Drink-Driving Pie Blows Sponsorship

Drink-driving Collingwood rookie footballer Sharrod Wellingham blew a big number on the weekend - $500,000. That's how much his recklessness has cost the Collingwood Football Club in lost sponsorship from the TAC. While this raises questions about the club's culture, it also throws into sharp relief the bizarre practice of our State Government insurer giving free money to wealthy footy clubs.

The facts of the case are very straightforward: Last Saturday night in Lorne, on Victoria's Surf Coast, 19 year-old Wellingham blew 0.13% while driving. He has lost his licence for 12 months and his club fined him 10% of his salary.

Of wider import is that Collingwood has now lost its seven year sponsorship deal with the TAC (Transport Accident Commission), a State Government-owned insurance business. It is most well-known for running advertising campaigns to reduce traffic accidents and paying for rehabilitation for injured parties.

After an earlier incident involving Collingwood's Chad Morrison's drink-driving offence in April 2006, the TAC had Collingwood on notice: one more traffic-related incident and it would be finished. The TAC had good reason to worry as a year earlier they tore up their sponsorship deal with Richmond over Jay Shulz drink-driving and speeding. It was always a risky play, with Collingwood having a long history of unsound attitudes to driving. Speedster Cameron Cloke, for example. Or, more tragically, the feted Darren Millane, who killed himself in a alcohol-fuelled traffic accident.

Eddie Presents Yet Another Really, Really Sorry Footballer
Source: The Age, 10/1/2008


Naturally, the miscreant in question is full of remorse for his stupid and selfish act. And he's got club president and game-show host Eddie McGuire working the media on his behalf:

Fronting a media conference with Wellingham yesterday, McGuire said: "We have to make a stand and not make excuses.

"That we have transgressed means we've forfeited the right and the privilege of being associated with the Transport Accident Commission."

...

"There's no excuse for driving a car under the influence of alcohol, whether you're driving it 10 miles or 10 metres," McGuire said.

...

After apologising to his team mates and the club, Wellingham fronted the media yesterday to make a public apology.

...

"I've made a silly error in judgement and I just want to be able to move on and make this a turning point.

"I did the stupid act of getting in the car thinking 'I'm only moving it 150 metres, it's not going to make a difference, I'm fine, already made my way home after the night out'," Wellingham said. (The Age, 10/1/2008)

Notice how Eddie simultaneously stresses that there are "no excuses" and then manages to work in an excuse ("hey - he's only moving it a few metres to avoid a parking fine")? Kind of like the American politician who publicly refused to use "attack ads" - but then showed the ads to some journos. It really is a pleasure to watch McGuire operate. Here he is at it again:

McGuire said his club and the AFL were taking steps to ensure players acted responsibly – especially when it came to alcohol.

“Sharrod himself has given up drinking,” he said, before pointing out that he had “good people around him”. (AFL Bigpond, 10/1/2008)

Yep, some of those steps towards responsibility include ... buying a pub. (Read former Age diarist Jonathan Green's account of this odd move.) And some of the "good people" around Wellingham presumably include Lance "Buddy" Franklin of Hawthorn, who was in the car with him at the time. With the Sunday Age reporting in December that Buddy declared himself "off his chops" in a nightclub (they generously interpreted this as meaning he was going vegetarian), more time spent in Buddy's company should make Wellingham's no-alcohol pledge fairly easy ...

In any case, the impact of losing the $500K will be modest, given that the club is extremely wealthy even by AFL standards, reporting a profit in excess of $2M last year. Eddie will talk up the damage, but, in reality, it amounts to less than the salary of one top player.

Which brings up the question of why the TAC is sponsoring a group of people who regularly feature in the press for breaking our road rules: drink-driving (Shulz, Morrison, Ottens), fleeing booze-buses (Cousins), losing control of hoon-wagon (Gardiner, Teague). Remember, this is a group of people with their own free priority taxi service (with secret direct number). And, occasionally, police chauffeurs (with lights and sirens too, if you don't mind).

The TAC collects money compulsorily from Victorian motorists and then fritters away up to a million bucks a year in ensuring that AFL players are given the maximum exposure when they inevitably break the law. It's disturbing that despite two similar sponsorship agreements failing in the same way within a couple of years, the TAC plans to push ahead with a third attempt. Is it a case of third time lucky, or do the TAC staff just enjoy the corporate hospitality that comes with the deal?

Perhaps the most charitable spin that can be put on it is that, absent a plausible stick, the threat of taking away the million-dollar carrot motivates players (via their employer) to take the traffic laws seriously. While that works for one club at a time, the other fifteen have the certain knowledge that the million-dollar carrot will be shopped around every couple of years, so they keep their players in check too. If this is the case, then it's a sad indictment of footy culture that the Government has to bribe them to obey the law.

