Opinion "Why free agency has become an unmitigated disaster as a player movement mechanism"

[stallon]

The solution is to get rid of the salary cap and instead have a luxury tax system. Free agency works well when a salary cap doesn’t exist. NBA being a great example

Agree

 

[Lore]

Vic 7mil people 10 teams 700k per team
Wa 3 mil people 2 teams 1.5mil per team
Sa 2mil people 2 teams 1mil per team

Vic has too many teams bruh no matter what way you look at it

If young players from vic(mostly metro) knew they didnt have a greater than 50% chance to stay in their home state they'd be less likely to set themselves up for failure by getting their hopes up of staying home, like all the non vic kids(and a lot of the vic country kids) do.

I did those numbers back in 2019, and I'd do it again except that the Players' states of origin are really hard to figure out, you have to know where particular schools are located based on their draft application and where they did their U18s footy, which is long and complicated. That said, I don't think it would've changed much other than NSW and Qld might be better represented among the playing population:

Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

List sizes Club age and height profiles Salary cap information Trading rules including salary dumps Father/son & academy draft bids Free agency compensation formula & more

www.bigfooty.com

Thing is I don't think having 2.5 Victorian teams and 3 NSW teams would really work. You'd just have 2.5 extremely strong Victorian teams because the number of AFL players that come from this state doesn't match the number of teams available for them to play in. That'd really stretch the concept of a salary cap.

 

[stallon]

Or a lot more will want to return back to Vic and make Vic teams even stronger because that talent is less diluted in that state.

20% less teams means 20% less money going around in Vic, and 2 fewer teams with assets to give up in trade.

It'd be a huge benefit to the comp

 

[longdonkey]

If bottom / lower team loses a star to FA, then make the buyer cough up their equal pick. If it's a band 1 contract, then the buyer gives them their first round pick. Then give the club a compo pick after the first round. Maybe.

Problem is that you are losing a known quantity for a draft pick lottery, which if you don't nail you're ****ed and even if you do nail it, you won't see a return for 2 or 3 years.

Stop double-dipping by the club buying. You can win the flag, get a band 1 FA and still go to the draft with pick 18. That's how the inequality compounds. Low club stays low, strong club gets stronger... and therefore attract more players.

I agree with this 100%. My only issue with restricted free agency after 100 games is that the salary cap appears to be somewhat malleable at some clubs and it would just create more inequality.

 

[stallon]

I did those numbers back in 2019, and I'd do it again except that the Players' states of origin are really hard to figure out, you have to know where particular schools are located based on their draft application and where they did their U18s footy, which is long and complicated. That said, I don't think it would've changed much other than NSW and Qld might be better represented among the playing population:

View attachment 2426793View attachment 2426795View attachment 2426800

Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

List sizes Club age and height profiles Salary cap information Trading rules including salary dumps Father/son & academy draft bids Free agency compensation formula & more

www.bigfooty.com

Thing is I don't think having 2.5 Victorian teams and 3 NSW teams would really work. You'd just have 2.5 extremely strong Victorian teams because the number of AFL players that come from this state doesn't match the number of teams available for them to play in. That'd really stretch the concept of a salary cap.

Yeah doesnt work with solely population, I only used those 3 states because they're the 3 biggest footy states who don't really follow rugby.

I do think the afl directly funding Vic development pathways while the Eagles and Fremantle have to fund it in wa is a bit of a weird one though

 

[Lore]

Yeah doesnt work with solely population, I only used those 3 states because they're the 3 biggest footy states who don't really follow rugby.

I do think the afl directly funding Vic development pathways while the Eagles and Fremantle have to fund it in wa is a bit of a weird one though

I was under the impression that the WAFC don't want to give up control of it...

 

[Lore]

I agree with this 100%. My only issue with restricted free agency after 100 games is that the salary cap appears to be somewhat malleable at some clubs and it would just create more inequality.

That's why I'd offer the AFLPA 100 games FA in exchange for caps on contract length/value

 

[VDS66]

Everyone moves up.
My idea would be aiming to
1) reduce the motivation for clubs to take "free" players (without restricting their movement as such)
2) remove the impact on the draft from comp picks.

