The next CBA

[Kwality]

I have not been able to find a current thread:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/afl-pushing-for-players-to-be-traded-against-their-will-in-major-shakeup-to-player-movement/news-story/2d0ec95d26c0f8fa88f9132d44a64bbd

'The AFL gave its first proposal to the AFLPA three weeks ago as part of negotiations which have both parties a long way apart on the finances and tenure of the new CBA agreement.

'The AFLPA is adamant the next CBA should run no longer than four years given the uncertain climate and possibility of a Tasmania licence being granted, whereas the league is pushing for a nine-year contract.'

The AFL’s superstars would be traded against their will NBA-style under a radical proposal raised by the league as part of its pay talks with the AFL Players’ Association.
And the league has for the first time officially asked the AFLPA to consider a mid-season trade period under the next collective bargaining agreement to help increase player movement across clubs.

Marsh said “certain coaches” supported the AFL’s proposal to move players without their consent – but the AFLPA’s position was that forcefully relocating players and their families was off limits.

Marsh said when that landed in the AFL’s first proposal he knew it was “going to be a tough negotiation”.


The AFL’s general manager of finance, clubs and broadcast Travis Auld has taken the lead for the league on negotiations so far.

The AFLPA wrote to the AFL two days after the seven-year $4.5 billion broadcast deal – which runs from 2025-2031 – was signed last September.

Marsh said the AFL responded just before Christmas, about three and a half months later, and then the AFLPA tabled its first proposal five weeks after that.

That early February proposal was met with the AFL’s counter offer three weeks ago.

The AFLPA is adamant men’s salaries can’t go backwards to subsidise AFLW wages and wants a 32 per cent revenue share model, where players are paid 32 per cent of the game’s revenue.

That would see men’s players pocket 30.5 per cent of the pie under an 85-15 per cent split between men and women.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Paul Marsh is a flog, wants a massive pay wise for his players but doesn't want players traded without their consent? How selfish and arrogant.

 

[Kwality]

Paul Marsh is a flog, wants a massive pay wise for his players but doesn't want players traded without their consent? How selfish and arrogant.

Trading someone with a family is difficult. Not impossible, but very different to single man.

 

[Rob]

Trading someone with a family is difficult. Not impossible, but very different to single man.

Yeah I think a blanket right to clubs to be able to trade players is unreasonable. But if a player wants to concede that part of his contract for more money, why not?

Likewise, if a club wants to put a clause in any player's contract allowing them to be traded without permission and the player agrees, why not?

 

[nick1408]

Yeah I think a blanket right to clubs to be able to trade players is unreasonable. But if a player wants to concede that part of his contract for more money, why not?

Likewise, if a club wants to put a clause in any player's contract allowing them to be traded without permission and the player agrees, why not?

I've got no issues with this. As a potential contract clause - why not? While every club will try to insert the clause I think the only players that will allow it would be the vulnerable (younger and/or less talented) thus I see the AFLPA fighting it to the death.

There aren't many 'real world' industries where you are told to move with no say. Defence does spring to mind but they have tried other mechanisms such as 'Recruit to Area' to try and offer an alternative to being told where to go. The AFL has also noted the high priority that location is to people via the AFLW draft mechanism where people can only be drafted within a state.

I see this as the headline to distract from other aspects. Once the full details are out that's when we will see if this is just clickbait or something more substantial.

 

[Outtatym]

Trading someone with a family is difficult. Not impossible, but very different to single man.

You want the big bucks there's sacrifices to be made imo

 

[Kwality]

More from Mr Marsh & the AFLPA:
The AFL’s player union says the league and clubs must seriously commit to a review of footy’s competitive balance that could hand teams extra money to deal with historical disadvantages.

As part of the AFL’s collective bargaining agreement the player union says it is determined to rectify the situation which sees some players drafted to clubs which have less chance of overall success than the power clubs.
The AFLPA is open to a system where some clubs are handed a financial advantage or extra allowances in the football department cap given a sliding scale of haves and have-nots.

It is one of six key pillars of the AFLPA’s wish list for the new pay deal as an industry competitive balance review.

AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh said the player union was open to discussing what levers it could pull so every player drafted had an equal chance of winning a premiership and playing in a successful side.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/afl-accused-of-leaving-womens-players-behind-in-recent-pay-proposal/news-story/e07a6d7fc1e70c6af5c1fd7b47869909

Love this: 'so every player drafted had an equal chance of winning a premiership and playing in a successful side.'
Players arent blessed with the same ability Paul.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Paul Marsh is a flog, wants a massive pay wise for his players but doesn't want players traded without their consent? How selfish and arrogant.