*** UPDATE ***
Showing that this Collingwood drink-driving incident is hardly a one-off, Port Adelaide has also demonstrated the fundamental inability of footballers to accept that road rules apply to them too:

A Port Power AFL footballer has been banned from driving by an Adelaide magistrate.

Forward Nathan Krakouer, 19, was caught driving unregistered and uninsured at Pennington in Adelaide's north-western suburbs on September 6 last year, and again four days later.

The teenager represented himself in court, telling the Magistrate he was unaware the registration had lapsed when he was first caught speeding.

Krakouer was fined $100 and ordered not to drive for the next two days. (ABC, 14/1/2008)

So, no rego, no insurance, speeding and then getting caught again a couple of days later? A $100 fine and a two-day ban? It seems that Krakouer's belief that road rules are for others is well-founded.

While Port Adelaide was never in contention for the TAC's bundle of our free cash (presumably they'd only sponsor a Victorian club), it highlights the stupidity of such funding arrangements.

*** UPDATE ***
It just doesn't stop. More selfish recklessness from footy players on the road, making it three in a week. Premiership player Steve Johnson has been picked up for the most gross speeding you could imagine: 128 km/h in a residential 50 km/h zone:

Police have impounded Johnson's car and he faces the loss of his licence for 12 months after he was clocked Wednesday night at 128km/h in a 50km/h zone.

As they did a year ago, Geelong's players will again play a major role in deciding a club penalty for the star forward. But unlike last summer, his career with the Cats is unlikely to be in jeopardy.

Teammate Shannon Byrnes was also in the car at the time of the incident, with the pair on the way to Eastern Gardens golf club in Geelong.

“We are extremely disappointed that Steve was found to have exceeded the speed limit in this manner and we are thankful that Steve, his passenger Shannon Byrnes or any other people were not injured,” Geelong chief executive Brian Cook said in a statement.

“We know the risks associated with speeding and speed is a major cause of road crashes in Victoria.

...

The players will meet within a week to discuss what penalty they want for Johnson this time.

“The club will consider the possibility of further sanctions over the next week which will include discussion with the player leadership group,” the statement read. (FoxSports, 17/1/2008)

Yes, this is the same Steve Johnson who was involved in a drunken incident in Wangaratta around 12 months ago, resulting in his arrest (which he tried to keep secret). Coming on top of earlier police attention for his drunkenness, the last major incident saw him voluntarily suspended by his club for five matches.


Steve Johnson, what a winner. 80 km/h over the speed limit.
Source: Herald-Sun

Let's just remind ourselves of what the club said about this troubled character at the time:

“Steve has been given numerous chances and it is fair to say that he is now down to his last opportunity to prove that he wants to stay with the club. (Geelong FC Statement, 8/1/2007)

Given his performance in the Grand Final, does anyone doubt he'll be getting yet another "last opportunity"? (This will nearly tie him with Ben Cousins when it comes to most "last chances".)

We're watching you, Geelong. If you don't stick to your word on this, your club will be shown up as weak, desperate and dishonourable.

*** UPDATE ***
In a predictable move, Geelong has seen fit to let repeat offender Steve Johnson off without sanction. This man - prone to bouts of drunken irresponsibility warranting police intervention - was busted hurtling along at almost 80 km/h over the legal limit. He was earlier publicly warned by his club, Geelong, about being on a last chance (see above).

Unfortunately, strict defamation laws prevent me from saying what I would like to. Instead, I draw your attention to the official media statement above, and compare and contrast with this excuse by Geelong Chief Executive Brian Cook:

But Cook hinted the outcome could have been different had the mercurial forward been a less talented player.

"There does come a point in time when you run out of chances. And talented people get more chances than the not so talented," he said

A repentant Johnson described his decision to speed as 'a bit of a brain fade'.

"There was no reason why I should have been travelling at that speed. To be honest, I've got no excuse for it. It was a silly thing to do. I can't put a finger on it," he said.

"There's no excuse for travelling at that sort of speed." (Sportal, 22/1/2008)

This idea of talent "buying" extra chances wasn't stated in the media release last year. I, for one, could not countenance dealing with people who could cynically manipulate the public like this.

Citations: The Age, 10/1/2008; AFL Bigpond, 10/1/2008; ABC, 14/1/2008; FoxSports, 17/1/2008; Geelong FC Statement, 8/1/2007; Sportal, 22/1/2008

Word Count: 1883

Tags: footy, booze, court, traffic, payola

Cat In Drink-Driving Disgrace

More arrogant recklessness and poor judgement from an AFL player. This time, Geelong's Brad Ottens got picked up for driving drunk late on the Friday night (following "Mad Monday") in the leafy-green - or is that shady? - suburb of Doncaster. It's seems the capacity of footballers for getting behind the wheel while pissed knows no bounds.

