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

[Jack Richards]

Considering that it was originally intended to support clubs on the bottom bring in good talent to rebuild, it has become a joke.

How many top end free agents have gone "Yep I want to go play for North?"

If anything, it had made a 2 tier competition where free agents from bottom clubs want to go to the top clubs.

Eddie hit the nail on the head: Only way to combat this is allow clubs to trade players to whoever gives them the best deal if they want out.

 

[Jack Richards]

The solution is to get rid of FA, like I said in my original post

They will never get rid of FA though. The players have way too much say now. They hold clubs over a barrel and demand to go to one club only when looking for trades especially if they are preagents where they can either demand a trade or a decent pay rise (at the risk of clubs losing them for nothing if they dont give it to them).

 

[Jack Richards]

Lots of free agents move to lower clubs.

Name them (by lower clubs I assume have moved from top 8 or premiership winning clubs).

 

[Jack Richards]

Gettable mentioned possible sign-on bonus mechanism for FA going to bottom clubs.

Won't help one iota.

 

[Jack Richards]

These are the changes that need to be made immediately:

1. Top 4 finishing teams are excluded from bringing in free agents in the subsequent free agency period
2. Father son rule abolished as of 2030
3. Academies reconfigured between all clubs in terms of regions and only 3 academy players per club allowed on primary list at any given time
4. All players on a second or subsequent contract are eligible to be traded without consent
5. All drafted players are ineligible to be traded until end of two year contract (Scrap 3 year contracts for top 20)

This clears the draft right up and actually allows rebuilds.

Add that if any player request a trade, they forfeit the right to nominate a club of their choice. The current club they play at can seek the best deal for them from any club.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Won't help one iota.

Yep sounds a bit like first home buyer bonus meant to make houses more affordable

 

[Jack Richards]

I cannot see it happening, and to be frank I don't want to, either.

I think it only really works in North America because, frankly, they have a culture of treating their employees like shit. It won't fly in a place like Australia.

We accept early-career military and early-career doctors being thrown all over the country/state, but that's about it, where there is a direct and urgent higher national wellbeing need. I don't think playing footy qualifies.

I would love it to happen but only if a player wants out.

And your statement about it working in America is wrong. They accept it as they get paid damn well and know it is a business.

AFL players lately have been treating clubs like rubbish with demanding to be traded to one club only before being free agents. We now have a two tiered system and clubs need to have some more power given back.

Some draftees have even been tampering by saying words along the line of "prefer to stay in my current state" or "most likely wont re-sign beyond my initial contract" to determine interstate clubs... Wingard and Perkins did it.

Hardwick hit the nail on the head when he said clubs invest hundreds of thousands into players and get them up to afl level and they walk out before the clubs can even get the best out of them. How can clubs like North build a culture and competitive team if players keep on leaving before they get the chance to climb up?

 

[Jack Richards]

There is one easy solution that kind of gets overlooked here - hold the player to the contract. All this bleating that the media goes on about with "contracts meaning nothing" - well, they mean something if you decide they do. Trades under contract need the consent of all three parties involved.

Too risky. Yes you can hold them to their contract but risk them sitting out and pull the mental health card or take extended leave periods. Cam McCarthy did this (not saying he didnt have legitimate mental health issues).

Could also destabilise the playing group knowing a bloke doesn't want to be there.

 

[Scotland]

Considering that it was originally intended to support clubs on the bottom bring in good talent to rebuild, it has become a joke.

How many top end free agents have gone "Yep I want to go play for North?"

If anything, it had made a 2 tier competition where free agents from bottom clubs want to go to the top clubs.

Eddie hit the nail on the head: Only way to combat this is allow clubs to trade players to whoever gives them the best deal if they want out.

It worked this year, but that took TDK getting $1.8m for that to happen. Which is not really the system working if a player of his calibre (he's OK but 8 years in isn't near an AA team) becomes one of the top paid players. St Kilda have 20% of the cap tied up in two players. Which may work out fine but you don't see Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney out there offering massive overs to attract players.

 

[Jack Richards]

It worked this year, but that took TDK getting $1.8m for that to happen. Which is not really the system working if a player of his calibre (he's OK but 8 years in isn't near an AA team) becomes one of the top paid players. St Kilda have 20% of the cap tied up in two players. Which may work out fine but you don't see Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney out there offering massive overs to attract players.

I thought Barrass and Battle soaked up some $$$

 

[Scotland]

Too risky. Yes you can hold them to their contract but risk them sitting out and pull the mental health card or take extended leave periods. Cam McCarthy did this (not saying he didnt have legitimate mental health issues).

Could also destabilise the playing group knowing a bloke doesn't want to be there.

There is an easy fix to a lot of this.

You don't get to nominate for the NBA draft then go wherever you want and write your own cheque after 3 years. You have to earn your stripes and if you want to get paid your team effectively owns you for the first 8 years of your career. By the same token if you don't want to maximise your earnings or your team doesn't want you you have a lot of flexibility.

