Moved Thread What is wrong with AFL players being paid a lot?

Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Posts
1,759
Likes
1,572
AFL Club
Geelong
Thread starter #1
I constantly all the time people complaining about AFL players being paid so much.

Some facts:-

1) Being an AFL footballer is a profession- This is actually their job. For those who say that they should get in the "real world and get a real job" this is their real job.

VFL players once used to be "part-time" and worked other jobs, but that changed for two reasons:-

1) Other sports were becoming "full-time" professional, so footy followed suit.

2) The clubs require it- I remember reading that Allan Jeans was the first to suggest AFL players being full-time when the Hawthorn players quit their jobs and became full-time. This allowed them extra time to train, and get ahead of all other clubs. The Hawks won the flag that year, so then other coaches also followed suit.

So if the AFL clubs require their players to be at the club at their beckon call, then the players need to be paid more for that, since they now can't hold down another full-time job, so that they have to go to 6am recovery session, 5.30am training or an 11am tactical meeting, or any of the other ******** meetings AFL clubs hold.

2) Being an AFL player is an "honest" living- They aren't committing a crime. They are legally making their money, so what is the problem?

Other professions have highly paid professionals too. Doctors get paid a lot. So do lawyers, CEOs, and even other entertainers, like musicians and actors. How come people don't seem to have any problem with them making a mint, yet frown on AFL footballers making money?

People here bagged players for wanting a cut of the AFL TV rights deal, and many of you said that they get paid too much now. Yet a lot of you think ambos should be paid more, and didn't criticize the ambulance union spokesperson when they suggested "go-slows" or keeping patients waiting, (thus putting lives at risk), unless they got a payrise? Yet the players threaten to go on strike, unless they get a slice of a TV deal which they are an instrumental part of, and you all bag them for it.

Also, the ******** of them having to be a "good role model" because they are paid so much. SO WHAT? An AFL player is paid to perform on the field. If he doesn't try his hardest, or play his best game, you as a supporter, as a member, have the right to question whether they have earned your money or not.

But what they do off the field is none of your business. Your boss doesn't have a right to monitor your actions 24/7 (I believe that, unless your off-the-clock behaviour affects your ability to perform the job your boss is paying you for, then it is none of his business otherwise). Why should a player's behaviour be determined on their pay packet? Does that mean that a first year player getting a rookie wage doesn't have to behave himself as well as a highly-paid player?

Also, how come being a "role model" isn't a requirement for other professions? Who scruitinises doctors, and holds them to account (considering that I have never read about malpractice suits in the media, then it seems like no doctor ever does anything worth questioning)? Doctors' decision determine lives, so they need to be held to a higher standard than AFL players, and so should get MORE criticism and press when they stuff up than an AFL footballer does.

What about CEOs? Are they "good role models"? They sack 2,000 workers, than get paid millions while making lots of people jobless. Is that to be commended? Yet the media don't seem to condemn CEOs of companies who do this.

Also, other entertainers, such as rock musicians and actors, also get paid a lot, simply to entertain, yet aren't expected to be "role models". Musicians have a reputation for "sleeping around with multiple women, using drugs, getting drunk, smashing property" yet people don't hold them to account for it, all because they can sing a song or play an instrument. Yet if an AFL footballer did the same thing, they would be criticised by people who don't have a problem with the Rolling Stones" hedonistic lifestyle.

AFL players cop it for their treatment of women, yet the same feminazis say nothing about a rap artist having scantily clad women gyrating sexually in a music video.

Actors and actresses promote violence and sex all the time, when they shoot someone on screen or strip off and do a sex scene. Yet their values aren't questioned according to the money they are paid for roles.

Finally, what about journos? Tell me that Caro, Robbo, Ralphie, Whateley and the numerous ex-footballers who are in the media don't make a handsome buck writing articles and being on TV and radio shows. They get paid a lot for simply stating an opinion (which doesn't require any talent), yet hypocritically bag players and complain that they are paid too much (for something that actually requires talent).

AFL players also don't get endorsement deals, or image and rights deals, like other sportspeople do.

Maybe the problem is really (a) the AFL is the most successful sport in town, and it is a big poppy, and (b) a lot of the whingers are untalented, jealous, insecure losers who can't understand why someone gets paid more for doing something that looks like fun, while you slave away in your **** job (maybe lack of football talent has something to do with it).