The ABC kept to the facts:

Forward Brad Ottens faces disciplinary action from Geelong after failing a random breath test in Doncaster in the early hours of this morning (AEST).

Ottens was stopped by police and found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.116, more than twice the legal limit. (ABC News, 9/9/2006)

The Murdoch press was running something far more detail-packed and salubrious:

He could also lose his licence for 11 months and be fined $450.

Mr Cook said the incident was Ottens' "first strike" since joining the Cats two years ago.

He did not know Ottens had been suspended for a match over drunkenness while at the Tigers in 2000.

"I wasn't aware of that," he said.

"He's been among the more mature players at the club. We expect more of him."

Mr Cook, who was relieved no one was injured by Ottens' mistake, said the player's career was not under threat.

"He's still contracted with us. In my opinion, that's not in jeopardy," he said.

Mr Cook said Ottens had dinner and a few drinks at a hotel in Templestowe with his brother before being stopped for a random breath test on Manningham Rd.

He said Ottens had been taken to the Doncaster police station for further testing and a reading of 0.116 had been recorded.

Mr Cook said Ottens was extremely remorseful. (The Sunday Herald Sun, 10/9/2006)

The high reading - 0.116% BAC - indicates that Brad Ottens must have been noticeably pissed. Luckily for us, random breath testing pulled him over before he could do any actual damage. Luckily for Ottens, the delayed reading at the cop shop ensured he didn't blow 0.15, the point at which you can expect to answer a charge in court.

Will he end up at the AFL Division of the Magistrates Court? This, of course, is the $100,000 dollar question. Based on my discussions with court staff, it seems that someone in his situation would generally be issued an infringement notice that indicates they've lost their licence for a year without appearing before the beak. However, the police may take the case to court anyway (depending on seriousness), or the accused could elect to challenge the police's notice in court. This uncertainty is reflected in the betting market, which is all over the place at the moment, with prices on Geelong jumping markedly before falling back to $1.00 after what (bafflingly) appears to be short-selling of the stock. Meanwhile, interstate teams Brisbane Lions and Port Adelaide are going from strength to strength, seeing big price increments. What's happening over the border?

Let's hope that Brad Ottens learns his lesson about drink-driving and that the rest of the AFL clubs look at promoting the free priority taxi service a little more widely in future. Remember guys, you can't always rely on Chris Tarrant to chase up a lift for you.

Citations: ABC News, 9/9/2006; The Sunday Herald Sun, 10/9/2006

Word Count: 563

Tags: footy, court, booze, traffic, payola

Hanging Chad - Sponsorship and the AFL

It's been nearly two weeks since Chad Morrison of Collingwood copped his massive $20,000 fine. While I agree with money being stripped from AFL footballers - particularly when they're bloody, selfish, life-threatening idiots - I'll surprise my regular readers (thanks for the recent donation, by the way!) by saying I can't support the underlying logic of the Collingwood Football Club on this one.

But first, let's get the facts of the boozer's bust.

Collingwood footballer Chad Morrison has had his licence cancelled for six months due to a drink-driving offence.

The club released a statement saying Morrison was breath-tested in the Melbourne suburb of Richmond on Saturday night [22/4/2006] and allegedly returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.093.

Morrison also received an on-the-spot fine of $314.(ABC Sport, 24/4/2006)

It's also worth noting that Chad is old (28), not playing games this season and (seems to me) on the way out. Hardly a star player. And - here's the crux - the TAC is a Collingwood sponsor.

Since Richmond's infamous Sgt Jay "I know nothing" Shulz incident of one year ago, the footy clubs have been walking on egg shells over losing valuable TAC sponsorship money. You can almost feel the rage in the Collingwood boardroom at having hundreds of thousands of dollars a year jeopardised by a washed-out has-been that they probably didn't even want.

Their response was hanging Chad: cop a $20K fine or get dropped from the club. Sounds good, right? A club taking drink-driving seriously. Sending a signal. Role models. Spotlight. Et cetera.

The AFL Union, under Brendan Gale, issued a predictable "wah, wah not fair!" press release threatening to abandon the code of conduct:

However Gale added that in his view, for Collingwood to subsequently threaten termination of Morrison's employment or impose a fine of $20,000 was unfair, unreasonable and not commensurate with his offence.

