Is it time to list player's salaries??

[Superstar swan]

In the american sports, player's salaries are public knowledge with their exact financial figures listed . There is no guesswork when it comes to trying to work out what teams are spending what in their cap.

Obviously australia has a different culture and rightly so we are more private when it comes to our financial status. With the amount of speculation and controversy over the past few years over player spending , not to mention direct salary cap cheating , is it time to make clubs spending more transparent.

It's non of the public's business to know exactly how much a player earns , so my suggestion is the afl releases the salaries of the players without naming them.

For example

Player A $680,000
Player B $300,000
Player C $82, 000

And so on. This way all the conjecture over how much clubs are spending will come to an end and will only be left with facts.

 

[BF Tiger]

I really see no benefit.

Listing salaries won't stop salary cap cheating - teams just won't list that part.

 

[LosBeatles]

If there are players on $100k or thereabouts I don't think so, that's pretty much a medium wage these days I don't see why they should have their salary public knowledge for their friends and family to know

Maybe they should list every player above $500k

 

[Theprofessional]

If there are players on $100k or thereabouts I don't think so, that's pretty much a medium wage these days I don't see why they should have their salary public knowledge for their friends and family to know

Maybe they should list every player above $500k

Why do it for some but not all? Some people would be embarassed how much they're earning in regards to their performances etc. Got to reveal it all or none imo

 

[Emissary]

Why reveal it to the public? It's not like its up to us to enforce salary caps, should be up to the AFL (to the best of their ability). Otherwise it'd just an instrument to criticise players when they don't perform, which I don't think is fair.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Why? It has nothing to do with anything. All it'd lead to would be "You pay $400k for HIM? What a dud!"

It's none of our business what they get paid.

 

[Quivorir]

What do you earn a year Superstar swan?

 

[Superstar swan]

If there are players on $100k or thereabouts I don't think so, that's pretty much a medium wage these days I don't see why they should have their salary public knowledge for their friends and family to know

Maybe they should list every player above $500k

The players names would not be mentioned , just the figures would be released

 

[Confuscius]

Why? What does it achieve?

We already have a rough idea what clubs are spending because they have to spend a minimum on the salary cap.

 

[Jumparoo]

Actually, if I am the players I would want to have this information listed. It will allow proper benchmarking so they can maximise their salaries (i.e Malceski this year would know what players on other clubs with comparable experience and roles are making and also it would make it easier for him to leave without the public getting on him if we knew the Swans could only offer him $350k but the market value is $550k and that is what was offered by the Demons). In the States the clubs would love to have exact salary amounts quiet as they would not get blasted for bad contracts. Also most of the time, the party that takes the blame is the club for handing out bad contracts not the player (who just took what was offered).

From a fan perspective it is great as you really get an idea as to how well managed your club actually is. As I said the only people who benefit by the silence is the clubs. I note that players in rest of the world (as European footballers salaries are also known seem to manage just fine with this privacy invasion, especially when it helps them all in the long run.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Only point of interest would be listing the amount that is not counted against the cap. For example, how much of Buddy's $1mill a year, or Nic Nat's coming $800k a year are outside of the cap, and given for promotional activities and such.

 

[Justice]

Might stop some of the bullsh*t sprouted on BF that:

'player X accepts 'unders' for a chance to play at a successful club.'
​

Cheers
Justice

 

[replicant]

While it'd be nice for us to know so we can stop BF s***fights (or start some), I don't like the idea of each player inside the club knowing what his team-mates are earning. It could create disharmony if people know what each is on.

There is no need to know, and it's none of our business. The AFL makes sure the contracts fit under the cap, and this should be enough.

 

[Jumparoo]

While it'd be nice for us to know so we can stop BF s***fights (or start some), I don't like the idea of each player inside the club knowing what his team-mates are earning. It could create disharmony if people know what each is on.

There is no need to know, and it's none of our business. The AFL makes sure the contracts fit under the cap, and this should be enough.

Yet again on what basis would it create disharmony. Sports clubs around the world all have public salaries and they all seem to work together. Players understand better than us why people make what they make. I mean B Jack isn't going to look at Buddy and say hey he is making more than me!!

