Opinion Will Brisbane’s win finally spell the end of the Academies?

[ibd77]

Brisbane give up their academy picks. Victoria never hosts a grand final again. Fair trade off?

With talk of a MCG redevelopment, GF will likely be open to other cities hosting it. That is until the MCG is completed and then they extend exclusive rights for another 50 years.

 

[PTizzle]

Both GFs have been by huge margins. A vocal minority might want to have a sook but it would've made no difference. An immediate wall of excuses for their terrible teams tbh.

 

[Colonial]

You can't even hang on to your academy picks. It hasn't benefitted the Giants much at all, only Briggs, Himmelberg and Thomas play regular senior footy. Steele, Cumming, Perryman, Williams and Flynn all pissed off.
You wouldn't miss it if it went, Giants have the weakest academy region of all of the Northern clubs.

So you should say thank you for us helping so many in the comp.

I have many issues with our off field leadership regarding how they run things.

Doesn’t change my thoughts on the northern academies.

 

[YeoShuey]

Brisbane give up their academy picks. Victoria never hosts a grand final again. Fair trade off?

If it were up to me, I'd kick the interstate teams out of the AFL because that's where most of the complainers are from.

At the same time, fixes the academy problem.

 

[bear3]

A genetic lucky dip is distinctly different to a system where Queensland clubs get exclusive and subsidized access to the best players in a state which now has a higher AFL participation rate than WA, wouldn’t you think?

brisbane dont get "exclusive" access to academy players thats nonsense any club can bid on any academy player northern clubs only get a discount,20% if i recall as we run it because the afl don't want to do it

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Just like Victorian sides home ground advantage in AFL Grand finals LoL

Vic vs non-Vic GFs in Victoria

Vic teams 11
Non-Vic teams 10

No advantage

 

[Philhawk]

brisbane dont get "exclusive" access to academy players thats nonsense any club can bid on any academy player northern clubs only get a discount,20% if i recall as we run it because the afl don't want to do it

What?

So tell me, let’s assume Annabel goes top 3 in the draft, how do any other club who didn’t finish bottom 3 get access to him?

 

[Philhawk]

Because father-son is a tradition supposedly important to the fans of clubs.

And the academies are supposedly a very effective way of securing teenage athletic talent which would otherwise drift to sports that are more popular locally.

If neither of those things are true then sure, scrap them.

Are father sons available to all clubs?

Are academies?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

You could have said around 40% and you still would have been wrong. Perhaps you should be questioning your own intelligence level mate.

Brisbane membership 2025 - 75115

50% of 75115 = 37557

75115 + 37557 = 112672

U need to head back to Kumon brother

 

[Toffee Lion]

I think there needs to be more fairness around the entire system, no debate.

But I do wonder how many of these "top" academy products would actually make it to the AFL if it weren't for the academy pathways. Which was kind of the entire point of the system when put in place, seems it's done well in that regard.

I see arguments about clubs not having access to the likes of Annable but it's not like there aren't other top kids available to then choose from. If the academy didn't exist, Annable might not have even made AFL.

Clearly there needs to be a higher price and a tighten of the system but I definitely disagree with doing rid of the academy altogether, that's nonsense and overreactionary.

As for Father Son's, which is a seperate conversation, it's a luck of the draw system available to all clubs.

 

[Philhawk]

I don’t mind a proper debate on the issues, but let’s keep it to the substance. Throwing around words like “crybaby” and “chump” doesn’t really move the discussion forward.

On the MCG, everyone recognises it is not a level playing field. The Grand Final contract is locked in for decades because it is a commercial decision. The AFL secured guaranteed money, guaranteed crowd sizes, and a guaranteed spectacle. That deal underpins the financial model of the league. Without it, the AFL cannot distribute hundreds of millions back to the clubs each year.

And that is where the irony sits. Brisbane, along with Gold Coast and GWS, receives some of the largest distributions in the competition. That money exists because of the profitability of deals like the MCG contract. You cannot dismiss one inequity while ignoring how your own club directly benefits from another.

The academies were set up to grow the game in non-traditional markets. But when Queensland participation is about to overtake WA, and the Lions are still given privileged access to top-end academy picks, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the original justification still holds.

If increased distributions to Brisbane and the other northern teams are considered the offset to structural inequities such as the MCG deal, then what method is being made to level the playing field when it comes to academy access?