Wow it's almost as if it's his job to negotiate the best possible deal for the players.

Love this: 'so every player drafted had an equal chance of winning a premiership and playing in a successful side.'
Players arent blessed with the same ability Paul.

Glad you love it, shame you don't understand it.

A great player drafted to the Gold Coast has a much lower chance of winning a premiership than a good player drafted to Geelong. In a league striving for competitive balance, such a discrepancy would ideally not exist. At worst, it'd should be much smaller than what it currently is.

 

[faible]

A great player drafted to the Gold Coast has a much lower chance of winning a premiership than a good player drafted to Geelong. In a league striving for competitive balance, such a discrepancy would ideally not exist. At worst, it'd should be much smaller than what it currently is.

You mean the Geelong that won zero Premierships between their 1963 win and their 2007 one?

What's to say Geelong doesn't slide in to irrelevance over the next 5 years and Gold Coast becomes a powerhouse club offering a boutique lifestyle with year-round warm weather and surf beaches nearby?

I don't see how you control for these factors, it changes on a year-by-year basis.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You mean the Geelong that won zero Premierships between their 1963 win and their 2007 one?

No I obviously don't mean Geelong pre-1987, because we're talking about the draft. A lazy 4 grand final appearances in the 20 years leading up to the 2007 flag.

Even during their worst 10-year stretch of the equalisation era, they made finals 4 times, which included 2nd place on the ladder one year and a prelim in another. Quite a bit different to going 12 seasons without making the finals once.

What's to say Geelong doesn't slide in to irrelevance over the next 5 years and Gold Coast becomes a powerhouse club offering a boutique lifestyle with year-round warm weather and surf beaches nearby?

In your unlikely scenario, the system is still failing. The point of equalisation is to prevent teams from either sliding into irrelevance or becoming powerhouses.

A good player should have a good chance of winning a premiership during his career, regardless of which club drafts him. The AFLPA's contention is this can't be achieved without the AFL "pulling levers".

Considering just three no. 1 draft picks have won flags at their original club...

• Drew Banfield and Des Headland at WCE and BL, for whom the AFL were pulling levers that Fremantle and GC weren't afforded.
• Priority pick Luke Hodge, who not only played with priority pick Jarryd Roughead, but also inadvertently benefitted in 2013-15 from the levers the AFL were pulling for GWS.

...it would seem to me Paul Marsh has a point.

 

[faible]

No I obviously don't mean Geelong pre-1986, because we're talking about the draft. A lazy 4 grand final appearances in the 20 years leading up to the 2007 flag.

Even during their worst 10-year stretch of the equalisation era, they made finals 4 times, which included 2nd place on the ladder one year and a prelim in another. Quite a bit different to going 12 seasons without making the finals once.


In your unlikely scenario, the system is still failing. The point of equalisation is to prevent teams from either sliding into irrelevance or becoming powerhouses.

A good player should have a good chance of winning a premiership during his career, regardless of which club drafts him. The AFLPA's contention is this can't be achieved without the AFL "pulling levers".

Considering just three no. 1 draft picks have won flags at their original club...

• Drew Banfield and Des Headland at WCE and BL, for whom the AFL were pulling levers that Fremantle and GC weren't afforded.
• Priority pick Luke Hodge, who not only played with priority pick Jarryd Roughead, but also inadvertently benefitted in 2013-15 from the levers the AFL were pulling for GWS.

...it would seem to me Paul Marsh has a point.

You're never going to achieve every team winning a Premiership every 18th season in a neat little cycle though, so there's never going to be an equal chance at any given point in time of a player winning a Premiership in their career when they're drafted.

Melbourne were a basket-case a decade ago, now they've won a Premiership. Richmond were a basket-case, then won 3 Premierships and picked up some great FA signings. Brisbane won 3 Premierships on the trot, then became a basket-case bleeding players, but now aren't. Geelong have basically been 'up' for 15 years now despite it being the opposite of what the draft is intended to do, Sydney much the same as Geelong.

How do you setup a funding model to 'equalise' the unpredictable? How does one plan for when a club becomes a powerhouse, or stops being one?

Do you give clubs 1% extra in their salary cap for every year outside of a Premiership / GF / Top-4 / Finals?

