The AFL is at it again with letting their 'journalists' have a free voice of one meaningless paragraph on huge topics that seemingly never get discussed by actual footy journalists (although there are about 3 of those)...

Today is Should player salaries be made public?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-22/should-player-pay-be-public

Now, this one is a tricky one, and I don't really hold a strong opinion on a desire to see it become public knowledge, however, the benefits of having it open are, IMO, quite obvious - if Player X knows exactly what Player Y is getting, then he can make a more informed decision on his own worth.

Geelong made a mockery of the salary cap when they were enjoying their dominance form 2007 to 2011. Players might have known they were getting well paid relative to the teammates but not the competition. Their stars were underpaid and while that is the dream of every team's supporters to have players underpaid and outperform - it is against the ideals of a salary cap equalised game.

Ablett should not have been comparing himself to Bartel's wage, but all the other very best players in the game. While player agents have some - to very good - knowledge on what people are being paid - having wages public would make it profoundly more an effective way of making sure players, and their representation, knew their market value.

It also wouldn't hurt for the public to know the exact reasons how and why Sydney and Carlton can always apparently chase all the biggest names every year...

I'm all for it.

It's a necessary evil to protect the integrity of the game.

It removal speculation and doubt.

It will encourage real free agency.

I can't see any downsides, except perhaps the public knowing footballers salaries. And honestly, we know exactly what rookies and first and second year players get, and we guess pretty accurately the big payments already.

The footballers should want it too.

Apart from the superstars on mega bucks, the transparency is likely to drive the value of mid tier players up.

Hawthorn are making a mockery of it now. They have about 12 players who deserve to be paid as much as our top 3 and if they were paid anywhere near market rate they'd be miles over the salary cap.

I'm not sure we need wages public. But at the same time I don't think it would really hurt anyone. The draftees have their wages published, as do the top players.

Would anyone be upset to find out the a C grade battler earns 200k?

They need to do away with the mimimum level of salary cap too.

The footballers should want it too.

Apart from the superstars on mega bucks, the transparency is likely to drive the value of mid tier players up.

Maybe, but in general free agency drives up the superstars and above average players who make a difference and in turn means that there's no point paying for a C+ or B- player when you can get the same return from a legitimate C grader on the minimum.

Half the players in that 24-27 year range who aren't young kids on the improve or quality best 15-20 on your list will all end up signing 1 year 150k deals trying to prove they can have great years before being locked away for longer term deals with decent money.

At least that's how it works in the NBA and NFL so I'd expect the same thing here.

I haven't thought this through enough to have a view, but an alternative might be to publish bands within which player salaries fall. For example,

John Smith $600,000-$700,000

Bob Miller $450,000-$600,000

Bill Bloggs $200,000-$450,000

etc

I'm against it, it's none of my business, as long as all clubs are inside the cap I'm happy.

I'm against it, it's none of my business, as long as all clubs are inside the cap I'm happy.

Me too AD

The article on the Swans mentioned both the Swans and GWS is having their COLA phased out over the next two years. Anyone know when GC loose theirs?

The article on the Swans mentioned both the Swans and GWS is having their COLA phased out over the next two years. Anyone know when GC loose theirs?

Maybe they don't have COLA....but do they and GWS get any other allowances?

I haven't thought this through enough to have a view, but an alternative might be to publish bands within which player salaries fall. For example,

John Smith $600,000-$700,000

Bob Miller $450,000-$600,000

Bill Bloggs $200,000-$450,000

etc

they might have to anyway if there is any level of pay for performance in their contracts

Players mix within their team and with players of other teams. They know what each other re getting or are worth. If by chance some want to know exactly how much, then their agent will know. Player agents negotiate contracts, so they will know who gets what. Would've thought its in their best interests to be relatively open about these things amongst themselves. Making it public would mostly benefit the fans, and why do we need to know this? They are not public servants, could be argued it's a breach of privacy.

Maybe they don't have COLA....but do they and GWS get any other allowances?

Not sure RJAY, I'm hoping RPFC has the answer.

There's always the "have a chat to one of our sponsors" who just happens to be a property developer. So will we ever know the true amount.

I like the idea raised by Eddie a couple of years ago of having one marquee player that can be paid outside the cap.

Not public knowledge, why do we need to know? So long as Team A knows what Player B is getting paid, that's all that matters.

It's funny that both the for and against in the article are essentially arguing for a greater level of transparency.

Would anyone be upset to find out the a C grade battler earns 200k?

A B-Grader on the same or less money?

I haven't thought this through enough to have a view, but an alternative might be to publish bands within which player salaries fall. For example,

John Smith $600,000-$700,000

Bob Miller $450,000-$600,000

Bill Bloggs $200,000-$450,000

etc

Bands would be the way to go, gives a rough idea of how the club values them without fully disclosing the players salary/ benefits.