"... if the rights of players cannot be protected under the code then we will review our commitment to it," concluded Gale. (AFLPA, 28/4/2006)

Before I explain why Comrade Gale is right, let me explain why he is wrong. Firstly, if the prospect of several hundred footballers running amok, bashing, marauding and raping their way up and down the countryside is a legitimate bargaining chip, then I guess I don't understand modern industrial relations. Secondly, he must concede that the $5,000 fine allowed under the Code of Conduct is manifestly inadequate. Fines are two-fold in purpose: disincentive and compensation. While it's not clear how much drink-driving has been deterred by the fines, at least some incidents are still occurring. It's hard to see how footballers - who earn an average of $10K per match - will be dissuaded by a piddling fine of that size. Five grand is a mere few days' (ahem) "work". How is that fair, reasonable and commensurate? And from the club's point of view, $5000 is hardly comparable to the ongoing sponsorship deals worth several million dollars over a number of years.

Which is precisely my objection, but the one Brendan Gale missed. Eddie and his buddies at the Lexus Nexus treated the matter as a standard commercial contractual matter. Chad put at-risk a certain amount of money. Collingwood moved to protect its valuable asset (relationship with TAC) at the expense of a near-worthless one (washed-up footballer) . End of story. It's nothing to do with this dickhead's reckless behaviour, poor judgement, selfishness, or even bringing himself, his club and the game into disrepute.

Certainly Collingwood would not have levied the fine were it not for the sponsorship deal. Collingwood - like all the clubs - seeks to maximise its value to sponsors. One way is through exclusivity arrangements. Collingwood, for example, would love to be sponsored by Red Rooster and would get more cash for such a deal if it could fine players for eating at KFC. But, for legal and practical reasons, it can't do this. Eating at KFC (stupid as it is) is not yet illegal and goes unmonitored by police. Ditto for shopping at rival outlets, using rival banks and so on. The backlash from supporters for such "owning the player" moves may also impact membership revenue.

By contrast, drink-driving is one area where the sponsor's wishes can be enforced by the law. But Collingwood is wrong to use this as a cover or excuse for downplaying the moral dimension to Chad's actions. The crime was not jeopardising Collingwood's cashflow. The crime was jeopardising the safety of road-users. For that, footballers must answer to the legal system, in most cases the specialist AFL Division of the Melbourne Magistrates Court. (Admittedly, the soft-serve justice dispensed to footy heroes in this town is patently inadequate, but it's absurd to suggest that clubs - motivated by sponsorship deals - will dole out a superior form of justice.)

The game of footy is not advanced by clubs fining players for stepping on sponsor's toes. Unless Collingwood announces a policy of $20,000 fines on players for all offences regardless of sponsorship deals, they come out looking like grubby, mercantile, desperate hypocrites.

*** UPDATE ***

It seems that Collingwood's rank strategy worked. The TAC announced that they will keep on sponsoring the team. Sigh. Remember when TAC was less about getting its senior executives into the corporate box at the 'G and more about reducing the road toll and looking after the injured? Think about that the next time you're paying your car rego.

*** UPDATE ***

Chad Morrison, formerly of the Magpies, copped his conviction today in the Melbourne Magistrates Court (AFL Division):

RECENTLY retired AFL footballer Chad Morrison has been fined $500 and had his licence suspended for drink-driving.

The former Collingwood utility blew 0.093 after being breath-tested while riding his motor scooter in Richmond in April ...

The 28-year-old, who was not in court, was also charged with breaching his motorcycle learners' permit conditions for riding with a passenger.

Magistrate Simon Garnett fined Morrison $500 and cancelled his licence for six months.(The Australian, 16/10/2006)

Chad retired at the end of this season. Was it in order to spare Eddie McGuire the shame of a record-smashing four court appearances in a month for his beloved Collingwood? Was it part of a contra-deal after his $20,000 "fine"? Or was he just clapped out, as a footballer?

In any case, without a licence he's going to be looking to Chris Tarrant to organsie his lifts from now on.

Citations: ABC Sport, 24/4/2006; AFLPA, 28/4/2006; The Australian, 16/10/2006

Word Count: 1113

Tags: footy, spoilt_rotten, court, payola, traffic

AFL Video Rights Heats Up

Free-to-air and pay TV aren't the only source of footy fun - the rights to closed-circuit TV and security camera footage are also strenuously contested by media heavy-weights.

The argie-bargie surrounding the AFL TV Rights is almost impenetrable - while massive corporations and egos collide in court, dodgy deals see these same sinister forces ganging up behind the scenes. It's Corporate Australia's version of Lord of the Flies. And with figures like $1 billion being bandied around, the stakes are as high as they get.

Most of this big fuss is generated by the AFL flogging off the right to broadcast the footy to a mouth-breathing, semi-comatose and couch-bound viewing public. Naturally, the AFL players' union wants to ensure the overpaid sport stars get their greedy little mitts on as much cash as is going. (Mind you, prising cash out of Kerry Packer's chubby pinkies is no mean feat.)

