A concessional concession

by MICHAEL STEVEN

IT'S no co-incidence that four out of the last five years' premierships were won by teams with a salary cap concession. It is also no co-incidence that in the years that Sydney or Brisbane didn't win it they made the finals in four of the five years with Brisbane coming second the day Port Adelaide was given honorary magpie status.

A salary cap concession of more than half a million dollars gives your team the opportunity of one extra A-grade player, which in Sydney's case would be a Goodes, Hall or Kirk.

Conversely, teams that are struggling financially in Melbourne are given money to prop up their financial situation, but only if they spend it frugally and that means keeping their salary cap to the absolute minimum. This means that Sydney and Brisbane probably have the advantage of being able to pay for two top line footballers more than teams like Footscray or North Melbourne.

The AFL has made a commitment to the survival of all teams in Melbourne but is restricting their ability to rise out of their financial situation by hampering their ability to achieve financial success, ie to win a premiership. They are seriously disadvantaged in terms of achieving on field success and therefore seriously disadvantaged in achieving the success needed to get themselves out of the financial difficulties they are in.

If the AFL is serious about sustaining the financially-troubled clubs in Melbourne it would follow the same strategy that it has adopted for the footy teams that exist in the rugby states, it would sponsor their playing lists to ensure that they were successful on field. Just imagine the sponsorship opportunities that would flow into Melbourne's western suburbs if the emerging Footscray was able to compete on an equal footing with Brisbane and then lure Luke Power to their club to play with his brother.

But, then again, the AFL brand doesn't need sponsoring in Melbourne; it is thriving. The problem is that the AFL has decided it needs to promote itself in those northern states at the expense of an equal playing field. It has structured its financial subsidies in such a way that contrives the winning team but at the same time looks generous and to be promoting equality by propping up the so-called struggling clubs.

The equalisation fund should be used to allow these struggling clubs to buy extra players necessary to win a premiership. That's the philosophy that created four premierships in the last five years. If the AFL wanted an equal competition that philosophy would be extended to all clubs needing assistance.

Some people criticise the salary cap for being socialist and restricting opportunity for all. But somehow I think it is not about trying to be equal, I think it is about making money, I think that it is brand promotion, contriving the results to suit the best dollar outcome. That means that the teams in Melbourne in need of support can look forward to continued mediocrity and struggle. But who cares, Sydney finally won the flag that the AFL powerbrokers have so desperately wanted for so long.

Congratulations to the Sydney team by the way. That group is worthy of its win despite the AFL's overt favouritism and support and in hindsight they were always going to win it. The Greek God was with them.

But don't get me started on the integrity of the tribunal that ruled Hall's punch to the mid drift, dropping McGuire to his knees, as unintentional. Remember that if he wasn't playing football, Hall would be a professional pugilist and probably a bloody good one given that he can knock a player down, even when he didn't mean to throw the punch!

If only Collingwood played in a rugby state.

australianrules.com.au

Disclaimer