Footballers have rejected an AFL proposal to trade contracted players without their consent as part of a club push as negotiations for the next pay deal stagnate.
AFL Players Association boss Paul Marsh revealed to The Age on Monday that the clubs had pushed, via the league, to be given the right to trade contracted players against their will in the new collective bargaining agreement discussions.
Marsh said the players and the AFL were “a long way apart on everything” in the CBA negotiations, with the league making its first proposal three weeks ago.
“They actually want to reduce the freedom of contract for players and take away choice in movement … which is something we will never agree to,” Marsh said.
“The players are human beings and they don’t get paid enough to be told, ‘You’ve got a family with two kids, now you live in Melbourne [but you are being traded interstate]’.
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan and AFL Players Association boss Paul Marsh.Credit: Getty Images
“It’s all right in the NBA when you’re paid $20 million bucks … but our average salary is $400,000 – it’s ridiculous.”
Asked what it would take for the players to agree, Marsh said: “It would take a whole lot more than the industry would be prepared to provide. ”
The AFL also raised the prospect of mid-season trades, which will continue to be discussed, but Marsh envisioned unintended consequences.
“We’ll have that conversation. That’s not necessarily our proposal, and we see some pros and cons around that,” he said.
“I think the pros are players who are not getting a game would get a game – we all see that, [where] some players might not be happy somewhere.
“[It is also beneficial for] teams that have got a glaring issue. Ruck is the one that always comes up, so it potentially can fill those gaps.
“But on the flip side, I think the major issue is players will be pressured out of clubs. I think that’s inevitable, but also I think potentially clubs who are struggling in any given year will clean out players for the longer term, which could make the second half of seasons are pretty drawn out.”
Marsh stopped short of fearing it would lead to clubs deliberately trying to lose once they fall out of finals contention, but felt it would be detrimental for the competition.
“I wouldn’t go as far as say tanking, but once you’ve lost hope, you start to look at how you can get rid of some of your better players,” he said.
“So I think that’s something the whole industry needs to be worried about, because last year was probably the best football season any of us can remember, and this season is shaping up competitively as well.
“Do we actually want to be opening that up?”
Players have been open to playing more rounds of football, with the successful Gather Round an example of players being open to finding new revenue streams after COVID. The players remain open to adding one further round of football.
‘It would take a whole lot more than the industry would be prepared to provide.’
Paul Marsh, AFLPA chief executive
Players had also agreed to changes that could allow the AFL to schedule Thursday night football all season if it wanted.
The AFLPA is pushing for 32 per cent of total revenue to be returned to players in a joint AFL-AFLW collective bargaining agreement. Under the previous CBA the AFL players received 28 per cent and the AFLW players the equivalent of 2.5 percent, so Marsh said the effective combined level had been at 30.5 per cent and the players were now looking at an increase to 32 per cent.
He said that changes the players wanted under the new CBA would recognise the human rights of players and could see all clubs submitted to a Do Better-style report into their handling of Indigenous footballers.
The AFL wants to negotiate a new nine-year CBA tying it to the lifespan of the new broadcast rights deal, but the AFLPA only wants a four-year deal. The players believe there is too much uncertainty and change, with the AFL poised to make a decision on introducing a new team in Tasmania.
The AFLPA is open to the idea of reintroducing a new expansion club or retention allowance – as opposed to the previous Cost of Living Allowance – due to the clear problems confronting the NSW and Queensland teams.