Someone like NWM has played 4 seasons and just had a breakout year. I have no issue with St Kilda being able to pay him a lot of money. As much as I love Harley Reid he has done relatively **** all so far and shouldn't really be eligible for $2m a year from 2027, yet. But here we are. Tom Boyd, Tom Scully, JHF. There are plenty of moves that really shouldn't have happened the way they did.

The AFL need to get their head around qualifying offers and rookie extensions. If the club that drafted a player can offer say 3 years $1m a year then any other club should be able to offer two years at 75%. No one is forcing you to stay where you are, but if you want to play in the AFL system and make AFL money you need to follow AFL rules. You want to move you can accept 2 yeas $750k and then your new club has your rights and can extend you for whatever they like. Etc.

Would not surprise me if the AFLPA start pushing for draftee contracts to be increased next.

I thought Barrass and Battle soaked up some $$$

They would be on less than a million each. I doubt either are getting paid 50-100% more than market value like TDK.

 

[iameviljez]

Too risky. Yes you can hold them to their contract but risk them sitting out and pull the mental health card or take extended leave periods. Cam McCarthy did this (not saying he didnt have legitimate mental health issues).

Could also destabilise the playing group knowing a bloke doesn't want to be there.

They may well - but that is the price to pay.

 

[Freomaniac]

I wonder what Dean Gore is up to these days.

Apart from sitting at sportsman's quiz nights and dreading the inevitable question coming up about him.

His career will be always be defined by one thing: the Patrick Dangerfield trade

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Well then the club can just choose not to trade them IMO.

If the club decides to front end a contract, that’s their risk to take.

Yes but managers shouldn't be encouraging players to fake their way out of front ended deals so they can get a better cut.

 

[Atomboy]

Equalisation is working so well for the AFL though View attachment 2428105

The best solution to this conundrum is to get rid of some clubs.

Or add some.

Or both.

 

[iameviljez]

Yes but managers shouldn't be encouraging players to fake their way out of front ended deals so they can get a better cut.

I don’t think it’s a deliberate thing.

Often deals are front ended when playing for shitty clubs because of the salary cap floor.

 

[iameviljez]

Yes but managers shouldn't be encouraging players to fake their way out of front ended deals so they can get a better cut.

I don’t think it’s a deliberate thing.

Often deals are front ended when playing for shitty clubs because of the salary cap floor.

The flip side would be that if a player on a back ended deal moves, the club should have to pay them?

 

[Jack Richards]

Yes but managers shouldn't be encouraging players to fake their way out of front ended deals so they can get a better cut.

If a manager isnt doing that to get more $$$ for their client (and as such more $$ for themselves), they ain't doing their job.

Pretty sure Connors said that all the GC managers early on were encouraging their "stable" who played for the Suns to sign highly inflated extensions before seeking a trade home as they knew the Suns were desperate to retain top drafted players.

 

[BrisbaneBlue]

Came across an interesting article by Jon Ralph for the Herald Sun. It's an opinion piece, and whatever you think of the man's reporting, he might just have a point that you agree with this time round.

I think the following quote summarises his point effectively:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/wreck-it-ralph-why-free-agency-has-become-an-unmitigated-disaster-as-a-player-movement-mechanism/news-story/822e0430215ca2feabe9fabf964e1ecc?amp

And an AI generated summary via CoPilot:

---

Main Argument​

The AFL’s free agency system, introduced in 2012 to give players more flexibility, has devolved into a chaotic and flawed mechanism that disproportionately benefits players while burdening clubs.

---

Key Points​

• Player Leverage & Long-Term Deals:
  • Players like Jordan Ridley, Charlie Curnow, and Zach Merrett are now stuck in long-term contracts they willingly signed, chasing security and money. These deals have made them wealthy but unhappy, and now they want out.
• “Pre-agency” Pressure:
  • Clubs are pressured to offer massive extensions years before free agency to avoid losing players, leading to inflated contracts (e.g., Aaron Naughton’s 8-year deal).
• Unbalanced Outcomes:
  • Clubs like Geelong and Brisbane have benefited from free agency, while others like North Melbourne have gained little.
  • Players with modest achievements (e.g., Jack Silvagni, Sam Draper) are landing multi-million dollar deals due to market inflation.
• Essendon’s Dilemma:
  • Merrett and Ridley both re-signed multiple times, believing in the club’s future, but now want to leave due to lack of success.
  • Essendon may hold them to their contracts, despite their dissatisfaction.
• Carlton & Curnow:
  • Curnow signed a six-year deal due to injury concerns but now wants out. Carlton may resist unless a strong trade offer emerges.
• Melbourne’s Example:
  • Similar issues with Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver, who signed long-term deals and later regretted them.
• Club Risks vs. Player Security:
  • Clubs are forced to make long-term bets on players’ futures.
  • Players enjoy rising salaries, job security, and protections (e.g., illicit drug policy), but clubs can’t reduce pay for underperformance.

