September is an important month in the heartland of Aussie Rules football. Team colours are donned, flags are hoisted, and millions tune into events such as the Brownlow Medal, the annual parade and the Grand Final. Finals football unites the community and creates a sense of festivity. But September is also the perfect opportunity to reflect on the season.
A game ingrained in our culture with a wealth of history, tradition and passionate fans, you would think it would be in a healthy state. In 2012, the AFL was the fourth–best–attended professional sporting league in the world. It rakes in three times the revenue of the NRL, four times the revenue of the A–League, and six times the revenue of rugby union. But behind the glossy figures, the game is in worse–shape than it has ever been before.
News Corp and Fox Footy’s annual footy survey found just over half of fans dissatisfied with AFL compared to previous years. It is a worrisome figure when you have more fans than not unhappy with today’s game. The consequence? The AFL has had one of its least successful seasons. Match–day attendance has fallen by more than 11 per cent. Victorian crowds have dropped by almost 4,000 a game compared to last season, and Collingwood, the biggest sporting club in Australia, has lost 6,000 fans attending matches each week. The Australian Financial Review says majority of clubs will record financial losses this year with debt across the Melbourne clubs at $30 million. If the AFL underestimated the importance of its fans, this year’s figures have been a slap in the face. Unfortunately there is no easy fix. The AFL Commission must re–evaluate its strategic agenda to win over disgruntled fans and ensure the best future for the game.
One of the most critical areas of the game needing review is inconsistent umpiring. With new rules being implemented every year umpiring has become more challenging. The game is tightly regulated and players can’t get away with what they did before. But the constant fluctuation in rule interpretation has frustrated players, coaches and fans alike. Collingwood full forward Travis Cloke admitted to watching Friday night football to gauge how his game would be umpired and what he would and would not be able to get away with that particular week. While the odd wrong call is expected, what is inexcusable is games being won or lost because of a controversial umpiring decision. This has happened too often.
Yet substandard umpiring is not the only element of the game to vex fans. Last month, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) issued an official warning to the AFL and its clubs for additional costs to membership fees that ranged from $8.50 to $39. ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said: “The AFL and clubs are now on notice that the Australian Consumer Law applies to them, and that the ACCC expects disclosure of these types of additional costs to be made in a way which is clear.” The intervention came at the request of fans with some, having paid $600 for membership, unable to buy ANZAC Day tickets or attend reserved matches.
While increased ticketing prices and the rise in food costs make football an unaffordable day out for families, scheduling has had the biggest impact in keeping fans away. Possibly the AFL’s biggest blunder was allowing television broadcasters to dictate days and times of matches at the expense of the fans. While broadcasters can show every game live and blockbuster matches at prime time, generating bigger television audiences and more money, it has led to poor match–day attendance and cost the game its atmosphere. In late June, two of the biggest rival clubs played each other in what should have been another annual blockbuster with an excess of 70,000 spectators. The Sunday evening time slot resulted in Collingwood and Carlton attracting an attendance of just 40,000, the lowest crowd between the two teams since 1921. It was a statement loud and clear to the AFL. Football won’t be successful if it doesn’t cater for the fans.
With an organisation sidetracked by revenue–raising opportunities such as national expansion and television deals, fans are turning to the VFL and local teams to get their weekly footy fix. These games are affordable, played during traditional time slots, offer a family–friendly match day experience and are less rigorously umpired. They resemble the football of old. Others are simply switching to alternative sporting codes such as the A–League and NRL.
The sad reality is that more people will know about ASADA and the Essendon supplements scandal than which teams made the finals. When we talk about football we are talking about prices, umpiring, broadcast rights, scheduling and the latest scandal. We need a competent AFL commission so we can go back to talking about what we love most, the game, not how it is run. Football will always evolve, but it is up to the AFL whether it evolves for the best.
About Siobhan Calafiore
I'm a passionate Collingwood supporter with a love for writing and am currently studying journalism at RMIT University.
Great stuff. I also think the ‘skill level’ on display at times isn’t helping the AFL’s case either. Players often spilling soft uncontested marks, unable to use the opposite sides of their bodies to execute and some players missing set shots from 20 meters out with negligible angles does my head in…
Good on you, Siobhan.
I’d add fixturing to this mess. 18 clubs, 23 rounds. Nonsense.
And the woeful idea of encouraging a false “match day experience;” whipping up one-eyed hollow whooping instead of putting on an affordable afternoon of footy (perhaps a reserves game, followed by a senior fixture – imagine!).
Great article , Siobhan and so spot on it is ironic 2 that over here in , Adelaide that I think it is more excitement about the opening of the new oval ( and Port are a exciting team to watch ) and the novel affect which is most likely to wear off it will be interesting to see how south australia reacts to afl footy in the future
Siobhan- I hope the AFL heeds the collective anger, but of course the loudest voices belong to the corporates and the broadcasters. Good job.
Some big problems of the supposed national competition:
1) You state the total debt for all the Melbourne clubs is around $30M. All this highlight is that there are too many teams in Melbourne for an elite national competition.
2) Instead of creating two new clubs (the Suns and the Giants) the A(V?)FL Commission should have forced two Melbourne clubs to relocate. The Swans and the Lions did this, making their own big sacrifices to survive but also for the greateer good of the game.
3) On top of too many teams in Melbourne, there are too many teams overall with 18. It should never have gone past 16. See previous point. The AFL Commision needs to learn that quantity does not always bring quality. They also need to remember that the “product” they are “selling” to the “consumer” is hope of a premoership. There are teams like the Saints and the Dogs that struggled in a comp
4) Tasmanians fans have been patronised, with the Hawks and the Roos playing a few games there. Give them a proper team as they deserve it.
