Opinion Hypothetical, Back to pre nationalisation. What's your opinion?

[Choogler]

That was 40 years ago, it'd be completely different now, even then the AFL lost approx 2/3 of Fitzroy fans (this was rumored to be regretted shortly after by the then HQ) - most Fitzroy fans are now gone from the game or follow Fitzroy in the VAFA (Bris and Fitz was never a true 'merger' Roylion has the facts on this)

In 198 the Fitzroy board asked the player to vote on a relocation to Brisbane. When the players voted to go the Board reneged. Right there and then Fitzroy's long future as an VFL/AFL club was sealed.

History has shown fans don't go for relocations or mergers. North were proposed to relocate to GC in 2007, their members emphatically rejected the proposal.

Hawks / Demons merger, punch on and warring factions from fans and admin from both clubs. Was emphatically rejected in the end

Probably in part the reason the NRL doesn't have the same fan numbers as the AFL

EPL clubs are NOT member based like AFL clubs. That's where you're failing on this, the game really is dictated by us fans 'the market'.

"The market", what is that? In every market there is a buyer (fan/supporter/member), a seller (the footy club), and a product (footy match experience, memberships, seats, merchandise etc...). "Products" succeed or fail based on supply and demand and it is clear that there is insufficient demand to make the product offered by NM, WB, Melbourne or StK viable. ie: "The market" you mention just isn't buying. That is indisputable!

Aus footy is completely different to other domestic leagues, the clubs are member based. That is why the north relocation and the hawks / dees merger failed, and failed miserably.

I live in Perth, so your point is moot.

If teams are member based, then it is up to those members to make their teams viable, not the governing body. The fact that NM, WB, Melbourne and StK would not have turned a single profit in more than a decade without AFL prop-up funding is a clear message that the membership numbers are inadequate to keep those clubs viable... It also applies to some interstate clubs .... GC, GWS, Sydney & BL and I fear Tassie Devils will also be a long term dependent club. But at least the northern clubs, particularly GC & GWS are growing the game and the player base in non-traditional areas, by bringing kids that may have gone to NRL and other sports, into the AFL system. I'm not sure the same can be said for the 4 vic-based clubs.

Thing is though, if you have the biggest clubs that'd mean that the fans and members of those big clubs wouldn't get to see their clubs play as often as they would if they stayed in their own state.

Any National competition in any competition in any country in the world requires travel with fans unable to watch every game. It is the consequence of any true National competition, and even in the AFL, the supporters in the AFL heartland of Victoria will be able to watch their teams more often than those in the other states. That is not a whinge or criticism, just a fact based on the distribution of teams, although as you are aware, I do believe there needs to be less teams in Melbourne. It would create a more equal fixture with more teams playing each other H&A and hence provide some level of equalisation of the travel burden.

 

[Roylion]

In 198 the Fitzroy board asked the player to vote on a relocation to Brisbane. When the players voted to go the Board reneged. Right there and then Fitzroy's long future as an VFL/AFL club was sealed.

You can only say that with hindsight. Fitzroy made a profit from 1993-1995.

Fitzroy chairman Dyson Hore-Lacy said if they could have found another million dollars ($500,000 to be used to improve facilities in a move back to the Brunswick St Oval as their training and administrative base and $500,000 to pay players to improve their playing list), Fitzroy would not have sought a merger with North Melbourne.

Unfortunately every attempt to generate that revenue by Fitzroy was stymied by the AFL who wanted to keep financial pressure on Fitzroy, so that Port Adelaide's AFL entry in 1997 would still only keep the league at 16 teams.

Current Brisbane Lions CEO Greg Swann was one of the people working for Fitzroy's administrator Michael Brennan in 1996 on discharging Fitzroy's $2.7 million debt and publicly stated in August 2014 that Fitzroy could have 'easily been retained' in the AFL competition had there been the will by the AFL to do so.

The AFL had $12 million to spare in 1996 to give to clubs that merged, yet couldn't find $1 million to help Fitzroy.

Had they done so then Fitzroy would have very likely survived the era of AFL rationalisation where it was official AFL policy to remove a small Melbourne club to make room for Port Adelaide and keep the competition at 16 teams.