But what you don't hear about is the secret deals being done to secure rights to that other important broadcast medium for AFL players: security camera footage of their indiscretions. After Winston Abraham was spectacularly caught on camera brawling at Crown Casino, AFL media executives have realised the revenue potential of CCTV and security footage. Sources reveal that the Packer-owned Crown Casino complex is in negotiations for the rights to broadcast subsequent AFL-related biffo on their Nine network.

Given the persistent rumours about what that starlet was caught doing on camera on Crown's roof several years ago, there may be enough material for Nine to show a rude Uplate version too. Of course, the in-toilet cameras might not just capture cubicle sex, but also inadvertently capture a lot of AFL players and their hangers-on powdering their noses.

Adding to the bidding frenzy, the Melbourne City Council is purported to be offering Seven and Ten access to their own extensive security camera network, being installed for the upcoming Commonwealth Games. Of particular interest to a niche but lucrative "pink dollar" market is the footage from the camera outside the gents' toilets in the various city parks. A tie-in with BetFair would allow wagering on just exactly which AFL players are dropping by late at night, providing additional income streams.

The prospects of AFL players shagging, snorting and fighting their way down Melbourne's public thoroughfares is too enticing for the TV networks to pass up. The AFL is no doubt upset at the alternative distribution of their prized content: football player violence. Legal experts predict that fighting in view of a security camera may constitute a breach of player contracts, attracting unwelcome fines. (After all, if some dumb millionaire is going to get his jaw broken, bogans will want to watch it. And the AFL will want to ensure they get paid.) Perversely, this may be a far more effective deterrent than the "softly-softly" approach of star-struck police, who seem only too eager to chauffer players around, bungle investigations and generally refuse to make trouble for their AFL heroes.

In any case, these negotiations for security footage rights continue in secret and it's unlikely the final outcomes will be known until well into the New Year. So if you think you're about to get bashed by a footy player, smile and ask for his agent's number: you just might make it on to the telly.

Word Count: 566

Tags: footy, media, bashing, payola

The AFL Meat Market

The description of AFL players as "Millionaires with a Year Ten Education" warrants further support. In an earlier article, I argued why professional footballers are (in general) so lacking in education, and the broader consequences for the rest of us. Here, I'll examine the first part of the claim - just how much are AFL players paid? Who are the most paid? Are they really millionaires? And what does this mean for society?

Firstly, I'll point out that their contracts are somewhat secret, in contrast to most other athletes. Secondly, they operate under a salary cap (which limits the total amount a particular club can officially spend on its players) so from time to time a club will engage in unusual practices to bolster a player's benefits. Hence any guesstimates tend to be a bit wild, and probably on the low side. A final consideration is that footballers - especially high-profile ones - don't pay for stuff. Star-struck footy fans give them free booze, free meals, free clothes, free accommodation, free sex and - as we saw with the Gary Ablett profile - they also get free drugs. So, they probably retain more of their earnings than you might initially think, given their expensive lifestyles.

The most comprehensive write-up on AFL player earnings was provided by The Age. For your convenience, I've compiled a graph showing the breakdown of player earnings for last year:

What is the Least an AFL Player Earns?

According to an earlier piece on Carlton rookie Karl Norman, he was "earning" $80K a year for his efforts. This seems to be a bit above the entry level wage for an AFL footballer, including match fees and other add-ons. The above graph indicates that 35 players (6%) are on less than $60K a year (how do they survive on such a pittance!). However, The Age's figures assumes there were 542 AFL players last year (33 per club) - which sounds high to me. I suspect that the bottom 50 players are being tried out or played just a couple of games or in some other way are exceptional (and hence should be disregarded).

A report from Deakin University suggests that in 2001 the base salary was $42,000 plus $2000 per match, yielding perhaps $70K a year for a newbie. Another piece from The Age puts the base earner in the AFL at $1150 per week (=$60K per year).

So, in short, the least a full-time professional AFL player can expect to ever earn in their career is around $70K. Most likely, that's still more than you.

What is the Average an AFL Player Earns?

According to The Age's figures for last year, there were 542 players earning a total of $93.75 million dollars, giving an average (mean) of $173,000 per player per year. Note that this includes a suspiciously large number of players on less than $60K, as discussed above. Also, the "mode" (or most common amount) was the $100-200K range. The "median" (or point at which half of players earn more, and half earn less) is close to $200K - if we exclude the <$60K group. Another set of figures from The Age stated an average AFL player makes $4,050 per week ($210K per annum).

Based on this, it's fair to say that the average AFL player earns around $200,000 a year.

What is the Most an AFL Player Earns?