Having said that the scale of picks and bands would probably need looking at. So pick 7 compo under the current system won't translate to a pick 7 cost under my changes.
You might be giving up a r2 for example.

Hence why I suggested any compo picks after round 1.

Seller club gets their 1st (e.g. pick 3) plus the buyer's first (e.g. pick 14). The buying club must ensure they have a live pick in the round be it 1st, 2nd or whatever, based on the contract. This would require strict & transparent compo criteria from the AFL

 

[VDS66]

That's why I'd offer the AFLPA 100 games FA in exchange for caps on contract length/value

And... if a player signs a long contract like Clayton or JUH, the club must have the right to trade a player out rather than get lumped with the contract and player.

In this instance, you would trade Merrett to the club that offers the best return.

 

[Giant Pete]

Has anyone worked out the percentage of free agents that have moved to a club that is lower on the ladder?

This is clearly the biggest issue with free agency.

There needs to be more nuance with the rules. Eg, a free agent can’t move to a top 4 or 6 club from that season.

It’s ruining the competitive balance within the comp.

 

[VDS66]

I agree with this 100%. My only issue with restricted free agency after 100 games is that the salary cap appears to be somewhat malleable at some clubs and it would just create more inequality.

The idea behind RFA was that a club could match and force a trade. Once again it fails in practice. You simply bid up the player like we did with TDK and no matching. Maybe different compo criteria for RFA and UFA?

 

[Yoda_]

restrict top 4 teams from signing free agents. Simple

 

[VDS66]

Has anyone worked out the percentage of free agents that have moved to a club that is lower on the ladder?

This is clearly the biggest issue with free agency.

There needs to be more nuance with the rules. Eg, a free agent can’t move to a top 4 or 6 club from that season.

It’s ruining the competitive balance within the comp.

Not sure on specifics but it seems the ones that have are mostly cooked or nearing retirement.

FA is skewered for the good players to make bank. Which is fair enough. But we've thrown big $$$ at elite players without a bite. TDK not withstanding.

It seems that lesser players are moving to fill list gaps and are being overpaid to do so. Once again, fair enough.

 

[Lore]

And... if a player signs a long contract like Clayton or JUH, the club must have the right to trade a player out rather than get lumped with the contract and player.

In this instance, you would trade Merrett to the club that offers the best return.

That's the risk you take with a big long contract, but you'd presumably be taking that risk with a 21/22 year old, rather than a 26/27 year old, so you get a few years of something out of him before his form drops off, or perhaps time to get his form back before it's done

 

[Obeanie1]

Has anyone worked out the percentage of free agents that have moved to a club that is lower on the ladder?

This is clearly the biggest issue with free agency.

There needs to be more nuance with the rules. Eg, a free agent can’t move to a top 4 or 6 club from that season.

It’s ruining the competitive balance within the comp.

Lots of free agents move to lower clubs.

The average player who cant get a deal anywhere else.

Now quality players who make a difference. They rarely go to struggling teams, they want success, not to help a rebuild.

 

[VinnieB]

I’m not advocating for getting rid of teams, unless you want to get rid of 8 and keep 2. The advantage with FA will always be with Melbourne teams where the concentration of talent is.

You’re talking about a State. Who cares about the State?? We all follow clubs. 10 clubs in 1 State increases competition.

Supporters of teams outside of Victoria will work it out one day…..

 

[VinnieB]

Lots of free agents move to lower clubs.

The average player who cant get a deal anywhere else.

Now quality players who make a difference. They rarely go to struggling teams, they want success, not to help a rebuild.

I agree. Isn’t it incumbent on the clubs to build an environment of success where players want to go?

You only need to look at Brisbane who seem to be winning signatures.

But overall, the current free agency model doesn’t work. But why are we surprised? The AFL has been run in such an amateurish way for so long, that they bring in rules which most can see will become unfair.

By the way, A grade talent tends to stay at their club. Buddy is the only A grade player I can think of who moved during free agency.

 

[Bagger72]

Give clubs 100% control on junior development from under 16s to reserves.
Keep list sizes in tact
Get rid of salary cap
Introduce system where clubs can only spend what they earn.
Bring back the transfer system - clubs with successful junior development can cash in and pay players more enticing more to play the game.
Lift the standard of state leagues and any transfer monies they receive can be re invested into their junior academies.