 

[Lunchtime]

It's got less to do with the academies, and more to do with the father-son rule.. the exact same rule that Geelong greatly benefited from in the 2000's.

Which makes Richmond's dynasty period all the more impressive.....no academy, no father son's. A full and proper rebuild. Brilliant.

 

[Philhawk]

I think there needs to be more fairness around the entire system, no debate.

But I do wonder how many of these "top" academy products would actually make it to the AFL if it weren't for the academy pathways. Which was kind of the entire point of the system when put in place, seems it's done well in that regard.

I see arguments about clubs not having access to the likes of Annable but it's not like there aren't other top kids available to then choose from. If the academy didn't exist, Annable might not have even made AFL.

Clearly there needs to be a higher price and a tighten of the system but I definitely disagree with doing rid of the academy altogether, that's nonsense and overreactionary.

As for Father Son's, which is a seperate conversation, it's a luck of the draw system available to all clubs.

Nice response. I think most people agree the academies have done a lot of good in terms of broadening the talent pool. Plenty of kids probably don’t make it without those pathways, and that’s clearly a win for the game.

The issue isn’t their existence, it’s the exclusivity. Brisbane, Sydney, Gold Coast and GWS getting discounted access to top-end talent is where the fairness questions start. If the real aim is to grow the game, then sure, keep the academies - but the model needs to be open or equalised so the development benefits are shared without giving four clubs a structural draft advantage.

And on father-sons, I agree with you. It’s a facetious argument to equate them to academies. Father-son is literally a genetic lucky dip that every club has access to. The only clubs with a fair reason to question it are the newer ones who don’t yet have that historical playing base.

 

[Philhawk]

Nice response. Care to respond to the rest of what I said, or shall we just stick to “lols”?

This so-called “home ground advantage” at the MCG hasn’t exactly inconvenienced Brisbane. Since 2000 they’ve consistently beaten the MCG tenant clubs on their own deck, including multiple finals wins. If it really was an insurmountable advantage, Brisbane’s record there wouldn’t look the way it does.

The point remains: structural advantages exist across the league. The MCG deal is one, academy access is another. If we’re going to talk about fairness, it has to be the whole picture - not just a one-liner about who plays where.

 

[The Kings Ransom]

A genetic lucky dip is distinctly different to a system where Queensland clubs get exclusive and subsidized access to the best players in a state which now has a higher AFL participation rate than WA, wouldn’t you think?

I’d like to see more info on the demographics of ‘participation’.

I’d expect you would see huge numbers of young kids but less numbers of teenagers and young adults.

Ie. the development pathways outside academies aren’t really there.

 

[kriles76]

You can keep academies and FS but rather than getting a points discount when clubs match a bid, they should be made to pay a premium of 10 or 20 per cent if they effectively want to ensure a player is exclusive to them.

Otherwise, they can pick the player they want with a regular pick when it’s their turn like everyone else for no additional loss of points.

 

[Colonial]

If it were up to me, I'd kick the interstate teams out of the AFL because that's where most of the complainers are from.

At the same time, fixes the academy problem.

Kind kills the whole big A in the name though.

It’s funny though there are actually people out there who would love the idea, but would then whinge and moan if those clubs went and created another league to play in.

 

[Colonial]

Which makes Richmond's dynasty period all the more impressive.....no academy, no father son's. A full and proper rebuild. Brilliant.

You mean when you barely left home?

The Covid years were just weird so I ignore them. Strange shit happened.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

We won’t see teams getting top 5 players for a bunch of picks in the 30s anymore, but academies will still exist

It’s a rubbish system no matter how much there paying when the premier is allowed priority access to a top top5 talent in a draft, when there’s a team that won one game on the bottom not getting there pick of the crop. There 100% should be a black out of any academy father/son , compensation picks in the first four picks of any draft the teams that finish bottom 4 should be picking first

 

[Obeanie1]

Maybe if your club (like many others didn't continually raid Northern clubs of their young draftees) academies wouldn't exist.

Some real chickens coming home to roost for your lot.

You mean like the Eagles are being raided right now by contending clubs like yours, Hawks and Carlton?

Ya mupet.

Are you whinging about Yeo? Really?

The Lions refused to increase their offer to Yeo by $50,000 per year so he looked for a better deal. His 1st preference was Freo but they werent interested so he then went to the Eagles and they were. He wasnt poached, he left because the Lions didnt rate him and were being tight arses.