Well, according to the above graph, only 20 players (4%) are in the half a million bucks a year category. The other figures from The Age cite a top earner on $16,300 a week ($850K). Yet more analysis for 2004 comes from the scuttlebutt purveyors at Crikey:

Anthony Koutoufides (Carlton) $900-000 to $1,000,000

Aaron Hamill (St Kilda) $800,000

Michel Voss (Brisbane) $700,000

James Hird (Essendon) $700,000

Nathan Buckley (Collingwood) $650,000

Shane Crawford (Hawthorn) $650,000

Chris Grant/Luke Darcy (Western Bulldogs) $550.000-600,000

Ben Cousins (West Coast) $550,000-$600.000

Matthew Richardson (Richmond) $550.000

David Neitz/Jeff White (Melbourne) $550,000

Glenn Archer/Anthony Stevens (Kangaroos) $550,000

Mark Ricciuto (Adelaide) $500,000-$550.000

Matthew Pavlich (Fremantle) $500,000

Ben Graham (Geelong) $500,000

Barry Hall (Sydney) $500,000

Warren Tredrea (Port Power) $450,000-$500,000

(Source: Patrick Fitzgerald, Crikey, 12/6/2004.)

(These figures are estimates and are claimed to be +/-$50,000. I strongly recommend reading this report to understand how the market for sports pros works.)

Overall, there seems to be a rough agreement that (salary cap short-circuits notwithstanding), the most an AFL player could expect to earn right now is about million dollars a year, with the next step being about $500,000.

How Quickly are AFL Salaries Rising?

Pretty bloody fast. For example, this report for the Victorian Government states that total AFL player earnings were $27 million in 1992, growing to $48 million in 1995. Now, The Age puts the total at about $94 million. So, average AFL salaries have increased from $48K to $200K (four-fold) in less than 15 years. Over roughly the same period, average weekly earnings for all Australians rose about 50% (according to the ABS), while AFL players' rose 300%. There's a lot of fat still in the system (players take about a quarter of the AFL's revenue, not a half or more like in other leagues), so there's no reason this dramatic rise won't continue.

In other words, AFL players' wages are increasing six times faster than yours.

So Are Most AFL Footballers Millionaires?

Put it this way: if you're averaging $200K a year for five years you'll earn a million dollars (and pay half of it in tax). But, even with all the freebies, you'll probably spend most of what's left. Why? Because what 22 year old in his right mind would save and invest when getting that kind of money? Particularly when he's indestructible, the best thing since sliced bread and about to sign a huge multi-million dollar contract any day now.

So, to be a millionaire footballer (ie having at least a million dollars in cash and assets), I reckon you'd need to either be in the top 50% for a ten year career, or be in the top 5% for a five year career. So, that's what - the best 10% of AFL players? Maybe 20%?

So Does This Mean Your Tagline Is Unfair?

Nah. The bulk of them might not be millionaires (and some may even have been to university!) but they still behave like they are spoilt princelings from an oil-rich Gulf State. I think footballers are quite capable of being obnoxious, even dangerous, arseholes on a mere $200,000 per year, or just half a million in the bank.

Are AFL Players Paid Too Much?

How would you decide if anyone is paid too much? Here's one approach. Ask yourself: what would they be doing if they weren't playing AFL? How much more are they getting paid than in their next best alternative? I would argue that if you have lots of options close to your current salary, then you're probably not being overpaid.

For example, a stockbroker might make $150K a year. If that career wasn't possible for some reason, she might have been an accountant, making $130K a year. So, she's being paid about right. By contrast, if you're a crane-operator on the docks on $90K and the next best job is a crane-driver at a building site on $50K, then yes, I'd suggest you're being overpaid.

Can we apply this principle to AFL footballers?

Some AFL footballers have turned down lucrative careers in other sports, like cricket, soccer or tennis. A very small minority may have turned down careers in the professions where they could expect to make good money as well. (For example, James Hird could have averaged $100K for 40 years if he'd stuck it out as a civil engineer.)

But, for the most part, there's no reason to think that AFL players (as a group) would earn any more or less than the public at large, if it weren't for footy. If anything, they would earn less than the public, given their unusually poor education.

In Australia, the average salary is around $50K, while footballers average $200K. If we all put our collective foot down and said "Look guys, you love to play the game, we love to watch. But you're only going to average $75K from now on," then they would still accept that and be grateful. Hell, they were happy with that about ten years ago!

So, yeah, for what it's worth, I reckon AFL players are overpaid by at least a hundred grand a year.

Still, that doesn't stop their union getting all sulky about wanting more money - but can you blame the poor dears for asking? (These are people who don't hear "no" very often.)

What Are the Implications for Society for Overpaying Footballers?