5) In SA the novelty of the Crows is wearing off. Ross Oakley and pals should have let two existing SANFL teams into the AFL (e.g. Port and Norwood) or created two new teams. Having one of each was the worst case compromoise decision. Perhaps the AFL should note the crowd of 38,000 for the SANFL for the Norwood v Port Grand Final, the largest in years. Affordable, entertaining football. And earlier in the year an experimental minor round game held at the refurbished Adelaide Oval drew 10,000, more than at many Giants and Suns games.
6) The situation is different in WA, where two new teams were created. See previous point. The danger there is the challenge of both WA teams having to travel every second week, when some Melbourne teams hardly ever get on planes (Collingwood, Siobahn?!?). Such is the disadvanatge I reckon that each of the Eagles flags is worth about two flags for a Melbourne based team.
Gillon – you have your challenges!
(Note to website administrtors – please delete the previous comment as it has a cut and paste error. Thank you.)
Some big problems of the supposed national competition:
1) You state the total debt for all the Melbourne clubs is around $30M. All this highlight is that there are too many teams in Melbourne for an elite national competition.
2) Instead of creating two new clubs (the Suns and the Giants) the A(V?)FL Commission should have forced two Melbourne clubs to relocate. The Swan and the Lions did this, making their own big sacrifices to survive but also for the greateer good of the game.
3) On top of too many teams in Melbourne, there are too many teams overall with 18. It should never have gone past 16. See previous point. The AFL Commision needs to learn that quantity does not always bring quality. They also need to remember that the “product” they are “selling” to the “consumer” is hope of a premoership. There are teams like the Saints and the Dogs that struggled in a competiton of 12 teams. With 18 teams the hope is diluted far too much. This has a consequence on attendance.
4) Tasmanians fans have been patronised, with the Hawks and the Roos playing a few games there. Give them a proper team as they deserve it.
5) In SA the novelty of the Crows is wearing off. Ross Oakley and pals should have let two existing SANFL teams into the AFL (e.g. Port and Norwood) or created two new teams. Having one of each was the worst case compromoise decision. Perhaps the AFL should note the crowd of 38,000 for the SANFL for the Norwood v Port Grand Final, the largest in years. Affordable, entertaining football. And earlier in the year an experimental minor round game held at the refurbished Adelaide Oval drew 10,000, more than at many Giants and Suns games.
6) The situation is different in WA, where two new teams were created. See previous point. The danger there is the challenge of both WA teams having to travel every second week, when some Melbourne teams hardly ever get on planes (Collingwood, Siobahn?!?). Such is the disadvanatge I reckon that each of the Eagles flags is worth about two flags for a Melbourne based team.
Gillon – you have your challenges!
Thanks for all of your comments, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the article. I do like the point that has been brought up about the interstate teams, which I haven’t mentioned. Having been born and raised in Melbourne, and only having experienced footy in Melbourne, my article focuses on the Melbourne aspects (unintentionally). However, the discrepancies/disadvantages between the Melbourne–based clubs and interstate clubs is another very valid issue that also needs to be addressed by the commission.
Hi Siobahn,
There’s another sign that the competition is more VFL than AFL, Victorians using the term “interstate teams” when really they mean “non Victorian teams”. After all, from the perspective of those teams in QLD, NSW, SA and WA all the Victorian teams are “interstate teams”. The A(V)FL Commission is still caught in the no man’s land of running a real national competition that is actually still more than half a suburban based competition for the Victorian sides.
My great fear is that if they don’t sort that out they’ll get overtaken by other codes that have set up real national competitions, such as the A-League. You stated that AFL game revenue is four times that of the A-League, but I suspect that gap to close over the next few years. Even Rugby Union has made some changes recently for a national competition.
The AFL Commission really needs to consider seriously these issues and how they impact its “product”. I don’t ever want to see the great game of Aussie Rules, the greatest game in the world, become second fiddle to another code in Australia.
Just as no one player is more important than the team/club, no one club is more important than the game. The WAFL and SANFL competitions have suffered for the greater good of the game, but there really needs to be some more painful rationalisation in Melbourne. As I said before, all Aussie Rules fans should pay repect to South Melbourne and Fitzroy for the brave decisions and changes they went through. The question is “Does the AFL Commission have the courage to make more such big decisions in regard to Victorian teams, or are they just going to sit on the status quo and show their VFL colours?” I think this aspect is just as important as issues such as those you mentioned in your article like game scheduling.
An article of substance. One that needed to be written. But you’ve brought out all the prophets of doom. The game isn’t dead yet. It still has a pulse. It still has a lot going for it.
You can’t blame umpires for nonsensical rules. Umpires don’t write the rules.
It’s never all doom and gloom, however, here are a few of my unfavourite things that have compelled me to attend 1 game in 2 years:
* few teams have an individual style, so most matches tend to look the same
* more players than ever are playing at the elite level each week and many don’t deserve to be there
* too many dead rubbers (time for two divisions?)
* did anyone think that free agency would help the struggling clubs?
* the treatment of Ahmed Saad in contrast to Essendon Football Club
* A perennial finalist being able to continue to snare the big transfer fish ie Tippett & Franklin
* the inability for the game to land on an appropriate holding/dropping the ball interpretation – does the crowd seem to cry BALL! Less than it used to due to the confusion?
Overall, I don’t feel the fire anymore. I want something to get excited about, I don’t want foregone conclusions and different rules for different clubs and individuals. I don’t want the continued sanitisation of the game and it’s players. I tune into the Hawks and Cats games for genuine rivalry and feeling, I barracked for the Tigers and the Roos in the Finals in the hope of shaking things up, and I admire the Hawks for their football skills and nous but I need more.
Next year will be my 20th as a member of my club, but it is more likely to be a ‘donation’ rather than as an active and engaged supporter.