I do believe there needs to be less teams in Melbourne. It would create a more equal fixture with more teams playing each other H&A and hence provide some level of equalisation of the travel burden.

Expanding the competition to 20-22 teams will do the same thing.

 

[Carringbush2010]

"The market", what is that?

The paying fans and members, largest portion of that, more than all other footy heartland combined is vic.

"The market" you mention just isn't buying. That is indisputable!

The continuing record amounts of members and attendances disagrees with you.

If teams are member based, then it is up to those members to make their teams viable,

They are viable, like I said the smallest vic club has 50k members

The fact that NM, WB, Melbourne and StK would not have turned a single profit in more than a decade without AFL prop-up funding is a clear message that the membership numbers are inadequate to keep those clubs viable

See above, if you are correct then why do the AFL want to keep those clubs surviving? Answer, they don't want to lose those fans

Any National competition in any competition in any country in the world requires travel with fans unable to watch every game. It is the consequence of any true National competition,

Then have your national comp, that national comp does not have to include foundation vfl clubs. Create franchise clubs out of vic if you must.

 

[Gibbke]

The "market" is the TV product. This is the only reason why my avatar is now a Devil's eye! All 18 sides contribute to the 9 game product, and tv deems it to be worth more than $4b. Every team gets a cut, and because what was a hypothetical 19th franchise would get some of that too, once the rights doubled all financial arguments to a Tasmanian side were destroyed...and so here we are...! Membership, attendances...all of that is nice, no one knocks back an extra buck, but the real moneymaker is your arse on a couch, not in a grandstand...

The supposed minor teams in Victoria contribute to the product and every side in the AFL now operates in the black. Worth remembering too that the sides promoting the TV product when it went big were NM, Footscray and St Kilda, because every other Victorian team was shit! Perfect combo of interstaters all being strong, except Freo, and the promise that if the Big 4 could get their act together it could be even better. That was the late 90's...

Get this idea out of your head that any team is a drag on resources and is in danger of being axed or relocated. The AFL, no matter how much the idea grates and they don't seem to, has an outstanding record of getting it right, and the merger focus was one of the rare times you can pin on them that they didn't...they have absolutely learned from that, and now every team is a protected species...

 

[Choogler]

And not just in Melbourne.

and right there you've hit the nail on the head. Fitzroy should have relocated when, seeing the writing on the wall, the players voted almost unanimously to go, and GC & GWS should have been relocations of the 2 least viable Melbourne based teams. If they didn't want to go then tell them to work out a way to survive and withdraw prop up funding. Instead, AFL just keeps making crazy business decisions which increase the number of dependent clubs. I fear Tasmania will be just another!

 

[Choogler]

The paying fans and members, largest portion of that, more than all other footy heartland combined is vic.

Membership numbers are fudged. How many go each week and put their bums on seats. With a combined supposed membership of over 100,000 NM v WB at Marvel attracted a massive 27,000 and the return fixture 33,000. WB v Melb 33,000, Melbourne v GWS at MCG 16,246, STK v WB 26,700. Even the famed 100,000 strong Tiger army couldn't get more than 34,000 to the MCG to farewell Dusty (an all time great) and Grimes... it was a disgrace! No mate, there are plenty of seats available, but no bums on them!

The continuing record amounts of members and attendances disagrees with you.

The record attendances are driven by the big clubs. The non-viable clubs contribute very little. The Hawks and Carlton resurgence have been the biggest contributor this season.
As for members, NM and Melbourne actually lost members this season. So yes, while overall members may have reached record levels, two of the unviable clubs actually lost members. That just strengthens my case.

They are viable, like I said the smallest vic club has 50k members

They may have 50,000+ members but they are not viable currently, and haven't been for the past decade or more.
This, published in the AGE & covering the period 2012 - 2022 shows the level at which each club was funded. It also shows, just for the just 4 years from 2017 to 2020, how much every club would have made or lost without AFL Prop-up funding. Nothing has changed since. The evidence is right there or does your opinion negate facts

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

See above, if you are correct then why do the AFL want to keep those clubs surviving? Answer, they don't want to lose those fans

Then have your national comp, that national comp does not have to include foundation vfl clubs. Create franchise clubs out of vic if you must.