Well, for one thing, ticket prices are too high. Presumably lots of families miss out on going to see the game they love because it's just too damn dear. The AFL has to win a bigger pound of flesh fron the TV rights to pay for the footballers. End result: more ads during the match than are strictly necessary. But, these are fairly peripheral: whose to say what is the best price for tickets or the best number of ads anyway?

No, the real damage is done through the application of ruthless, free-market, commercial principles to what is, after all, a very high-stakes game. It's one thing for these price mechanisms to be brought to be bear on, say, commercial QCs - highly educated, intelligent, worldly professionals with twenty years of experience in such matters. It's another thing if it's a slightly dim 19 year-old who just wants to play footy.

Oddly enough, noted Celebrity Big Brother piker Germaine Greer explains it best:

All athletes live on a knife edge. All are only as good as their last performance. All are incessantly reminded there is only one way to go after reaching the top.

The footballers' situation is the most precarious of all. As the last in the pecking order, after club owners, directors and managers, players are denied adult status. They are "boys" to be bought and sold, transferred or dropped or left on the bench; as they are denied autonomy, we can't be surprised if they lack responsibility. (SMH, 23/3/2004)

So perhaps this is the price we all pay for treating AFL players like A grade choice cuts of meat to be bought, sold or traded on the open market. Society ends up with a large pool of spoilt brats, lacking the capacity for any other useful contribution and behaving like no one else matters, egging each other on to greater and greater excesses.

In other words, after one hundred years of supposed egalitarianism, we've gone ahead and created our own parasitic aristocracy. Way to go, Australia.

References:

Why a Free Market is Bad for Sports Fans, (Crikey, 12/6/2004)

The Business of Sport, (Sport and Recreation Victoria, 1997)

Sport Management Newsletter, (Deakin University, 2001)

Cap in Place to Stop Clubs Being Scalped, (The Age, 21/4/2005)

More Please, (The Age, 15/3/2005)

Yearbook Australia: Labour - Earnings and Benefits, (The Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005)

Grubby Sex Has Just Become a Bit Noisier, (Sydney Morning Herald, 23/3/2004)

Word Count: 1973

Tags: footy, spoilt_rotten, payola

What Price AFL Stoners?

On Thursday, the AFL leadership announced that they would not comply with World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) guidelines for testing athletes. Apparently, their own regime of drug testing is strict enough. The reality is, the AFL is bound by an agreement with the AFL Players Association to allow those players to maintain a drug-fuelled lifestyle. As Jimi "Purple Haze" Herd puts it:

"You always know that you are playing in a competition that is drug-free so I would support the AFL in their decision," he said.

"I think they've um obviously there's some smart people there, they've obviously thought about it.

"They're going to lose some money with regard to funding so they haven't made the decision lightly." (ABC Sport, 1/7/05)

Right ... so the AFL is drug-free ... and the paying public should accept the infallible wisdom of the AFL executive ... uh, what are you smokin', Jimi? 'Scuze me, while I kiss the sky ...

Of course, the more interesting issue is the money: the AFL has turned down about half a million bucks to roll its own dope policy. (You can tell an organisation is being pressed hard when it declines a free on-going handout from the taxpayers!) With around 400 professional footy players, it works out the AFL is - in effect - paying about $12,000 per player per year to make it easier for them take drugs. However, in terms of player income, this is well under 5% of the average and so is of little real consequence. But hey, free money is still free money, so it signals a much larger problem remains. As the leading doping bureaucrats put it:

WADA director-general David Howman said he does not agree with the AFL's response to cannabis use.

"If they've got such a big problem that they have to run a separate program to counsel all of those who are playing the game to be off illicit drugs, then I think they've got a big problem," he said.

"Maybe they should be addressing that in a more aggressive and more positive approach." (ABC Sport, 1/7/05)

As I've mentioned before, I don't object to people smoking dope or (generally) taking a range of drugs - it's part of my libertarian outlook. But I don't think they should be doing so if a) they can't handle it and it triggers violence and other crime, b) it reduces their performance for which they are being paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. The former is hurting others through rapes, bashings and thefts; the latter is effectively stealing from members, supporters and the audience. Being a druggie and being an elite athlete are mutually exclusive endeavours. The AFL should force people to choose.

But of course, the AFL is a unionised industry and these million dollar prima donnasdemand the right to have their space cake and eat it. It's a PR nightmare: this decision is a cave-in to a union (very unpopular under the present political regime), starves the AFL of funds, could be seen to condone drug-taking by AFL stars (who are heroes to our children), damages long-term player well-being, exposes the rest of us to elevated risks of drug-induced AFL player violence and results in the fans paying for sub-standard footy matches! How could they possibly justify this rip-off?

