Player movement in football is big business and can make or break a team’s fortunes. The way clubs, agents and players operate is constantly changing, as are the rules the AFL sets down.
This masthead spoke to 12 people across the AFL community, from various perspectives, on the condition of anonymity to enable them to discuss player movement matters more freely.
Bailey Smith, Dan Houston, Daniel Rioli and Jake Stringer all changed clubs in the 2024 AFL trade period.Credit: Getty Images
As part of those discussions about the future of football, this masthead learnt that clubs have pitched alternative options for free agency compensation and the draft matching process on academy and father-son guns.
In the first of a two-part series on direction of player movement in the AFL, we look at free agency, academies, new future trading rules and whether a traditional rebuild is still possible as the draft becomes increasingly compromised.
Come back on Tuesday for part two of our series, when Tasmania, pick purchasing and contract lengths are on the agenda.
The impact of free agency
The biggest consequence of free agency’s introduction in 2012 was not star players all wanting to join the best clubs – although this has happened to a degree – but rather a trend of players scoring longer contracts. Seven- and eight-year deals are now the norm as clubs work to retain high-profile players in their free agency seasons, or even in pre-agency (the year before a player becomes a free agent), with an increasing number already contracted beyond 2030.
Carlton’s Jacob Weitering, premiership Lion Cam Rayner and Adelaide’s Darcy Fogarty all re-signed recently through to the 2031 season, while Richmond’s Noah Balta extended to the end of 2032.
List bosses are willing to pay a free agency premium – often well above the odds in salary and contract length – to recruit players because they don’t have to hand over a draft pick.
This has led to generous compensation at times for clubs that lose players, such as North Melbourne (Ben McKay, pick three) and St Kilda (Josh Battle, eight), who were big winners with top-10 selections. There was also debate about Joe Daniher’s contract structure when he left Essendon for the Brisbane Lions, on a deal that landed the Bombers maximum compensation.
Ben McKay’s free agency exit delivered North Melbourne pick three as compensation.Credit: AFL Photos
There are various “bands” of compensation depending on salary, contract length and age, with those picks tacked on after a club’s selection in the corresponding round, or at the end of a particular round.
There is a club-led push for band one compensation to be a pick outside the top 10, regardless of ladder position – rather than as high as the No.2 selection, if the wooden-spooner loses a free agent – according to sources. The belief was clubs might fight harder to retain a player such as McKay.
Another fresh concept raised in the competitive balance review discussions was to tie compensation to the AFL’s draft value index (DVI) system, which allocates a descending points value to each pick. The logic would be to try to more fairly evaluate a player’s worth based on their contract.
Players qualify as free agents after eight years’ service at one club, or once delisted at any stage of their career. Anyone out of contract after 10 years’ service is an unrestricted free agent, while players are otherwise restricted free agents if they don’t meet that service time and are paid in the top 25 per cent at their club.
Polarising academies
The AFL appeased largely Victorian clubs this year by returning matching rights on Next Generation Academy prospects to any stage of the draft, while stripping thousands of points from its DVI to make it harder to match academy and father-son guns.
St Kilda president Andrew Bassat remains frustrated with the system, airing his grievances at the Saints’ club champion function while arguing northern and wealthier clubs get too much of a free kick.
The decision to restructure the DVI will most impact the northern academies – Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney and GWS – meaning they may have to pass on some local prospects. Each of those clubs has academy success stories, and are tipping in well north of $1 million annually to develop academy talent. The Suns matched four first-round opposition bids last year on academy prospects, are set to match another in the top 10 this year (Leo Lombard) and one of their own (Zeke Uwland) could be the No.1 pick in 2025.
Essendon can match any opposition draft bid on exciting small forward Isaac Kako.Credit: afl.com.au
Gold Coast also have access to highly rated teenagers Dylan Patterson, Beau Addinsall, Kalani White (son of Jeff, who is father-son eligible for Melbourne) and Jai Murray, while Brisbane have another promising midfielder, Daniel Annable, up for grabs next year.
The league is pleased to see more players being developed in Queensland and NSW, but one possible consequence of the DVI changes is there may be less motivation for northern clubs to pump money into their academy without the same reward.