The paying fans and members, largest portion of that, more than all other footy heartland combined is vic.

and yet 40% of the Vic clubs can't support themselves, at least 30% have actually dropped member numbers.

I hope you read and absorb the Funding Ladder article I provided the link to

The continuing record amounts of members and attendances disagrees with you.

And yet they still cannot make some of the clubs they support viable! See comments above about 2024 membership Nos.

They are viable, like I said the smallest vic club has 50k members

You keep repeating this and your statement "They are viable" is factually incorrect and I refer you to the link I posted above. It is blatantly obvious that the prop-up funding they've received is the ONLY reason they've survived.

See above, if you are correct then why do the AFL want to keep those clubs surviving? Answer, they don't want to lose those fans

Then have your national comp, that national comp does not have to include foundation vfl clubs. Create franchise clubs out of vic if you must.

I don't think ALL the fans would have been lost if they understood fully that their clubs were not viable and the only option was to merge, relocate or move to a lesser competition. Sydney and Brisbane are examples of that. I'd rather the team I support adopt one of the first 2 options and continue in some form in the AFL rather than die altogether, or move to a lesser competition.

The "market" is the TV product. This is the only reason why my avatar is now a Devil's eye! All 18 sides contribute to the 9 game product, and tv deems it to be worth more than $4b. Every team gets a cut,

Firstly, it is $4.5b ($673m/year) from 2025. In 2023, it was $444m. I'm all for everyone getting a "Cut", but it should be an EQUAL cut! Some get a cut greater than others, when the reality is they either don't contribute as much to the televised product through viewership, or to the live product through bums on seats.

and because what was a hypothetical 19th franchise would get some of that too, once the rights doubled all financial arguments to a Tasmanian side were destroyed...and so here we are...! Membership, attendances...all of that is nice, no one knocks back an extra buck, but the real moneymaker is your arse on a couch, not in a grandstand...

At AFL level the TV rights may be the single biggest source of income to the AFL itself, but TV rights didn't even generate 50% of total AFL income in 2023. Other sources including bums on seats, merchandise, sponsorships

It is, however, completely fallacious when it comes to the CLUBS themselves.

For example:

NM, in 2023 made a profit of just $270,000. Of their total income of $50.6 million, 47% ($23.61 million) of their total funding came directly from the AFL. Of that, more than $8.5 million was prop-up funding.
Bums on seats, memberships, corporates/sponsorships, merchandise and other sources contributed just $27 million.
If we remove the prop up funding, it is clear that without the prop up funding, NM would have made a loss of more than $8.2 million.

By comparison WCE made $1.98 million profit (after paying over $3.1 million in royalties and a licence fee to the WAFC and contributing $4.45 million in "Community Expenses").
Of their total funding, just 17% ($14.557 million of $84.94 million) was from the AFL.
Bums on seats, memberships, corporates/sponsorships and merchandise contributed the balance of $70.4 million and are the single biggest factor in them being the richest club in the land.

WCE, through those things that you seem to think aren't critical to viability, generated over $43 million (or 63%) more income than NM.

Surely you can now see how it IS precisely those things you think aren't essential to viability that most contribute to a club's profitability.

The supposed minor teams in Victoria contribute to the product and every side in the AFL now operates in the black.

Some ONLY because of prop-up funding as demonstrated above

Worth remembering too that the sides promoting the TV product when it went big were NM, Footscray and St Kilda, because every other Victorian team was shit! Perfect combo of interstaters all being strong, except Freo, and the promise that if the Big 4 could get their act together it could be even better. That was the late 90's...

That is 30 years ago, how long do you provide charity?

Get this idea out of your head that any team is a drag on resources and is in danger of being axed or relocated.

Unfortunately, the moment was lost because of a poor business decision by the AFL. The chance to reduce the financial drain on the AFL coffers was when GC & GWS came in. It was unique in that it was expansion into non-traditional areas and unlike WA, SA and Tasmania, who wouldn't accept a relocated Vic team, they would have been less likely to be rejected. Relocation of 2 teams would have saved around $500m in prop-up funding since 2012.

And I agree that the conflict of interest the AFL has created through their ownership of the 4 northern franchises, means the 4 pauper clubs in Victoria are safe.

