubs, while the NBA (correct me if I'm wrong) generally avoids this.
* The AFL provides additional funding to financially poor clubs to keep them afloat. In the NBA, in usually falls to the owners to provide this (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
We're less brutal than American sports, and even less so compared to the soccer leagues. However, the AFL does care more about money than anything else, but this is severely limited by a significantly lower population compared to America or Europe - there is less monetary value and support for the AFL by virtue of the fact we just don't have the numbers. That, and as we aren't an international sport, contribute to the obstacles faced by the AFL. We can't embody the American model because we literally don't have enough people. This is only part of my point, though, and is far from being the main factor.
In terms of what we value in sport, what we find engaging and ultimately human about it, plays a bigger part in determining its essence. What makes AFL appealing? I can't speak for everyone, but, judging from a lot of comments on here, I think I can identify what makes our sport great:
* Personalities within the game. Many feel that the lack of real "characters" in the sport makes it more lifeless. I personally hate Toby Greene, but also love what he brings to the game.
* Loyalty. We all value loyalty in the AFL - allegiance to one club is seen as desirable. There's a reason someone like Brad Hill is considered a mercenary.
* Tribalism, in the sense that it's an "us against them" mentality. There's a general antagonism between Victoria and interstate sides in general, due mainly to the bullshit decisions the AFL has made in Vic's favour. Additionally, there is an actual rivalry between clubs like Port and the Crows - games between them hold greater significance in the course of the season.
* High scoring/exciting games. This is more related to the product, but it is still intimately connected with the aforementioned. An engaging game of footy is elevated by the fact it is played between Richmond and Collingwood - it's not only the game itself that is valuable, but the circumstances that play into it as well.
* The feeling of catharsis after proving everyone wrong, rising up against the odds to overcome everything, the elation of finally breaking that premiership drought/winning the flag.
* Players representing the their home club.
We find these things appealing within Aussie rules, as does every other fan of sport in general. Things that are incompatible with this human element of AFL are recognised as undesirable. You can call it all arbitrary or manipulated by the AFL (which it is, to an extent), but it's what makes our sport special. As such, viewing the sport in purely economic terms (i.e. only looking at things in terms of what makes the most money) is seen as violating the spirit of the game. We don't want sanitation and accessibility, we want real physicality and fair competition. Genuine, authentic emotion. Economic prioritisation (which is American sport's main focus) seemingly makes sport more artificial and less engaging; as such, it makes it more "competitive", prioritising an entities ability to make profit, by making the very system itself more cutthroat and unfair, is another aspect of this. We want fairness, overall, together with the aforementioned qualities that define Aussie rules (and sport in general, to a lesser extent).
Aussie rules is also made up of individual people. Note that word, individual, actual human beings. This cannot be understated. Clubs have history, which in turn is defined by the people who represent the club. Treating players as cattle violates the humanity of the player in question - and yet the American model allows this.
The main thing I'm getting at is that the AFL and the fans of it value different things. The AFL wants to increase revenue, the fans want a better spectacle, which is created by the humanity of the sport. Yet, despite this, the AFL hasn't adopted the policies that will make the competition a farce. Players don't get traded to the other side of the counter against their will. It has sanitised the sport, made it more unfair, appealled to a certain demographic more than others, but it hasn't got to the point that the very system it operates on breeds inequality. You don't have a situation where every player is basically a mercenary, or the sport itself is the ultimate moneymaking machine. Thankfully we haven't approached the realm of the EPL yet.
How does this all relate to the question of the title? Well, all I'm pointing to is the fact you can't look at sport in economical terms. You can't view it as a "product" that is purely for consumption. There's more to it than that. When you see people suggesting that St Kilda should be abolished to improve the "product", or make it more fair, they're ignoring the fact that this club is made up of a number of individuals who have represented it over a long time. Abolishing it would basically be saying "Hey, we recognise the fact that you exist, but you aren't entertaining enough, and this means you're not generating enough money, so * off". It's ignoring the fact that the club actually has fans, represents people, and ultimately has an element of humanity to it. These clubs go against the moneymaking value of sport; they actually are an aspect of what we value about Aussie rules.
There's a lot of things in the AFL that I find less than desirable: the MCG deal, the quality of the product (on occasion), and especially the massive slant towards Victorian teams. Nevertheless, the answer to a problem like this shouldn't come at the expense of clubs that have existed for over a century, and it's for the very simple reason that history actually matters. That isn't an arbitrary reason to value the existence of these teams - the fact they have been around for so long makes them worthwhile. They have a character and essence that can't be replicated, ever. Those suggesting that clubs should be culled to "improve the product", or because they don't have a high number of flags and finals appearances, seem to be confusing their priorities in terms of what they value in sport.