Also, if you complain about what they are paid, and yet go to the footy, then you are a hypocrite. Why? Because YOU are paying money at the gate, or buying a membership, which filters back partly to player wages. So, you are part of the problem.

So, either get off your high horse, and get over your insecurity of what players are paid, and either hold them to account for their efforts and performances during a game, and nowhere else, or stop going to the footy, stop buying memberships or merchandise, stop paying for Foxtel to get Fox Footy, and stop buying from companies who advertise during the footy. That way, you are not paying ONE CENT towards the game or player wages. Then, and only then, do you have a right to criticise player wages.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Smartest Brain

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Posts
3,095
Likes
1,741
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
GWS
#4
Because capitalism is evil and we want communism. Don't you watch the news? Why should afl players be paid more than a gardener or brick layer? What is more important to society?
 

jason pm

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Posts
15,195
Likes
27,412
Location
Omnipresent.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fortitude Valley Diehards. Chelsea.
#5
We have a long way to go-
  • $325 million: Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins, 13 years.
  • $300 million: Manny Machado, Padres, 10 years.
  • $275 million: Alex Rodriguez, Yankees, 10 years.
  • $260 million: Nolan Arenado, Rockies, 8 years.
  • $252 million: Rodriguez, Rangers, 10 years.
  • $248 million: Miguel Cabrera, Tigers, 8 years.

  • Kevin De Bruyne — £280,000 weekly ($19.1 million annually) ...
  • Paul Pogba — £290,000 weekly ($19.8 million annually) ...
  • Mesut Özil — £306,250 weekly ($20.9 million annually) ...
  • Alexis Sanchez — £315,000 weekly ($21.5 million annually)
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Posts
1,403
Likes
2,215
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#6
Because if the taller poppies get more sunlight then us smaller poppies will get less sunlight.

So we should try to chop the taller poppies down.
 

the harry

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Posts
11,408
Likes
9,154
AFL Club
West Coast
#9
People still sook that the PM gets paid too much money, when your average Banking or Corporate executive earns 10 times as much.

And we all wonder why we can never seem to find a good PM.

Not that I like many of our PM's, but banking execs is hardly the standard we want either.
 

100action

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Posts
5,859
Likes
5,176
Location
Mogadishu
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#10
You deserve whatever the market is willing to pay for you. This is the all determining factor. Nothing else matters.

There is no such thing as deserving to be paid 'more' or 'less'.

You can be the gun recruit that rakes your boss $10m a day in sales but if that PA is giving him mindblowing BJs, and he values that more, guess what? she is going to get paid more than you.
 

SBYM

Fish, chips, cup 'o tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Posts
13,012
Likes
21,836
Location
SE15
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool
#11
We have a long way to go-
  • $325 million: Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins, 13 years.
  • $300 million: Manny Machado, Padres, 10 years.
  • $275 million: Alex Rodriguez, Yankees, 10 years.
  • $260 million: Nolan Arenado, Rockies, 8 years.
  • $252 million: Rodriguez, Rangers, 10 years.
  • $248 million: Miguel Cabrera, Tigers, 8 years.

  • Kevin De Bruyne — £280,000 weekly ($19.1 million annually) ...
  • Paul Pogba — £290,000 weekly ($19.8 million annually) ...
  • Mesut Özil — £306,250 weekly ($20.9 million annually) ...
  • Alexis Sanchez — £315,000 weekly ($21.5 million annually)
All I took from this is that Alexis Sanchez is a ******* thief.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Man0gwaR74

All Australian
Suspended
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Posts
882
Likes
582
AFL Club
Geelong
#13
Tl;dr but the more the highest players get, the less other players in the team get and it is a team sport so the more that the highest earners get, the shitter the team becomes; If the mercenaries want to chase the money then GTFO but don't expect premiership glory!
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Posts
1,759
Likes
1,572
AFL Club
Geelong
Thread starter #15
Tl;dr but the more the highest players get, the less other players in the team get and it is a team sport so the more that the highest earners get, the shitter the team becomes; If the mercenaries want to chase the money then GTFO but don't expect premiership glory!

True, but the clubs offer them this money.