The AFL, no matter how much the idea grates and they don't seem to, has an outstanding record of getting it right, and the merger focus was one of the rare times you can pin on them that they didn't...they have absolutely learned from that, and now every team is a protected species...

Suggest you read this! It covers from the inception of GC & GWS in 2012 up to 2022 so a little out of date, but the overarching message hasn't changed one iota, ie: 8 or 9 of the clubs are reliant on AFL disequal distributions to survive and the 4 Melbourne based teams are amongst the most reliant. GC & GWS are top of the list obviously, but at least they are contributing to the competition by growing the game and increasing participation in Aussie Rules in non-traditional areas, something that can't really be said for the 4 Melbourne based teams. Had the AFL had the balls to make a good business decision and form those teams by relocation and then funded the relocated teams to the same level as GC & GWS have been, not only would they be powerhouses now, they'd have also saved almost $500,000,000 paid since to prop-up 2 of the 4 teams.

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Carringbush2010]

Membership numbers are fudged. How many go each week and put their bums on seats. With a combined supposed membership of over 100,000 NM v WB at Marvel attracted a massive 27,000 and the return fixture 33,000. WB v Melb 33,000, Melbourne v GWS at MCG 16,246, STK v WB 26,700. Even the famed 100,000 strong Tiger army couldn't get more than 34,000 to the MCG to farewell Dusty (an all time great) and Grimes... it was a disgrace! No mate, there are plenty of seats available, but no bums on them!

The record attendances are driven by the big clubs. The non-viable clubs contribute very little. The Hawks and Carlton resurgence have been the biggest contributor this season.
As for members, NM and Melbourne actually lost members this season. So yes, while overall members may have reached record levels, two of the unviable clubs actually lost members. That just strengthens my case.

They may have 50,000+ members but they are not viable currently, and haven't been for the past decade or more.
This, published in the AGE & covering the period 2012 - 2022 shows the level at which each club was funded. It also shows, just for the just 4 years from 2017 to 2020, how much every club would have made or lost without AFL Prop-up funding. Nothing has changed since. The evidence is right there or does your opinion negate facts

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

and yet 40% of the Vic clubs can't support themselves, at least 30% have actually dropped member numbers.

I hope you read and absorb the Funding Ladder article I provided the link to

And yet they still cannot make some of the clubs they support viable! See comments above about 2024 membership Nos.

You keep repeating this and your statement "They are viable" is factually incorrect and I refer you to the link I posted above. It is blatantly obvious that the prop-up funding they've received is the ONLY reason they've survived.

I don't think ALL the fans would have been lost if they understood fully that their clubs were not viable and the only option was to merge, relocate or move to a lesser competition. Sydney and Brisbane are examples of that. I'd rather the team I support adopt one of the first 2 options and continue in some form in the AFL rather than die altogether, or move to a lesser competition.

Firstly, it is $4.5b ($673m/year) from 2025. In 2023, it was $444m. I'm all for everyone getting a "Cut", but it should be an EQUAL cut! Some get a cut greater than others, when the reality is they either don't contribute as much to the televised product through viewership, or to the live product through bums on seats.

At AFL level the TV rights may be the single biggest source of income to the AFL itself, but TV rights didn't even generate 50% of total AFL income in 2023. Other sources including bums on seats, merchandise, sponsorships

It is, however, completely fallacious when it comes to the CLUBS themselves.

For example:

NM, in 2023 made a profit of just $270,000. Of their total income of $50.6 million, 47% ($23.61 million) of their total funding came directly from the AFL. Of that, more than $8.5 million was prop-up funding.
Bums on seats, memberships, corporates/sponsorships, merchandise and other sources contributed just $27 million.
If we remove the prop up funding, it is clear that without the prop up funding, NM would have made a loss of more than $8.2 million.

By comparison WCE made $1.98 million profit (after paying over $3.1 million in royalties and a licence fee to the WAFC and contributing $4.45 million in "Community Expenses").
Of their total funding, just 17% ($14.557 million of $84.94 million) was from the AFL.
Bums on seats, memberships, corporates/sponsorships and merchandise contributed the balance of $70.4 million and are the single biggest factor in them being the richest club in the land.