Making it public would mostly benefit the fans, and why do we need to know this? They are not public servants, could be argued it's a breach of privacy.

Good point Moon, why are public servants salaries made public? A google search ends up in 50,000 articles on public service pay rises and I'm not sure so would appreciate your input.

If I was to take a stab I'd say it's because information should be transparent when there is public interest involved and because we, the taxpayer, indirectly pay their wage and we want to know how our money is being spent.

None of my business. As long as the club knows all the info

Sponsorship money and incentives cloud the real figure anyway.

Whether or not you'd like it to happen, it's not really feasibly possible anyway, because I don't think there's a single footballer in the land on a contract that pays them a certain amount of money per year. Most contracts are of the format:

Base salary

plus match payments

plus B&F result bonus.

plus performance threshold bonus (number of matches exceeds a certain number)

plus bonus for AA nomination

plus bonus for AA selection

plus bonus for Brownlow victory

etc.

Unless you publish the whole contract, you haven't achieved the stated goal anyway.

The payments would be reported retrospectively I.e. At the end of each season

Yes of course they should be.

1.Transparency for fans,AFL,all clubs.

2.Planning/flexibility for struggling teams

3.Would see $$ matched with talent /performance/loyalty rather than bullsh!t speculation from Agents.

4.Could help wrest some of the power from the tattoed bogan union of chapel st.

Against.

1.We would be aghast at what some blokes are getting.

2.The coaches contract is made public and often these salaries are below what a back pocket gets.Leading to power struggles.

We have got this right,the bulldogs are still struggling with the concept.

The payments would be reported retrospectively I.e. At the end of each season

in that case, front/back loading unless also disclosed separately would distort the reporting

anyway, i think i am against the disclosure. seems just more petrol for the social media busybodies

First point to note: Players, through their agents, have a very good idea of what comparable players are earning and what they should reasonably expect to earn. Making salaries public wont affect that.

And for the Geelong example, the thing to understand is that those players knew they were taking de facto paycuts, but they believed they were headed for something special and valued that more highly. Now they'll go down in football history as being one the most professional, most united and most successful groups of players ever to take to the field.

As for the issue itself, I don't think a lot is to be gained through detailed public disclosure, but it might be appropriate to have a kind of 'band' system that gives a general idea of what layer of income players are in. Something very simple like 5 basic bands;

1 - $750k +

For the truly alarmingly well paid.

2 - $500k+

The wider group of the game's elite players (as measured by salary of course)

3 - $350k+

Common salary band for mature players well established in the upper half of a club's best 22

4 - $200k+

Typical salary band for a player getting a reasonable number of games each season

5 - under $200k

Draftees, rookies, project players etc.

That would be more than enough detail to satisfy curiosity without giving away too much precise information about individual's finances.

Whether or not you'd like it to happen, it's not really feasibly possible anyway, because I don't think there's a single footballer in the land on a contract that pays them a certain amount of money per year. Most contracts are of the format:

Base salary

plus match payments

plus B&F result bonus.

plus performance threshold bonus (number of matches exceeds a certain number)

plus bonus for AA nomination

plus bonus for AA selection

plus bonus for Brownlow victory

etc.

Unless you publish the whole contract, you haven't achieved the stated goal anyway.

Yes.Publish the lot and make a a final list of payments at years' end.

Unless we have 15 blokes make AA, then we should be safe from salary cap breaches.

First point to note: Players, through their agents, have a very good idea of what comparable players are earning and what they should reasonably expect to earn. Making salaries public wont affect that.

And for the Geelong example, the thing to understand is that those players knew they were taking de facto paycuts, but they believed they were headed for something special and valued that more highly. Now they'll go down in football history as being one the most professional, most united and most successful groups of players ever to take to the field.

As for the issue itself, I don't think a lot is to be gained through detailed public disclosure, but it might be appropriate to have a kind of 'band' system that gives a general idea of what layer of income players are in. Something very simple like 5 basic bands;

1 - $750k +

For the truly alarmingly well paid.

2 - $500k+

The wider group of the game's elite players (as measured by salary of course)

3 - $350k+

Common salary band for mature players well established in the upper half of a club's best 22

4 - $200k+

Typical salary band for a player getting a reasonable number of games each season

5 - under $200k

Draftees, rookies, project players etc.

That would be more than enough detail to satisfy curiosity without giving away too much precise information about individual's finances.

Goffy,

Let's not forget the people who pay the salaries of these boys.In a nutshell,it is members and the slobs that get foxtel,along with the merch .

It is in every sense a public company/enterprise.

Any lack of transparency throws doubt on the AFL and weakens the game.

Why would you not want to know what is going on with peoples contracts?

Of any club, ours is the one that should be seeking this more than anyone given the mismanagement that has occurred in the near past .

Lets see what these guys are worth and what they do for the cash.