 

[Crankyhawk]

While it'd be nice for us to know so we can stop BF s***fights (or start some), I don't like the idea of each player inside the club knowing what his team-mates are earning. It could create disharmony if people know what each is on.

There is no need to know, and it's none of our business. The AFL makes sure the contracts fit under the cap, and this should be enough.

Most people in other jobs are on an award so you can work out what your colleagues are on if you really wanted to. Why should sport be different?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Most people in other jobs are on an award so you can work out what your colleagues are on if you really wanted to. Why should sport be different?

Only 15-20 per cent of Australian workers are on an award and there is nothing to stop an employer paying above award wages to particular staff.

 

[SkyHawk]

While it'd be nice for us to know so we can stop BF s***fights (or start some), I don't like the idea of each player inside the club knowing what his team-mates are earning. It could create disharmony if people know what each is on.

There is no need to know, and it's none of our business. The AFL makes sure the contracts fit under the cap, and this should be enough.

I think this is the main purpose it would serve. Imagine the pages and pages of threads...

 

[skipper kelly]

Only point of interest would be listing the amount that is not counted against the cap. For example, how much of Buddy's $1mill a year, or Nic Nat's coming $800k a year are outside of the cap, and given for promotional activities and such.

Agree. In the current environment of equalisation of all things salary cap related there is no legitimate reason why all ASA's amounts are not made public. There is no need to name the players, they just have to release the amount each is receiving from each club. If there was a hard cap on this then it wouldn't be an issue but as the AFL can approve any amount at their discretion then it all needs to be made public.

 

[Randy Campbell]

No.
The public have no real need to know.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I really see no benefit.

Listing salaries won't stop salary cap cheating - teams just won't list that part.

But it would hold players accountable.
If their salary is listed as $400k and they get $600k - then both the player and manager will know and will be accountable.

Take the Storm case where there were two sets of books. The players supposedly didn't know.

I also think that for the members of various clubs (who in many cases own the clubs) have a right to know what their players and execs receive.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

No.
The public have no real need to know.

That's not true - the board of many clubs is publicly elected. The board appoint the executive/football department.

A significant component on assessing the performance of the board is the salaries various players receive and their output.

As such a team recruiting duds from another team but paying them peanuts might be deemed as a measured risk. Similarly paying a dud $400k a year to play in the reserves would need to be held accountable if it becomes a pattern.

 

[yoong]

Hiding players name won't serve much purpose I would think, since the spread of ability it's pretty easy to guess and fill in the blanks.

The only benefit i perceive is that it clarify doubts on salary cap cheating, cola and out of cap payment (for the fans, I assume afl accountants are doing their work).
Then again, only hardcore fans like us on big footy is interested and most of us probably don't know the maths to work it out anyway

 

[Happy Mastenator]

But it would hold players accountable.
If their salary is listed as $400k and they get $600k - then both the player and manager will know and will be accountable.

Take the Storm case where there were two sets of books. The players supposedly didn't know.

I also think that for the members of various clubs (who in many cases own the clubs) have a right to know what their players and execs receive.

That was crap though. You know the figure in your contract, all contracts then go to AFL House. If you're signing two contracts something is dodge. Storm players, well their Agents must have known.

 

[scotty13]

Im of two minds with this.
Firstly it would be great to we can heckle players when they stuff up using their salary as the heckle and like was mentioned before can help other players see what they are worth at other clubs with comparable players. It could however cause tension between players at the club if player x is on 500k and is a shit player and player y took a pay cut and is on 350k but is the best player at the club.
It would also open up a new betting market (most brownlow votes for a player worth between 300-400k ect.)

I think the best option is for the AFL to release guidelines from each club. i.e. at club x there are 3 players earning less than 100k, 6players 100-200k, 4players 200-300k ect.

 

[West123]

Why I am for the disclosure of contracts is it holds football departments accountable. If West Coast are paying Wellingham 500k then someone needs to be shot... and it's not Wellingham's fault.