The AFL, as a general rule, as a kind of aversion to commercialisation. That might seem odd given the actions they've taken in recent years, but in the 30 years since the VFL became a national competition, they've only approached the realm of how American sports operate. There's been changes, definitely, but none of them have altered the actual fabric of Aussie rules. For example, compare our system to the NBA:
* Players in the AFL can't be traded without their consent, NBA players can.
* AFL clubs have a salary cap to encourage equalisation, NBA (and American sports in general) don't.
* AFL clubs are formally owned by both the football commission of the state in which the are located in and the AFL itself (although the former isn't the case for Vic clubs, with the AFL having sole ownership of them). NBA clubs are usually owned by private entities (i.e. a company or individual).
* The AFL gives additional handouts seperate from the draft to struggling clubs, while the NBA (correct me if I'm wrong) generally avoids this.
* The AFL provides additional funding to financially poor clubs to keep them afloat. In the NBA, in usually falls to the owners to provide this (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
We're less brutal than American sports, and even less so compared to the soccer leagues. However, the AFL does care more about money than anything else, but this is severely limited by a significantly lower population compared to America or Europe - there is less monetary value and support for the AFL by virtue of the fact we just don't have the numbers. That, and as we aren't an international sport, contribute to the obstacles faced by the AFL. We can't embody the American model because we literally don't have enough people. This is only part of my point, though, and is far from being the main factor.
In terms of what we value in sport, what we find engaging and ultimately human about it, plays a bigger part in determining its essence. What makes AFL appealing? I can't speak for everyone, but, judging from a lot of comments on here, I think I can identify what makes our sport great:
* Personalities within the game. Many feel that the lack of real "characters" in the sport makes it more lifeless. I personally hate Toby Greene, but also love what he brings to the game.
* Loyalty. We all value loyalty in the AFL - allegiance to one club is seen as desirable. There's a reason someone like Brad Hill is considered a mercenary.
* Tribalism, in the sense that it's an "us against them" mentality. There's a general antagonism between Victoria and interstate sides in general, due mainly to the bullshit decisions the AFL has made in Vic's favour. Additionally, there is an actual rivalry between clubs like Port and the Crows - games between them hold greater significance in the course of the season.
* High scoring/exciting games. This is more related to the product, but it is still intimately connected with the aforementioned. An engaging game of footy is elevated by the fact it is played between Richmond and Collingwood - it's not only the game itself that is valuable, but the circumstances that play into it as well.
* The feeling of catharsis after proving everyone wrong, rising up against the odds to overcome everything, the elation of finally breaking that premiership drought/winning the flag.
* Players representing the their home club.
We find these things appealing within Aussie rules, as does every other fan of sport in general. Things that are incompatible with this human element of AFL are recognised as undesirable. You can call it all arbitrary or manipulated by the AFL (which it is, to an extent), but it's what makes our sport special. As such, viewing the sport in purely economic terms (i.e. only looking at things in terms of what makes the most money) is seen as violating the spirit of the game. We don't want sanitation and accessibility, we want real physicality and fair competition. Genuine, authentic emotion. Economic prioritisation (which is American sport's main focus) seemingly makes sport more artificial and less engaging; as such, it makes it more "competitive", prioritising an entities ability to make profit, by making the very system itself more cutthroat and unfair, is another aspect of this. We want fairness, overall, together with the aforementioned qualities that define Aussie rules (and sport in general, to a lesser extent).
Aussie rules is also made up of individual people. Note that word, individual, actual human beings. This cannot be understated. Clubs have history, which in turn is defined by the people who represent the club. Treating players as cattle violates the humanity of the player in question - and yet the American model allows this.
The main thing I'm getting at is that the AFL and the fans of it value different things. The AFL wants to increase revenue, the fans want a better spectacle, which is created by the humanity of the sport. Yet, despite this, the AFL hasn't adopted the policies that will make the competition a farce. Players don't get traded to the other side of the counter against their will. It has sanitised the sport, made it more unfair, appealled to a certain demographic more than others, but it hasn't got to the point that the very system it operates on breeds inequality. You don't have a situation where every player is basically a mercenary, or the sport itself is the ultimate moneymaking machine. Thankfully we haven't approached the realm of the EPL yet.
How does this all relate to the question of the title? Well, all I'm pointing to is the fact you can't look at sport in economical terms. You can't view it as a "product" that is purely for consumption. There's more to it than that. When you see people suggesting that St Kilda should be abolished to improve the "product", or make it more fair, they're ignoring the fact that this club is made up of a number of individuals who have represented it over a long time. Abolishing it would basically be saying "Hey, we recognise the fact that you exist, but you aren't entertaining enough, and this means you're not generating enough money, so * off". It's ignoring the fact that the club actually has fans, represents people, and ultimately has an element of humanity to it. These clubs go against the moneymaking value of sport; they actually are an aspect of what we value about Aussie rules.
