Is the AFL allowing clubs to get bent over by their players?

Looks like Brisbane are going to sign Schache on for another 5 years on top of the 2(?) you get as an initial draftee Pumping up my own tyres here, but I did call that this would happen more often as clubs try to stop players walking after their initial contract

I think in that scenario the 5 years replaces the 2

According to AFL site the initial contract is 23 months, which can’t be negotiated/changed.

Based off that I would be willing to estimate that it is a new 5 year deal on top of the initial 2

A very risky maneuver. It may work for them (especially considering that Shacky actually wants to play there), but man…if he doesn’t make it due to injury or otherwise, there is no getting out of things.

Looks like Brisbane are going to sign Schache on for another 5 years on top of the 2(?) you get as an initial draftee Pumping up my own tyres here, but I did call that this would happen more often as clubs try to stop players walking after their initial contract

I think in that scenario the 5 years replaces the 2

According to AFL site the initial contract is 23 months, which can’t be negotiated/changed.

Based off that I would be willing to estimate that it is a new 5 year deal on top of the initial 2

A very risky maneuver. It may work for them (especially considering that Shacky actually wants to play there), but man…if he doesn’t make it due to injury or otherwise, there is no getting out of things.

It’s only a contract.

Playing AFL is a job. Average career lasts a couple of years. Players should be able to maximise their earning potential in those few years before they join the rest of us plebs in the workforce. And most of us plebs know that the best way to a pay increase is to switch jobs. Why should it be different for footballers?

My job’s a job too.
I’m pretty sure they’d have something to say if I upped and left and was working for the opposition as soon as next Tuesday.

Also the entire problem seems to be that the almighty dollar is having stuff all say in things.

Otherwise there’d be guys leaving squeezed teams to go to crap teams.

Quite the opposite is happening, guys leave coin on the table to go to successful clubs Hawthorn.

Looks like Brisbane are going to sign Schache on for another 5 years on top of the 2(?) you get as an initial draftee Pumping up my own tyres here, but I did call that this would happen more often as clubs try to stop players walking after their initial contract

I think in that scenario the 5 years replaces the 2

According to AFL site the initial contract is 23 months, which can’t be negotiated/changed.

Based off that I would be willing to estimate that it is a new 5 year deal on top of the initial 2

A very risky maneuver. It may work for them (especially considering that Shacky actually wants to play there), but man…if he doesn’t make it due to injury or otherwise, there is no getting out of things.

It’s only a contract.

That ‘only’ only applies to players…

Yes, and deliberately.

AFL, players and clubs all know that the draft/trade system would not stand up in court, but that some version of it is required to keep the competition somewhat level and not dominated by the same half dozen rich clubs every year. It’s more a matter of degree than anything else.

Having said that, the AFL is generally always in favour of players finding it easier to switch clubs, for a few different reasons.

  • it keeps the AFL in the news more over the off-season
  • it weakens the clubs and forces them to fight one another over players, which means they’re less likely to band together against the AFL
  • it weakens the bond of player to club, which means that retired players in the media or business are less likely to feel loyalty and provide ‘their’ club with a power base, mouthpiece, and/or funding sources which would allow the club to more easily oppose or stand independent from the AFL

I strongly suspect that one day some player will challenge the whole trade/draft/cap edifice in court on the grounds of restraint of trade, and it’ll look very likely to come tumbling down, though I also suspect that if/when this happens the AFLs furious lobbying will result in govt passing an exemption measure and we’ll be back to status quo, except for the ‘brave’ player who would be best advised to be sure he has a source of income in an industry completely unrelated to footy, cos he’ll sure as hell never play again.

would a test case actually win in court though.
wouldn’t it essentially come done to contract law ?

essentially the contract would be, if you want to play AFL with this organisation, you abide by these rules, if you feel they are a restraint of trade, you’re free to go and seek employment with another organisation who offers you the ability to play afl football. As we know there is no other organisation who offers it.

in the “normal” job market don’t they have non compete clauses in some industries contracts ? (or in america at least they do) that is technically a restraint of trade, but again comes back to original acceptance of a contract with a first employer

I don’t think the afl fear it ever going to court, cos all they’ll do is deny said players application to be registered with them, as again they are essentially a business, and if you don’t wish to abide by the rules of said business, they are under no obligation to employ you.

on the original post.

I believe players should have a better say in where they play. Clubs however should be fairly compensated.

it started out clubs had way to much power. now it’s swung into players have way to much power over clubs. hopefully it balances itself out.

the bigger question that you should ask is, does the afl care enough to change the current course of events ?