 

[Teen Wolf]

You're never going to achieve every team winning a Premiership every 18th season in a neat little cycle though, so there's never going to be an equal chance at any given point in time of a player winning a Premiership in their career when they're drafted.

Good players should have a good chance of winning a premiership; great players a great chance, etc. We know this is achievable because it's been achieved before: Every club made at least 1 prelim (and no more than 4) between 2000 and 2007. 16 teams. 8 years. That was pretty "neat".

The competition is miles off that balance now. Mainly because the AFL took away some of the help they were giving the northern states, changed the priority pick rules, and also because the equalisation measures haven't been adequately adapted to an 18-team league.

 

[faible]

Good players should have a good chance of winning a premiership; great players a great chance, etc. We know this is achievable because it's been achieved before: Every club made at least 1 prelim (and no more than 4) between 2000 and 2007. 16 teams. 8 years. That was pretty "neat".

The competition is miles off that balance now. Mainly because the AFL took away some of the help they were giving the northern states, changed the priority pick rules, and also because the equalisation measures haven't been adequately adapted to an 18-team league.

Problem is this isn't basketball where 1 single great player can take a team from poor to competitive, any single signing isn't likely to move the needle all that much if you're a poor team.

Removing COLA from Sydney hasn't appeared to limit their ability to be competitive or retain players, Brisbane has managed to retain players better since they've got their act together off-field.

I'd be genuinely interested to see how the AFLPA propose it's managed that it's not just COLA all over again.

 

[Kwality]

Wow it's almost as if it's his job to negotiate the best possible deal for the players.


Glad you love it, shame you don't understand it.

A great player drafted to the Gold Coast has a much lower chance of winning a premiership than a good player drafted to Geelong. In a league striving for competitive balance, such a discrepancy would ideally not exist. At worst, it'd should be much smaller than what it currently is.

A competitive balance with the benefit of hindsight ?

The advantages the clubs in the heartland States have are still being denied, e.g hanging onto the Home & Away FIXturing. Even a wolf would howl.

 

[Teen Wolf]

A competitive balance with the benefit of hindsight ?

The advantages the clubs in the heartland States have are still being denied, e.g hanging onto the Home & Away FIXturing. Even a wolf would howl.

Definitely barking up the wrong tree there. All 4 grand finalists of 2020 and 2021 from a corner of the country that hosted next to no football during those years.

The Victorian teams in the 18-team era travel more than ever before, yet the balance between flags won by them and non-Vic teams is way more lopsided than it was 20 years ago.

 

[The Educator]

So Ralphy has tweeted some numbers of the CBA

31% increase over the 5 years to 2027 with average just under 600K in 2027. Previously we've heard the AFLW minimum will be $70K in 2026 under the deal.....

Clubs believe the new pay deal to be announced as early as Wednesday likely to be 31 per cent over five years. Something like 10 per cent, just under six per cent, 10, then another 5 over the last two years. Average men’s wage just under $600k by 2027

 

[The Educator]

And the CBA has now landed.

Landmark joint Collective Bargaining Agreement reached



Key Takeaways:



All up the combined AFL and AFLW agreement will see players receive 31.7 per cent of all assessable football revenue.

AFLM

• 10 per cent increase in base pay in 2023.
• 37 per cent increase in pay over the life of the deal.
• Average player salary to increase from $387,000 in 2022 to $519,000 in 2027.
• Five-day breaks provide greater flexibility in fixturing – including more Thursday night games.

AFLW

• 29 per cent pay uplift for AFLW players effective immediately.
• AFLW season length to increase to 12 rounds in 2025, potentially 14 rounds in 2027 based on achieving key metrics
• The AFLW Total Player Payments inclusive of Base amount is more than $32.3 million for 2023, compared to $25 million for Season Seven and $10.4 million in Season Six.

The average AFLW Player pay will immediately increase from $46,000 to $60,000 in 2023, then up to $82,000 by 2027.

Under the revised CBA, it is estimated that more than 90 of the top AFLW players will be paid more than $100,000 for the 2023 season (inclusive of ASA’s) – up from 40 players last season (Season Seven) and 12 players in Season Six.

The five-year deal will see a total AFLW player payment uplift of 77 per cent by 2027 across all 540 players – the largest total investment in women’s sport of any domestic league.

On the last point, the TPP would have to be easily the biggest TPP of any domestic women’s sporting league on the planet. An amazing achievement.

Really disappointing outcome for people who were hoping the men were going to prevent a significant increase in the women’s pay.

Fantastic outcome for the AFLW!