Nick Bendel
I’ve seen the future…but does it work?
June 12th 2008 03:55
Should we aspire towards the sort of laissez-faire system that Adam Smith might have advocated, in which “the invisible hand” of self-interest pits club against club, to ultimately produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of supporters?
Or should we aim for the Karl Marx model, of “each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?
Today’s AFL is a socialist utopia, in which the weak are propped up with salary cap dispensations, superior draft picks, and special grants. Had Brisbane and Sydney not been granted more salary cap room than their rivals, it is unlikely that they would have won their recent premierships. Had Hawthorn not received more favourable draft picks than their rivals (Buddy Franklin and Jarryd Roughhead were recruited at the end of the 2004 season, in which the Hawks finished second last), it is unlikely that they would have made such a rapid rise from the bottom to the top of the ladder. And had the Western Bulldogs not been allocated their Annual Special Distribution funds over the last few years, it is unlikely that they would even be alive.
Yet cracks have recently begun to appear in the grand socialist edifice. Salary cap dispensations have been wound back, while the priority draft pick system has been amended. Now, if Adelaide chairman Bill Sanders gets his wish, the ASD will be scrapped altogether. “A lot of people think it, no one’s saying it. I’d be surprised if Adelaide’s view was not shared by the majority of clubs.”
The Bulldogs- along with the two other struggling clubs, the Demons and Kangaroos- would surely be in Marx’s corner. They would argue that the socialist system needs to be maintained, to prevent those with rich heritages from dying, and to allow the sporting cycle to function as smoothly as possible. They would point out that eight different teams have played in the last eight grand finals, in which there were six different winners. More of the same would allow all 16 clubs a chance to taste success.
But the Crows- along with Sanders’ alleged silent majority- would surely be in Smith’s corner. They would argue that the socialist system needs to be changed, to prevent impediments being placed on future growth. They would point out that in such a competitive sporting marketplace, the last thing needed is an ideology that rewards mediocrity. More of the same would allow rivals such as football and the two rugby codes to make gains at the AFL’s expense.
The root of the AFL’s problem- and it is one with which football and the two rugby codes are familiar- is having to run a twenty first century competition with twentieth century structures. If the league was to be launched today, a collection of well-governed teams would be spread around the country, rather than the bulk of them hailing from Melbourne (and Geelong). Likewise, if the NRL was to be launched today, it would establish a truly national presence, instead of the current situation in which most of its teams are based in Sydney (and Newcastle).
Rugby union and football have recently tackled the same problem, with varying degrees of success. While the ARU has managed to place four viable provincial teams around Australia, its attempt to create a sustainable national club competition, the Australian Rugby Championship, failed. The FFA appears to have done a better job, replacing the National Soccer League- a competition with an uneven spread of poorly run clubs- with the A-League- a competition with an even spread of clubs, which appear to be more soundly managed.
As the AFL tries to modernise its aging structures, the ideological debate is heating up. New franchises will soon be opening for business at the Gold Coast and western Sydney, raising fears that two Melbourne clubs will have to be eliminated (or at least allowed to die a natural death) in order to make room for them. And that raises the question: what sort of AFL do we want?
An 18 team competition, run on socialist lines, would contain a blend of traditional and newer clubs, in which none are allowed to die, and all get to take turns at being successful. The risk is that in trying to please everyone, you end up with a bloated league, in which the talent is spread too thinly and mediocrity is rewarded.
It is difficult to predict what would happen if the competition was allowed to run on more capitalistic lines. There is little doubt that at least one Victorian club would fold, given that the market is just not big enough to support 10 of them. But it is also probable that at least one of the new franchises would go bankrupt, given that they would face stiff competition from their local rivals in both the AFL and NRL. Those with the most efficient and sustainable corporate models would survive, and they would be able to create stronger squads in what might be a competition of as few as 13 or 14 clubs. The risk is that in taking such a rationalist approach to improving the quality of the product, large numbers of fans are alienated, with the result that fewer people are interested in sampling it.
So what sort of AFL do we want? Will we trust everything to “the invisible hand”, and let the chips fall where they may? Or we will continue to muddle along with what we’ve already got, supporting “each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? As the ideological arguments rage back and forth, footy fans should be paying very close attention.
| 62 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