It sounds like that you are referring to Buddy. If Buddy asked for too much money, Sydney could have said "No" and refused to pay him that, and risk someone else paying it instead (I heard GWS was interested).

I remember a player named Xavier Richards. He was a first-year Sydney premiership player in 2012. After the flag, he wanted a massive payrise, or he would go to another club. Sydney refused to pay it, and he went into the draft, and no-one else picked him up either. He had priced himself out of football.

A player can ask for lots of money, but clubs don't have to accept the offer. Maybe direct some of the blame on AFL clubs, who spend outrageous fortunes on players who don't deliver a flag (like Buddy and Tippett at Sydney). Look at how many other players have left Sydney since they came, and Tippett was an expensive bust that the Swans are still paying for.

Also, why do you think clubs like the Brisbane 2001-2003 sides, Geelong 2007-2011 and Hawthorn 2013-15 sides had so much success? Because players refused bigger paypackets at other clubs, to stay together for success, and that model genuinely proves to work better.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,598
Likes
8,604
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
#16
Don’t really care, butnot many jobs you can get paid big money and not perform and then get to do it year after year.
The salary cap floor is 20% to high, no side finishing bottom should be spending what the premiers spend.

In fact if you really want to play for money and you’re a good but not great player then it’s Hollywood playing at a bottom club because you will be paid as an elite player when you’re not.
 

Juddernaut08

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
4,966
Likes
5,038
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
#18
Entertainment as an industry, includes Music, Movies, Sport and other things.

By in large, anything in entertainment makes money based on how popular it is.

Does Taylor Swift "deserve" her wealth? Does Russell Crowe "deserve" his millions? Their wealth and pay has nothing to do with whether they deserve it, just their popularity and their respective industry's ability to generate money.

Same with any Sport. The more popular it is, the more money will be in the pie, to be split between the players.

AFL is very popular, and so the salaries are very good. Do they deserve it? That's irrelevant, the fact is it's based on popularity.
 

legend166

Premium Platinum
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Posts
10,317
Likes
8,332
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
#19
Generally the argument in the US goes like this:

The money has to go somewhere. And since the teams are ostensibly for-profit enterprises owned by billionaires, it's better for the money to go to the people actually providing the product (the players) than the owners. It's really difficult to argue against this, even though it seems counter-intuitive that someone playing baseball or basketball should earn $30-40 million a year.

The problem in applying that same argument to the AFL is that the AFL is not a for-profit enterprise, and neither are any of the teams. And yet they clearly make decisions for revenue sake all the time that come at the expense of the fan - the biggest example being the majority of games being sold to pay TV.

The AFL is popular enough that no matter what happens, the players are going to make a lot of money. But I think it's reasonable to ask why, in a league that should not be a profit making enterprise, decisions are made to increase revenue rather than accessibility to the fan, and that directly leads to higher salaries for players.
 

NoobPie

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Posts
4,347
Likes
2,849
AFL Club
Collingwood
#20
Generally the argument in the US goes like this:

The money has to go somewhere. And since the teams are ostensibly for-profit enterprises owned by billionaires, it's better for the money to go to the people actually providing the product (the players) than the owners. It's really difficult to argue against this, even though it seems counter-intuitive that someone playing baseball or basketball should earn $30-40 million a year.

The problem in applying that same argument to the AFL is that the AFL is not a for-profit enterprise, and neither are any of the teams. And yet they clearly make decisions for revenue sake all the time that come at the expense of the fan - the biggest example being the majority of games being sold to pay TV.

The AFL is popular enough that no matter what happens, the players are going to make a lot of money. But I think it's reasonable to ask why, in a league that should not be a profit making enterprise, decisions are made to increase revenue rather than accessibility to the fan, and that directly leads to higher salaries for players.
I agree largely with this comment. This is why the AFL players only get 28% of the game's revenues rather than ~50% that players in US sports get.

The reason that there is still a legitimate trade off between revenue and "accessibility to the fan" is because it is not all about the (today's) fan either. The AFL spends a lot of money of supporting the grass roots, elite pathways and broader growth. 72% of more revenue doesn't go into the players pockets.

I think the AFL generally has the balance right in terms of maintaining accessibility for today's fan over pure revenue maximisation.
 
Top Bottom