You have NO idea mate. NFI.

Enjoy another nepo premiership.

 

[go_the_dockers]

In all seriousness, the five Docklands based teams in Melbourne have not registered a top 4 finish OR a 14 win season between them since the league expanded to 18 teams.

That's 15 years where a third of the league has been effectively shut out of being competitive.

There is a cause for an inquiry into this - it seems to be a pretty glaring disadvantage

Sa and WA teams 1 grand final win in 18 years.

Those two groups appear massively disadvantaged. At least the Docklands clubs have two flags.

 

[Obeanie1]

I think there needs to be more fairness around the entire system, no debate.

But I do wonder how many of these "top" academy products would actually make it to the AFL if it weren't for the academy pathways. Which was kind of the entire point of the system when put in place, seems it's done well in that regard.

I see arguments about clubs not having access to the likes of Annable but it's not like there aren't other top kids available to then choose from. If the academy didn't exist, Annable might not have even made AFL.

Clearly there needs to be a higher price and a tighten of the system but I definitely disagree with doing rid of the academy altogether, that's nonsense and overreactionary.

As for Father Son's, which is a seperate conversation, it's a luck of the draw system available to all clubs.

Father sons are available to all.

Except where the son moves interstate and a northern academy forces a legends son into that academy or they dont get the pre draft development assistance or exposer in state teams. Thats wrong. Happened with Blakey and will happen again with Hodge.

And lets not confuse everyone has the same access means its equal in reality. It isnt. Some clubs win big and others get nothing for years if ever. Not equal. Especially when a club plays in grand finals and is dominating.

End of the day unequal priority access is only half the problem. Its access to guns at 50 cent in the dollar and being allowd to be payed in 10 cent coins from the ash tray that is the problem.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I don’t mind a proper debate on the issues, but let’s keep it to the substance. Throwing around words like “crybaby” and “chump” doesn’t really move the discussion forward.

On the MCG, everyone recognises it is not a level playing field. The Grand Final contract is locked in for decades because it is a commercial decision. The AFL secured guaranteed money, guaranteed crowd sizes, and a guaranteed spectacle. That deal underpins the financial model of the league. Without it, the AFL cannot distribute hundreds of millions back to the clubs each year.

And that is where the irony sits. Brisbane, along with Gold Coast and GWS, receives some of the largest distributions in the competition. That money exists because of the profitability of deals like the MCG contract. You cannot dismiss one inequity while ignoring how your own club directly benefits from another.

The academies were set up to grow the game in non-traditional markets. But when Queensland participation is about to overtake WA, and the Lions are still given privileged access to top-end academy picks, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the original justification still holds.

If increased distributions to Brisbane and the other northern teams are considered the offset to structural inequities such as the MCG deal, then what method is being made to level the playing field when it comes to academy access?

Posted it elsewhere but Brisbane Lions made 4.5 mill in profit last year while receiving literally 3.7 million dollars more then North Melbourne who had to sell games to the WA govt to raise 2.5 mill..

The academy in Brisbane is actually a failure not a success in relation to money spent and what its producing. In 2025 they have spent millions of dollars and at the end of it we have 1 player added to the system in Daniel Annable. Thats a terrible return on that much money spent

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

One aspect forgotten is that the AFL doesnt actually let everyone be in a academy over in W.A and S.A

Best example is Bo Allan and Dockers not having access for him to be in the academy because he was like 2km outside some imaginary border.... despite the fact Mitchell Edwards was academy bound the year prior and lived like 200km further away who Freo were then not allowed to draft

 

[wcv1475]

The real question should be how do the vfl teams emulate the development of kids in Victoria..

There's still a very high % of talent that comes from Victoria- how do the vic clubs put together proper learning pathways for these kids.

The days of winning premierships from poaching players via the "go home" is over. Time to start learning how to develop instead of relying on poaching.

This is a good point, having lived in QLD for a long time and witnessed the growth from early 2000s to now it is amazing (grass roots and the academies have been well managed). Recently moved back to Vic and have kids playing, the difference is massive. I guess the biggest advantage I see with the academy system, are the kids get access to Lions coaching staff from a young age maybe 14 onwards, where from what I understand in Vic the reliance is on outside bodies to develop the kids till draft age.