WCE, through those things that you seem to think aren't critical to viability, generated over $43 million (or 63%) more income than NM.

Surely you can now see how it IS precisely those things you think aren't essential to viability that most contribute to a club's profitability.

Some ONLY because of prop-up funding as demonstrated above

That is 30 years ago, how long do you provide charity?

Unfortunately, the moment was lost because of a poor business decision by the AFL. The chance to reduce the financial drain on the AFL coffers was when GC & GWS came in. It was unique in that it was expansion into non-traditional areas and unlike WA, SA and Tasmania, who wouldn't accept a relocated Vic team, they would have been less likely to be rejected. Relocation of 2 teams would have saved around $500m in prop-up funding since 2012.

And I agree that the conflict of interest the AFL has created through their ownership of the 4 northern franchises, means the 4 pauper clubs in Victoria are safe.

Suggest you read this! It covers from the inception of GC & GWS in 2012 up to 2022 so a little out of date, but the overarching message hasn't changed one iota, ie: 8 or 9 of the clubs are reliant on AFL disequal distributions to survive and the 4 Melbourne based teams are amongst the most reliant. GC & GWS are top of the list obviously, but at least they are contributing to the competition by growing the game and increasing participation in Aussie Rules in non-traditional areas, something that can't really be said for the 4 Melbourne based teams. Had the AFL had the balls to make a good business decision and form those teams by relocation and then funded the relocated teams to the same level as GC & GWS have been, not only would they be powerhouses now, they'd have also saved almost $500,000,000 paid since to prop-up 2 of the 4 teams.

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

You're veering off the thread topic, but I'll bite.

Your link, there's a $100 million gap between collingwood and gws, who cares? All the clubs are still alive and the comp is going gangbusters.

I do not disagree that some small vic clubs are propped up by AFL funding, that doesn't make them 'unviable' just coz you want them to be.

Every professional domestic league on the planet has bigger and smaller clubs, the only difference being that the majority of clubs in other leagues are not member based like 16 of the 18 clubs in our competition are.

By your logic every club should be exactly the same size with the same amount of supporters and members. That is utopian thinking.

But that's not even what you want, you want small vic clubs culled because you don't like them because they're supported by the league financially.

Like I said earlier, they're part of the product, if we dropped those clubs tomorrow, then you'd lose probably a million paying fans and members. The AFL aren't gonna do that, as much as you want them to.

If anything you should be in favour of a state conference model, everyone keeps their club and it's much more equitable than what we have now.

 

[Gibbke]

1) I don't think ALL the fans would have been lost if they understood fully that their clubs were not viable and the only option was to merge, relocate or move to a lesser competition. Sydney and Brisbane are examples of that. I'd rather the team I support adopt one of the first 2 options and continue in some form in the AFL rather than die altogether, or move to a lesser competition.

2) Firstly, it is $4.5b ($673m/year) from 2025. In 2023, it was $444m. I'm all for everyone getting a "Cut", but it should be an EQUAL cut! Some get a cut greater than others, when the reality is they either don't contribute as much to the televised product through viewership, or to the live product through bums on seats.

3) NM, in 2023 made a profit of just $270,000. Of their total income of $50.6 million, 47% ($23.61 million) of their total funding came directly from the AFL. Of that, more than $8.5 million was prop-up funding.
Bums on seats, memberships, corporates/sponsorships, merchandise and other sources contributed just $27 million.
If we remove the prop up funding, it is clear that without the prop up funding, NM would have made a loss of more than $8.2 million.
By comparison WCE made $1.98 million profit (after paying over $3.1 million in royalties and a licence fee to the WAFC and contributing $4.45 million in "Community Expenses").
Of their total funding, just 17% ($14.557 million of $84.94 million) was from the AFL.
Bums on seats, memberships, corporates/sponsorships and merchandise contributed the balance of $70.4 million and are the single biggest factor in them being the richest club in the land.

4) That is 30 years ago, how long do you provide charity?