 

[Tom14]

It’s a stupid rule when you have 10 teams, over half the comp, in one city.

Additionally, when they brought it in, they did so on its own with no other negotiations re other mechanisms. It was stupidly done.

I’d get rid of FA altogether or have a cap on the number you can bring in every 3-5 years.

Getting rid of compensation for any team outside the bottom 4 is the most obvious and immediate need.

FA isn't an equalisation measure though, it is a right players bargained for and clearly won't be going away. Gives them more choice and ability to move, and therefore has trickle down benefits in terms of salary and length of contract for more players.

It has had exactly the intended effect on that basis. I get that fans don't like it, but we do not have US style labour laws (and I think if you got advice from sports lawyers they'd say that free agency is critical to protecting other equalisation mechanisms like the draft from being considered a RESTRAINT OF TRADE).

I think Ralph's article is weakest when he talks about Merrett and Ridley being disadvantaged by having signed long-term contracts. So they are upset now - who cares. They got money, the club got security of term. It would be worse for Essendon if Merrett was out of contract this year as they would get less return for him.

I'd argue the problem is the age at which players are becoming FA - at 26/27 you are basically on your last opportunity for a really big, long-term deal. If the money meets the threshold you are looking for of course you are going to pick a more successful team - no one wants to spend their prime playing years stuck in a rebuilding team.

Have FA eligibility start younger (say 24/25) and players might be more open to taking the money from a weaker team as they don't feel as pressured to chase success with only 5-6 years left in their career. It's hard to commit to a rebuilding club at that later stage of their career.

I'd say all become RFA with 6 years of service (and you could look at mandating lower salaries for 1-4 year players as they did in the last CBA for 1-3 year players), and then unrestricted free agency could start at 8 years.

Abolish FA compo or make it start from the end of the second round, forcing bottom teams to match RFAs and force trades - that imposes a cost on the best teams to get deals done, and avoids 16 other teams being disadvantaged by high compensation picks distorting the draft. It would mean that Brisbane this year couldn't do both Oscar Allen and Draper, for example.

The players won't agree to wind back free agency and the league does not want industrial action on that issue.

So you have to find a way to make it work so that the best teams face a real cost to picking up FA, and players become more open to moving to weaker teams for more $ which just doesn't really happen at the age at which they currently become FA.

 

[Toppa]

Few ideas.

Salary cap:
Has to remain except remove the minimum amount that needs to be paid whatever that percentage is. Allow clubs to build thru the draft banking as much cash as they want which they can then spend when they think they are ready. Kind of exists now but there is a time limit forcing clubs to use or lose scenario. This seems ridiculous if the club isnt ready (list isnt ready) and you see these massive inflated salaries for ordinary players.

Draft:
I'd make it entirely off limits.
F/S can stay but the onus is on the club to trade into the draft to get same, or wait until post 1st contract and pay the club who has them the required cost.

Academies:
Every club has one. How much they spend towards its effectiveness is upto th3m. They then nominate x number of players they add to senior list. Everyone else can then nominate for draft and end up anywhere.

Players vs clubs:
Player wants to move = not problem. You can nominate your home state snd club can deal with best offer.

Contracted players:
Clubs can trade players against their will after a period of say 3 years (if long term contract is signed)

List sizes:
Cut to 35. Ability to add upto 3 as an example of excessive injuries occur.
Increases salary average across the list which supports moving contracted players and the costs of moving house etc.

 

[Elixuh]

FA isn't an equalisation measure though, it is a right players bargained for and clearly won't be going away. Gives them more choice and ability to move, and therefore has trickle down benefits in terms of salary and length of contract for more players.

It has had exactly the intended effect on that basis. I get that fans don't like it, but we do not have US style labour laws (and I think if you got advice from sports lawyers they'd say that free agency is critical to protecting other equalisation mechanisms like the draft from being considered a RESTRAINT OF TRADE).

I think Ralph's article is weakest when he talks about Merrett and Ridley being disadvantaged by having signed long-term contracts. So they are upset now - who cares. They got money, the club got security of term. It would be worse for Essendon if Merrett was out of contract this year as they would get less return for him.