The AFL Players' Association said it was concerned the move would jeopardise grassroots sporting programs run by the League.(ABC Sport, 1/7/05)

Yes, that's right, they did use the word "grassroots" in defending a cannabis-rife sporting league. (I swear, sometimes these bozos just write their own material.) But get past the gaffe and think about what is being claimed here: if AFL players are under more scrutiny about their dope habits, then their community programs will become less successful. How exactly does that work?

Down at the local AusKick clinic ...

"OK, kids, gather 'round. Now, I know that last time I promised we'd pass the bong around and think of funny things that rhyme with 'marijuana' but ... well, management said we're off the pot. So I thought I'd show you how to do a drop punt instead." (Sound of kids groaning, shuffling off the field.)

Overheard in an office at AFL HQ ...

"Yeah, Steve, I've rung today to tell you that you've been accepted into the draft. Yep, that's right, you'll be playing AFL next season! What's that? Ah, about $80 grand in the first year ... yeah, no, you'll be on $200K by the time you're 19, for sure. But the thing is - you'll have to give up dope ... that's right, no more choofin'. (click) Hello? Hello?"

On reflection, maybe I've misread the market. Maybe there is a demand for watching a bunch of drug-addled athletes chase a footy around the field. Heaven knows, I was one of 22,000 people to attend the Sacred Heart Mission Community Cup in St. Kilda last Sunday, and had a blast. (For those not in the know, this is an annual charity comp between a community radio station and a pub specialising in live music. Now, I don't want to upset anyone but it is fair to say that the chance of every single one of the musicians, comedians, technicians and others being 100% drug-free is even lower than for the AFL footy players.) So, yes, it can work.

Maybe we've been taking the wrong tack, and dope-testing should strive to ensure that players have all had an equal amount of the same kind of dope. I'd love to see two AFL teams go head-to-head for four quarters after, say, dropping acid. 36 men, nine balls and a tentacled rainbow walrus called Fanny battle it out on a slowly dissolving vinyl field as it spins lazily through space ...

Or, if the coaches think that loading them up on No-Doz gets a good performance, how much more exciting if they were placed on an IV drip of speed, crank, PCB, ice, meth, ecstasy and cocaine to race around the field in a blur of raw aggro, tearing each other limb from limb. Now that's entertainment!

Sadly this idea is a few years to late: we could have had Timothy Leary, Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs calling the match (a gonzo commentary team) ... with Keith Richards nodding off on the boundary after scoring in the carpark.

Well, in any case, the point is that the punters would at least be getting what they paid for. And that's clearly not happening right now.

Citations: WADA; ABC Sport, 1/7/05; ABC Sport, 1/7/05; ABC Sport, 1/7/05

Word Count: 1129

Tags: footy, drugs, payola

A Bloody Idiot

You have to feel for the marketing bozos at the Richmond Football Club. They've lost a sponsorship contract with the TAC (Transport Accident Commission) - reportedly worth $750K - because of one young dickhead. No other corporate professional has mult-million dollar deals hinging on a modicum of self-restraint by a large group of overpaid teenage prima donnas full of their own self-importance.

Hell, even in Hollywood business can proceed apace despite the shortcomings of the "talent". It's not only tolerated - it's even encouraged. Imagine this scenario: a bright young star of The O.C. rams a stolen ambulance through a police convention while smoking crack cocaine and performing an illegal abortion on his underage lover, splattering the lifeless corpse of the Puerto Rican homeless man he just ran over (and dragged for five hundred metres) into the gaping mouths of the assembled law officers. Sponsorship contract cancelled? Not a chance. It gets written into the plot and the episode is billed as "Ripped from today's headlines". The AFL marketers must be green with envy.

But back to Sgt "I know n-o-o-o-thing" Schulz: how is it that a 19 year-old probationary driver (remember, they're meant to be 100% sober) get behind the wheel of a car - while drunk - and decide to drive at double the speed limit in a built-up city environment? Was it the result of some late-night logistical problem that couldn't be solved with a $20 taxi fare? Or was it just a case of "I'm young, rich, famous and above the law. It's fun to drive fast while drunk, so I'll do it". Certainly, the $5000 penalty meted out by his club was no deterrent (what's that - one week's match fee?).

It's also worth asking what his team mates were doing at this time. Did they know he was about to throw away the sponsorship deal and jeopardise his life (and others?). There's an old Italian saying that it takes a village to raise a child. It seems it takes a football team to nurture that village's (bloody) idiot.

The next sponsorship deal the TAC strikes had better include provisions for breathalyser steering locks and a bunch of cab vouchers. Or better yet - I hope the board rethinks the value in handing out big chunks of taxpayer money to footy clubs in the first place.

Word Count: 395

Tags: footy, court, traffic, payola, booze