As the title of this post would suggest, I'm somewhat torn on the free agency idea.
Currently, players land at clubs positioned on the ladder in a sort of weird inverse proportionality to the player's perceived talents, that is, the best potential players (in each draft round) going to the worst-performed clubs.
Let's think about the ramifications. Had Joel Selwood been drafted by Richmond, would we be singing his praises in quite the same way? Had Colin Sylvia been drafted by Geelong, would he now rival someone like Jimmy Bartel in that group?
Players play the game, as we're reminded almost every week, to play in Premiership teams. Had Richard Tambling been drafted by Geelong, he might well have a Premiership Medal hung on his wall.
As things stand, other than delisting or trading, a player has to accept his lot. Scott West and Robert Harvey, for instance, will go into the history books as two wonderful players who never savoured Premiership glory at the elite level.
The other side of the argument concerns loyalty to your mates, the culture, the history and the hundreds of passionate, ne'er-say-die volunteers and helpers around every club. I'd suggest that the aforementioned Scott West and Robert Harvey had opportunities to move to potentially more successful clubs. I'd also suggest both are very proud to be known as one-club players.
I'm very inclined to Eddie Maguire's view: that free agency will result in the death of multiple clubs in Melbourne. Wealthy clubs will, again, be able to effectively "buy" a Premiership. Less affluent clubs will lose their better players for, probably, negligible compensation.
There's one other factor that almost tips the scales for me. The salary cap was introduced to even out the competition, to avoid the rich clubs buying high-performance teams designed to fill their trophy cabinets (I'm looking at you, Carlton!). Free agency works in direct opposition to the salary cap.
I'd be grateful for the collected wisdom of the AussieRulesBlog 'community' to help me make up my mind. . .
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Free agency vs loyalty vs footy socialism?
Currently, players land at clubs positioned on the ladder in a sort of weird inverse proportionality to the player's perceived talents, that is, the best potential players (in each draft round) going to the worst-performed clubs.
Let's think about the ramifications. Had Joel Selwood been drafted by Richmond, would we be singing his praises in quite the same way? Had Colin Sylvia been drafted by Geelong, would he now rival someone like Jimmy Bartel in that group?
Players play the game, as we're reminded almost every week, to play in Premiership teams. Had Richard Tambling been drafted by Geelong, he might well have a Premiership Medal hung on his wall.
As things stand, other than delisting or trading, a player has to accept his lot. Scott West and Robert Harvey, for instance, will go into the history books as two wonderful players who never savoured Premiership glory at the elite level.
The other side of the argument concerns loyalty to your mates, the culture, the history and the hundreds of passionate, ne'er-say-die volunteers and helpers around every club. I'd suggest that the aforementioned Scott West and Robert Harvey had opportunities to move to potentially more successful clubs. I'd also suggest both are very proud to be known as one-club players.
I'm very inclined to Eddie Maguire's view: that free agency will result in the death of multiple clubs in Melbourne. Wealthy clubs will, again, be able to effectively "buy" a Premiership. Less affluent clubs will lose their better players for, probably, negligible compensation.
There's one other factor that almost tips the scales for me. The salary cap was introduced to even out the competition, to avoid the rich clubs buying high-performance teams designed to fill their trophy cabinets (I'm looking at you, Carlton!). Free agency works in direct opposition to the salary cap.
I'd be grateful for the collected wisdom of the AussieRulesBlog 'community' to help me make up my mind. . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I Don't mind the idea of a limited free agency for players who have been in the system for a long time (ie. greater than 5 years) or who have not been offered a new contract by their club.
Also on your last point, free agency doesn't work in opposition to the Salary Cap - a properly enforced salary cap can work alongside free agency. It does in plenty of leagues around the world.
What free agency works against is the draft - but with a five or six year period before you could be eligble, the club would get a fair reward for developing the player.
Thanks for your thoughts Michael. If free agency were to be introduced, I think 5–6 years is far too short. A ruck prospect, for instance, could take four to five years to reach his best. If FA came in at 5 years, the drafting club would have got virtually no benefit for their development effort.
Can you explain how FA and salary cap work together? And some example leagues?
How do free agency and a salary cap work together? Well for simplicity's sake you take the exact system we have now and say that a player is a free agent at the end of a contract when they have had 7 years at a club.
Clubs are free to offer contracts to free agents however the contract still has to fit into their salary cap.
The NFL and NHL in the States both have similar models.
To eleaborate further I think there are two good reasons for free agency -
1. The current 'market' for players is broken. It is so difficult for players to move. I don't think anyone who loves the game would approve of English soccer style arrangement, but players who want to change clubs often have a very difficult time of it.
2. The players are the ones who pay the largest price for equalisation of the competition. Realistically a decent senior (but not spectacular) player will rarely get more than 12-13 seasons in the system. The salary cap keeps their wages lower than they would be otherwise - something that people in just about any area of work would not tolerate. If a club gets them locked in for half of their career, they should have a little more 'hand' in getting a better deal for themselves or be free to move. For cultural reasons most players want to play at one club anyway.
Thanks again, Michael. Very eloquently explained.
Presumably, along with the salary cap restriction, the list limit would also remain, so the club would effectively forfeit a draft pick?
I would be concerned that the current cultural preference for one club players would be diminished by free agency.
'I would be concerned that the current cultural preference for one club players would be diminished by free agency.'
Yeah that would probably be the case , but realistically a tight Salary cap would make it very difficult for a Collingwood or West Coast to go offering massive pay increases increases to any player who takes their fancy.
Most players that would be using free agency would be those who want to move anyway, i.e. Judd, Stevens, Carr.
Post a Comment