I'd argue the problem is the age at which players are becoming FA - at 26/27 you are basically on your last opportunity for a really big, long-term deal. If the money meets the threshold you are looking for of course you are going to pick a more successful team - no one wants to spend their prime playing years stuck in a rebuilding team.

Have FA eligibility start younger (say 24/25) and players might be more open to taking the money from a weaker team as they don't feel as pressured to chase success with only 5-6 years left in their career. It's hard to commit to a rebuilding club at that later stage of their career.

I'd say all become RFA with 6 years of service (and you could look at mandating lower salaries for 1-4 year players as they did in the last CBA for 1-3 year players), and then unrestricted free agency could start at 8 years.

Abolish FA compo or make it start from the end of the second round, forcing bottom teams to match RFAs and force trades - that imposes a cost on the best teams to get deals done, and avoids 16 other teams being disadvantaged by high compensation picks distorting the draft. It would mean that Brisbane this year couldn't do both Oscar Allen and Draper, for example.

The players won't agree to wind back free agency and the league does not want industrial action on that issue.

So you have to find a way to make it work so that the best teams face a real cost to picking up FA, and players become more open to moving to weaker teams for more $ which just doesn't really happen at the age at which they currently become FA.

I would worry for the northern clubs and even WA re ability to attract and retain talent compared to other clubs in the league, particularly those in the VFL.

I get the idea that money talks, but the 10 clubs in the VFL operate under the same cap and likely have access to more third party RORTS.

Maybe just remove compensation except for bottom 4 clubs or something.

 

[Tom14]

I would worry for the northern clubs and even WA re ability to attract and retain talent compared to other clubs in the league, particularly those in the VFL.

I get the idea that money talks, but the 10 clubs in the VFL operate under the same cap and likely have access to more third party RORTS.

Maybe just remove compensation except for bottom 4 clubs or something.

Yeah, its a fair second guess. But genie is out of the bottle - end of the day, those teams need to improve themselves (including their CULCHA) and deal with the fact that the comp isn't equal.

 

[Elixuh]

Yeah, its a fair second guess. But genie is out of the bottle - end of the day, those teams need to improve themselves (including their CULCHA) and deal with the fact that the comp isn't equal.

Yep. Like I said in an earlier post the real error was not negotiating anything else with FA, at the time.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

It also screws the draft. We've seen chat about changes to the F/S and Academy lately, but at least for these, the clubs have to pay a draft price. The Free Agency compo doesn't cost the purchasing club anything. And to my mind is way more damaging to the integrity of the draft than F/S and Academies.

The AFL doesn't care about Free Agencies impact on the draft. Its basically their current way of supplying priority picks to clubs. As the best compensation a club can achieve is after their first round pick, top teams getting free agency compensation impact the first round pick of bottom teams. And when a bottom team gets band 1 compo, other bottom teams are missing out on a player to a team that is worse than them.

Further to this, some may argue that salary cap is the trade off, but an expanding salary cap and clever salary management has largely meant that this is a non-factor. We see players take pay cuts for team success. With the rise of social media, more exposure to big finals means more brand deals and building your individual brand. It's free marketing and offsets any pay cuts they may have taken.

What is the incentive to be playing at an unsuccessful club at the moment? Not much really.

The biggest problem with the salary cap is the amount of money that players can earn outside of it.

Taking slightly less pay to go to a highly successful team? Well that's unlinkely to have a financial impact because moving to the more successful team allows a player to partake in more blockbuster games, get more exposure on television. This gets them more media appearance offers (and pay), more offers from external companies for appearances. Basically any reduction in pay for going to a top side is more than offset by extra financial options.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

I would worry for the northern clubs and even WA re ability to attract and retain talent compared to other clubs in the league, particularly those in the VFL.

I get the idea that money talks, but the 10 clubs in the VFL operate under the same cap and likely have access to more third party RORTS.

Maybe just remove compensation except for bottom 4 clubs or something.

Its already been said in this thread - but the Victorian clubs are not a monolith.

Do you really think Collingwood and the Bulldogs have the same financial resources at their disposal. West Coast is operating closer to Collingwood than the Bulldogs are.