The same occurred when the AFL briefly watered down NGA player access. Top-tier talent such as Mac Andrew (Melbourne) and Cam Mackenzie (St Kilda) ended up at different clubs to their NGA connection because they were top-10 selections. Thanks to NGA access being restored, Essendon will be able to match any bid on Isaac Kako, who is as good as certain to be a first-round selection.
The NGA changes lasted only a few years, so clubs are watching to see if the AFL’s DVI points changes suffer a similar fate.
There are various theories on how the matching process for academy and father-son players could improve, including a club needing a pick in the same round that an opposition bid comes. In this example, clubs could also draw from future years if they did not have an adjacent selection in that year’s draft.
Another idea was that if a club chose not to match an academy or father-son bid, its pick in that round would climb to after where the bid came. Others preferred the DVI points process for simplicity, even while saying it was not perfect.
Trading future draft picks
Future trading was introduced in 2015. Though clubs have not been able to trade more than one year ahead, the mechanism afforded greater flexibility to end trade deadlocks.
But from 2025, list chiefs will be able to swap picks two years in advance.
Melbourne list boss Tim Lamb has enjoyed strong success since future trading entered the AFL.Credit: AFL Photos
Melbourne list boss Tim Lamb and recruiting manager Jason Taylor have combined to ace the futures market in the decade since its introduction. The Demons repeatedly deployed this strategy to target draftees, such as Clayton Oliver and Kysaiah Pickett, and own multiple first-rounders in the same year, as they will again this month. Collingwood have traded the most future first-rounders without the same return as Melbourne, with the ability, or inability, to forecast ladder finishes a key part of it.
Many of the biggest deals in recent times involved future picks, from Jason Horne-Francis in the “mega deal” of 2022 to Dan Houston, Shai Bolton, Brodie Grundy (to Sydney), Luke Jackson, Izak Rankine, Josh Dunkley, Jordan Dawson and Adam Cerra.
There are strict rules in place, whereby clubs must have used two first-round selections across the prior four drafts to be able to trade their future first-rounder, but they can receive AFL permission if they traded for younger players.
There could be a relaxing of future trading rules. Unlike in 2024 and earlier, one proposal is that clubs won’t have to retain their future second- and third-round selections if they offload their future first from the next year, according to club sources. However, they would have to retain them if they traded a future first two years in advance. No decision has been made yet.
Club sources believe there would have been a greater chance of Christian Petracca or Oliver leaving the Demons if suitors could have used picks from the next two years in the most recent trade period.
Can clubs still rebuild?
The short answer is yes, even as academy and father-son picks heavily compromise the draft. One recruiter who spoke to this masthead bemoaned how only 42 out of 96 players eligible for next year’s draft who took part in “futures” games in August were not tied to a club already.
Sam Mitchell and Hawthorn enjoyed a successful season.Credit: via Getty Images
Hawthorn and North Melbourne both cut deeply – slashing or trading veterans on mass – to embark on rebuilds in the past five years, but with drastically different results. The Hawks lost, traded or cut the likes of Jaeger O’Meara, Tom Mitchell, Shaun Burgoyne, Ben McEvoy, Jack Gunston (who returned last year), Liam Shiels and Jon Patton in the 2021-22 off-seasons, yet won a final this year.
They belatedly invested in the draft in the Sam Mitchell era after Alastair Clarkson’s exit, and were rewarded. The draft remains critical to a rebuild. Hawthorn’s rapid rise enabled them to roll out the next phase of their blueprint: recruiting established defenders Tom Barrass and Battle.
However, there are opposition list management staff who believe the Hawks are outliers benefiting from a brilliant coach. That might be underestimating Hawthorn’s recruiting team.
The Kangaroos have finished in the bottom two for five consecutive seasons, and struggled to recover after a 15-player cull at the end of 2020. Ben Brown, Shaun Higgins and Mason Wood headlined the departures, which included redrafting Will Walker before he was delisted again, for good, a year later. They, too, went the draft route, but endured a more challenging journey.
North, who have Clarkson at the helm as the latest in a revolving door of coaches, twice received AFL assistance. The help included bonus draft picks they had to trade for mature-age players, as well as extra rookie-list spots. The league does not appear willing to hand over top-end priority picks any more.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