Alot of what HM said is probably correct, ultimately at present the status quo gives them more power to control the game the way they see fit, with little to no resistence.
case in point Sydney being banned from trading for players last year, in certain circumstances (can’t remember the specifics).
who actually came out in support of sydney being treated unfairly by the AFL ?

as HM says, they clubs are to busy trying to screw each other over, that they fail to see the afl is doing it the best, without really having to lift a finger.

Yes, and deliberately.

AFL, players and clubs all know that the draft/trade system would not stand up in court, but that some version of it is required to keep the competition somewhat level and not dominated by the same half dozen rich clubs every year. It’s more a matter of degree than anything else.

Having said that, the AFL is generally always in favour of players finding it easier to switch clubs, for a few different reasons.

  • it keeps the AFL in the news more over the off-season
  • it weakens the clubs and forces them to fight one another over players, which means they’re less likely to band together against the AFL
  • it weakens the bond of player to club, which means that retired players in the media or business are less likely to feel loyalty and provide ‘their’ club with a power base, mouthpiece, and/or funding sources which would allow the club to more easily oppose or stand independent from the AFL

I strongly suspect that one day some player will challenge the whole trade/draft/cap edifice in court on the grounds of restraint of trade, and it’ll look very likely to come tumbling down, though I also suspect that if/when this happens the AFLs furious lobbying will result in govt passing an exemption measure and we’ll be back to status quo, except for the ‘brave’ player who would be best advised to be sure he has a source of income in an industry completely unrelated to footy, cos he’ll sure as hell never play again.

would a test case actually win in court though.
wouldn’t it essentially come done to contract law ?

essentially the contract would be, if you want to play AFL with this organisation, you abide by these rules, if you feel they are a restraint of trade, you’re free to go and seek employment with another organisation who offers you the ability to play afl football. As we know there is no other organisation who offers it.

in the “normal” job market don’t they have non compete clauses in some industries contracts ? (or in america at least they do) that is technically a restraint of trade, but again comes back to original acceptance of a contract with a first employer

I don’t think the afl fear it ever going to court, cos all they’ll do is deny said players application to be registered with them, as again they are essentially a business, and if you don’t wish to abide by the rules of said business, they are under no obligation to employ you.

The emboldened bit: pinnacle of oxymoronia

Isn’t the AFL getting bent over a good thing?

Isn't the AFL getting bent over a good thing?

It most certainly is. The sooner the players realise that the AFL is there to divide and conquer the sooner situations like the Essendon 34 will be nipped in the bud by industry wide player strikes etc.

Also the entire problem seems to be that the almighty dollar is having stuff all say in things.

Otherwise there’d be guys leaving squeezed teams to go to crap teams.

Quite the opposite is happening, guys leave coin on the table to go to successful clubs Hawthorn.


I can think of one very notable exception.

There are exceptions, sure, but I don’t even think it’s a noticeable trend of guys leaving good clubs to go to weak clubs on a better wicket.

People are giving a little too much credit to it being planned that way, the most likely reason for what’s happened is that it has just happened with the rules implemented to do something different and it hasn’t come out as planned.

Isn't the AFL getting bent over a good thing?

It most certainly is. The sooner the players realise that the AFL is there to divide and conquer the sooner situations like the Essendon 34 will be nipped in the bud by industry wide player strikes etc.

That’s a pipedream and would never happen.
the majority of 1000 odd players thinking and heading in the same direction ?
most clubs struggle with 40 players on one list to do it.

and it’s not the afl persay getting bent over, as the title says it’s the clubs getting bent over and the afl allowing it.

Isn't the AFL getting bent over a good thing?

It most certainly is. The sooner the players realise that the AFL is there to divide and conquer the sooner situations like the Essendon 34 will be nipped in the bud by industry wide player strikes etc.

That’s a pipedream and would never happen.
the majority of 1000 odd players thinking and heading in the same direction ?
most clubs struggle with 40 players on one list to do it.

and it’s not the afl persay getting bent over, as the title says it’s the clubs getting bent over and the afl allowing

The current landscape suggests you’re right however ,if foreign experience is any guide e.g. the US, where baseball seasons have been disrupted by player strikes, eventually the players will form a proper “union” and the first objective of that “unions” executive will be to educate the players to understand that they have more in common than they have differences.Once that is achieved the 2030 equivalent of the Essendon 34 will not stand alone ( one c an dream)