Originally Posted by
liz
The 10% (or rather, 9.8%) was explicitly a cost of living allowance. In the early naughties, I think the allowance was up around 15%, and the Lions also had a smaller allowance. There was a retention component in those allowance (exclusively so for the Lions). After the Melbourne clubs became upset that the Lions won a threepeat, they lost their retention allowance and the Swans' allowance was reduced so that it became just to cover cost of living. Yes, the size of the amount is/was somewhat arbitrary.
I've heard Maguire justify the removal of the Lions' retention allowance by the fact that they haven't won a threepeat since. Of course, that's ridiculous. It implies that their retention allowance was the sole reason they achieved a three-peat, and fails to acknowledge that since their allowance was removed, their success in even qualifying for the finals has been significantly below that which would be expected "on average". Not to mention the absence of any explanation as to how the Hawks achieved a threepeat, or the Cats won three premierships over six years (other than the fact these are well-run clubs - a repeat of the dumb hypocrisy).
I confess I thought the replacement of the cost of living allowance with the rental allowance largely addressed the pure cost of living issues for players. I would have structured it differently - eg giving a fixed amount to every player, not just those on low wages. It doesn't help the Sydney clubs' position to argue for a percentage allowance for all equivalent to whatever the estimated cost of living differential is because, as many rightly point out, there becomes a point where cost of living takes up a relatively small part of income and so differentials are less relevant to the "equity" argument.
I believe retention remains a bigger issue, though it mostly becomes apparent when a club isn't competitive. The Swans haven't suffered huge retention issues while they've been up, and the Lions' seem to have been alleviated for now. It remains hard to interpret the Giants' issues because they still have a list that is (IMO) the most talented on paper, and the salary cap is doing what it should be doing if they can't retain everyone. However, that doesn't mean they are not at a disadvantage when compared to clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong that have managed to keep together lists deep in talent in recent seasons.
More broadly, the salary cap is a very fluid tool and not especially transparent when third party deals exist. Some of these are small and genuine - ie players actually do do additional work to earn additional income, though inequalities in access to such opportunities mean clubs aren't playing on the same level field. As a starting point, I'd love to see the AFL collate (and ideally publish) information at a club-aggregate level that show the total income earned by playing lists, including salary cap, AMA payments, third party payments and other income. At an aggregate level, it won't tell the whole story, but it might give some indication of just how unlevel the playing field is.
Bookmarks