---

Conclusion​

While free agency has empowered players financially and contractually, it has created instability and inequity in the AFL. Clubs are left with little leverage, and the system now seems to favor player power at the expense of competitive balance and long-term planning.

I have thought a lot about this subject, as it does seem to be a two tier system, but I don't think it is just about free agency. I also think it has a lot to do with player development. You look at clubs like Geelong, Hawthorn, Brisbane, Sydney, Richmond (Recently), Adelaide and they have done really well in developing players. You look at Brisbane and they have had really good father sons, and a great academy, but they have also developed talent. Look at some of their picks - Darcy Wilmot (16), Darcy Gardiner (22), Kai Lohman (20), Oscar M (Rookie), Logan Morris (31), Ryan Lester (Rookie), Zorko (effectively rookie), Starcevich (18) and others. They don't seem to miss. The players they draft high play to a high standard. Geelong is the same, and Hawthorn seem to follow the same model. Players also go there as they see other players improving, and they recruit to fill gaps rather than just to get big name players. I think the gap will remain until clubs show this level of commitment to their players. Gold Coast seem to be on this path, but most of the bottom half teams are not developing their players as well as the top tier and they are recruiting for names, no gaps.

 

[iameviljez]

I have thought a lot about this subject, as it does seem to be a two tier system, but I don't think it is just about free agency. I also think it has a lot to do with player development. You look at clubs like Geelong, Hawthorn, Brisbane, Sydney, Richmond (Recently), Adelaide and they have done really well in developing players. You look at Brisbane and they have had really good father sons, and a great academy, but they have also developed talent. Look at some of their picks - Darcy Wilmot (16), Darcy Gardiner (22), Kai Lohman (20), Oscar M (Rookie), Logan Morris (31), Ryan Lester (Rookie), Zorko (effectively rookie), Starcevich (18) and others. They don't seem to miss. The players they draft high play to a high standard. Geelong is the same, and Hawthorn seem to follow the same model. Players also go there as they see other players improving, and they recruit to fill gaps rather than just to get big name players. I think the gap will remain until clubs show this level of commitment to their players. Gold Coast seem to be on this path, but most of the bottom half teams are not developing their players as well as the top tier and they are recruiting for names, no gaps.

The talent around the star acquisitions absolutely helps - but at the end of the day, when someone needs to strap on the Superman cape down at Geelong, it’s usually Dangerfield, Cameron or Smith.

 

[SinCitySainter]

I believe the biggest issue with free agency is the way the salary cap is managed. There should be no salary cap floor. Clubs should be allowed to bank as much cash as they can and use it as sign on bonuses for free agents only. However, there should be a hard upper cap which includes any brand ambassador payments, jobs or girlfriends and family, cheap or no interest loans. Every club's cap is then audited each year and if you are over the salary cap your points tally is reduced by a commensurate amount before the finals start.

There will never be equality at AFL level, some clubs will always be more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). We will always have unfair draws, favourable deals for the non-traditional markets, and big name players getting arm chair rides by the umpires and the tribunal.
Unfortunately, it is only supporters and smaller clubs that want equality. The AFL don't, the big clubs don't, the AFLPA don't and the media don't. The AFL would love nothing more than if they could ensure the GF was played between two power clubs every year.

 

[BrisbaneBlue]

I believe the biggest issue with free agency is the way the salary cap is managed. There should be no salary cap floor. Clubs should be allowed to bank as much cash as they can and use it as sign on bonuses for free agents only. However, there should be a hard upper cap which includes any brand ambassador payments, jobs or girlfriends and family, cheap or no interest loans. Every club's cap is then audited each year and if you are over the salary cap your points tally is reduced by a commensurate amount before the finals start.

There will never be equality at AFL level, some clubs will always be more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell). We will always have unfair draws, favourable deals for the non-traditional markets, and big name players getting arm chair rides by the umpires and the tribunal.
Unfortunately, it is only supporters and smaller clubs that want equality. The AFL don't, the big clubs don't, the AFLPA don't and the media don't. The AFL would love nothing more than if they could ensure the GF was played between two power clubs every year.

I think you may be right, but a lot of this is professionalism of clubs. The really successful clubs have great culture, professional administration, and strong strategic plans. The less successful are reactionary, unprofessional, and blame cultures. People want to work where they know where they are going and will be looked after. The churn at less successful clubs is high, at more professional clubs, they mostly look after their players. Players want to be looked after. I look at Brisbane, they had a real go-home problem until they changed their culture to really look after players, build strong development coaching, and stop churning players.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

They didn’t learn much from the short lived 10 year rule circa 1972.

North voted against it but signed 3 guns, including club captains, and they were wooden spooners.

Now, it is more useful for clubs in the window and the likes of Brad Scott who papers over the cracks to get a contract extension.

It is also useful for players and their managers to get lengthy contract extensions on mere potential, or recent performance.

Not so useful if a club just signed a JUH to a long term deal.