5) Unfortunately, the moment was lost because of a poor business decision by the AFL. The chance to reduce the financial drain on the AFL coffers was when GC & GWS came in. It was unique in that it was expansion into non-traditional areas and unlike WA, SA and Tasmania, who wouldn't accept a relocated Vic team, they would have been less likely to be rejected. Relocation of 2 teams would have saved around $500m in prop-up funding since 2012.
And I agree that the conflict of interest the AFL has created through their ownership of the 4 northern franchises, means the 4 pauper clubs in Victoria are safe.]

1) You would have lost heaps. That doesn't mean all but it does mean enough, and the AFL saw, through trial and then error, that it wouldn't be a great idea...
2) How do you justify an equal cut when you don't have an equal playing field? Your figures come from the most privileged mind! Let's go in your direction...two WA and SA sides, six Vics if we cut your "paupers", then either two or four in the north. Everyone loves twelve, especially the Vics, ironically. Cool. Now justify a four billion dollar TV package (where the hell did you get $444m? Hasn't looked like that since the 90's) based upon five or six games...to get six, you need to prop up four northern franchises and not two, and because your revenue is smaller, the WC chest beating you're giving us in (3) doesn't exist...
3) The state of play. Because NM exists, there are 9 games that TV execs deem sufficient to justify the expanding rights that have put every team in the black. If that wasn't there, less games, less bucks. WC runs its own superpower, but that superpower exists on the back of a world scenario that didn't exist in 1986 and has benefitted everyone at the top level since (the lower levels, that's another story)...just like real superpowers today...partly because the pauper teams exist, the heartland of Australian footy support turns up to footy in far greater numbers than they did back then, and that's because no one's rattling a tin. The really ironic thing is that now Tassie exists, there might be questions asked at boardroom level about a superfluous 19th team not adding to nine games, and if team 20 isn't likely, out come the knives again...
4) Ask Sydney.
5) Read Oakley's book. Forget your figures - you cannot beat the mentality that created the national comp in the first place. Also makes point (2) moot - the AFL started because Vics wanted to protect their own and got outsiders to pay for it...the twist being that if those outsiders didn't, they'd be dead too. And they did try to relocate other teams - the GC push happened because Channel Ten decided to broadcast regular Saturday Night footy in Brisbane, and quickly discovered that not even a Lions threepeat would swing ratings without a Qld side playing. There's no doubt in my mind that TV got heavy and said "make another one"...North were already on the GC at this point and only because the Commonwealth games made the MCG unavailable, as well as doing their "Kangaroos" thing in Sydney which was an abject failure despite being the best team in Australia because they dissed the Swans while doing it...! So convince NM to relocate for $50m...sounded great until the AFL said "we also want you to relinquish all control of your board", to which NM said EAD and then plastered NORTH MELBOURNE all over their logo! What would have happened if the AFL made what you consider to be not "a poor business decision" and tried to send them anyway? All they ever had the power to do was revoke a licence...basically just a threat with no cataclysmic liquidation or "sent into administration" figures they were able to exploit against Fitzroy...how would that have looked after that incident...?

These sorts of tumultuous business machinations are what smaller sporting comps in Australia have done regularly...ask soccer how stability works, it won't be a coherent answer...! Rugby League tried all sorts of moves after Super League, and in the end back came Manly and South Sydney anyway...and soon, via the back door and in exactly the manner you like, more irony - the Bears in Perth...!

 

[kickazz]

In an ideal world it could be really cool.

You'd still need a national governing body.

I envisage smaller individual seasons with champions league like stuff at the end. SOO would become more of a thing again perhaps.

By necessity some of the old grounds would come back into use again. That would add another angle of interest to the games.

With the bigger profile offered by pay TV these days, fans would have an option to follow their 'team' in leagues other than their home state league.


The big thing that would need to happen is to manage salary caps, drafts and the like across the leagues to ensure you didn't end up with one dominant comp that sucked the life out of the others. Prime time TV spots might also need sharing/management. That, or just have several games at once on the Friday night and we can switch channels to the best game.

Non-Vic sides wouldn't have the burden of excess travel.


Those are some of the positives I see in an ideal world. Of course in reality there a heap of problems but conceptually it is something that is cool to think about.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You'd still need a national governing body.

The afl is the governing body now AND is a league.

Leave the leagues to the leagues, and have a separate body to govern the game - whatever 'name' that may be.