The Australian Football League (AFL) oversees the most popular and lucrative sporting competition in Australia, and that’s no mean feat in this sports-crazed country. Yet the AFL knows that to continue its dominance over the other football codes – soccer, rugby league and rugby union – it must ensure the ongoing viability of each of its 18 constituent clubs. There are a variety of means by which this may be achieved and the AFL has been devoting considerable time and effort to exploring the off-field options, including a fact finding tour in the United States. The primary focus has been on the financial elements – how to maximise club memberships and sponsorships; whether to cap football department spending by clubs (similar to the salary cap for players which has long been in place); how to maximise gate takings from attendances at matches and ensure a fair distribution of the profits to the clubs; how to balance maximisation of profits from sale of the match broadcasting rights with match fixtures that facilitate strong spectator attendances and fair allocation of the profits and preferred broadcast times among the clubs…
It all sounds very complex and it is, especially when also taking into account the vested interests and inordinate power of the larger – and, by definition, more financially successful – AFL clubs, which have already indicated their determination to hang on to their wealth, rather than commit to financial redistribution measures.
Frankly, I think the AFL is on the wrong track. To my mind the best way to facilitate equalisation is on the football field, rather than off it.
Australian rules football has evolved from a simple game with only 10 rules when first conceived in 1859 by members of the Melbourne Football Club to a complex game with well over 100 rules and an AFL ‘Laws of the Game Committee’, which regularly adds new rules and disseminates videos at the beginning of each season in order to explain the key rules and the ‘interpretations’ of those rules expected to be made by the umpires. These days AFL umpires have to be almost superhuman. The pace of games has become so fast that the umpires run marathon distances in order to keep up with the play, as evidenced by the prevailing body type within the umpiring ranks – small and lean. In addition to pounding up and down the spacious fields, the umpires must simultaneously remain alert to potential infringement of any of the 100-plus rules of the game with every play of the ball and every exchange between the combined 36 players of the two opposing teams. Truly, the umpires also need to be multi-processing computers as well as elite distance athletes – in effect, sophisticated robots. But, of course, they are only human and the result is consistently inconsistent ‘interpretations’ of the rules, not just between seasons but between matches and between, and even within, quarters!
Again, it all sounds very complex and it is, especially when also taking into account that the AFL has (at least since May 2007 when the then head of its umpiring department, Jeff Gieschen, discussed the matter during a media interview), a ‘protected species’ list of star players, or ‘ball movers’, which it believes draws spectators to attend AFL games. In conjunction with this list, the AFL holds the philosophy that when play during a match slows down the umpires should adjudicate with a view to getting the ball into the hands of one of its identified star players. The AFL now, as would be expected, verbally denies such a thing, tantamount as it would be to admitting systemic bias in matches and institutionalised match-fixing.
I genuinely pity the umpires, not least because so many of us passionate football supporters can’t help but vent our frustrations on them in regard to their erratic decision-making. I’m not proud of my inability to contain my anger at times, though I do not blame the umpires personally and appreciate that they are doing the best they can in impossible circumstances.
The solution is, to me, a no-brainer. The AFL should ditch both its ‘protected species’ list and its philosophy of umpiring to get the ball into the hands of the players on that list; it should stop adding ever more rules to the game; it should encourage the umpires to blow the whistle each and every time they see an infringement of the rules, regardless of the rule or the player who commits the infringement.
In this way the apparently unintended on-field favouritism towards the already large and financially robust clubs, which have – by definition – more star players, will be eradicated. The umpiring will be simplified; as a consequence there should be more consistent adjudication of the rules of the game; and so supporters who have fallen away through frustration will return to the stands in greater numbers to enjoy the spectacle of a truly fair sporting contest each and every time our great AFL game is played. It might even widen the field of contenders for the Brownlow Medal, the AFL’s award for the fairest and best player each season voted upon by its umpires.
The Paddy File 