Football Imperialism Doomed to Fail

[FrediKanoute]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/imperialism-doomed-to-fail/2008/02/26/1203788347170.html

AFL's view to expand is blurred
Roy Masters | February 27, 2008


HEARD the one about the Inuit trapped on an ice floe in 2012? When he is finally rescued, he shuns the medical teams sent to treat him and asks breathlessly: "How did West Sydney go against the Gold Coast in round 12 of the AFL?"

The AFL's expansionism is a rope ladder to a rescue helicopter: the indigenous Australian sport, frantic to climb to larger media markets, has embarked on a course of visiting schools in South Africa, staging a game in Dubai and promising two additional teams within four years.

But the AFL should have a close look at the north of England before it copies a policy of grand strategies, such as the English Premier League's determined intention to take the 39th step and play an additional round of matches in cities such as Hong Kong, or the National Football League's establishment of a European competition.

The north of England is like the west of Sydney. It's essential character hasn't changed in 50 years. Travelling with the Melbourne Storm to rugby league and soccer games in Halifax, Liverpool and Hull merely confirms that the west of Sydney, where I lived for eight years, moves at the same pace as the north of England that I first saw nearly 40 years ago.

Other than religion, sport is the most conservative force in society, and to expect a football fan to suddenly forsake Parramatta, Penrith, Wests Tigers or even the Bulldogs for the West Sydney "In The Reds", or to expect Titans rugby league fans to switch to the Gold Coast "Credit Card Chargers", is misplaced imperialism.

Rugby league in England has not moved 100 miles down the motorway in 100 years, other than for the creation of the London Harlequins. But London is so big, it probably supports a curling team and competes in the European underwater hockey league.

AFL bosses Andrew Demetriou and Mike Fitzpatrick, who have an entrenched distaste for rugby league, would argue that they can make more progress in four years in Australia than the English have achieved since the great rugby split of 1896.

The signs of sport's globalisation are everywhere, from the seven languages spoken in the players' lounge at Manchester United to the 30 Samoans playing in the NFL.

Fans of globalisation use the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument, saying a Manchester United game in Shanghai, rather then merely selling red T-shirts to Red China, will elevate soccer at all levels in the Asian country.

The counter argument is that the allegiance of Shanghai fans to Man U is likely to come at the expense of their allegiance to the local team.

And when globalisation affects the indigenous brand in its heartland, bosses of that sport are entitled to protest.

Rugby league is a niche sport in the north of England and has never pretended otherwise. When the Storm trained at Halifax, 40 children from the school travelled 1½ hours by bus to meet the players. Storm coach Craig Bellamy said he received letters from the kids after winning the National Rugby League grand final, and the headmaster said the Storm had become an internet project for the school.

York is entrenched rugby league territory, as is Hull, where some of the Storm players watched Hull Kingston Rovers play Warrington on Sunday. "If you were born on one side of the (Humber) river, you follow Hull," said former Great Britain and Hull KR great Roger Millward. "If you were born on the other side, you follow Hull KR. You never cross the river."

Similarly, West Sydney may prove the Rubicon the AFL can never cross.

Good article this, especially the point about fans simply changing allegiances. It just doesn't happen and not at a sufficient level to justify a team. The concern I have with the whole push into the Gold Coast and West Sydney is that the get the club to get a foothold, let alone become a viable stand alone option is going to cost BIG bucks. In essence that means funding available to existing clubs will be diverted to these new clubs.

The WB survive b/c of the equalisation fund. It is a core part of our operating revenue. were this to be cut or our annnual dividend from the AFL reduced or to not grow in line with Salary Cap and other costs then this will severelly impact the Doggies. To me, the push by the AFL into Western Sydney and Gold Coast is a direct, but underhanded attack on Melbourne clubs and one which we should be very wary of.

NM's decision not to relocate has resulted in the AFL changing tack and essentially saying that it will create club's in what it consider's viable markets and if that means that established clubs die a slow death ah la Fitzroy, then so be it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The headline is the relevant sentence in the entire article.

Masters is a tool who can't see past his own bias enough to write a decent article even when he's on the right side.

I too think the AFL expansion is doomed for failure, but Masters has failed to bring up a single valid point why.

[LostDoggy]

The AFL are running scared. Don't need Roy Masters to know that a move to West Syddney or the Gold Coast won't work.
Its all about the fear of other codes getting into the market. Soccer will now be in the GC later this year. That opportunity is gone, just like the Canberra one was all those years back.

[Dry Rot]

Nothing new?


AFL's offensive just another battle in a long, long war

February 23, 2008

The fight for supremacy throughout Australia is older than the nation itself, writes Sean Fagan.


THE AFL announces it intends establishing two more clubs in its "non-football states" - as it calls NSW and Queensland in its lofty manner - and the other codes are portrayed as suddenly facing their ultimate hour of darkness and peril at the feet of the superior Australian game.

Hold hard, fellow rugby-ites (of either brand) and footballers of the round-ball kind, we've heard all this hot air before.

The AFL's trumpeting echoes all the way back to 1883. Speaking at a meeting of the VFA (the forerunner of the VFL/AFL) in Melbourne, a Mr Stafford boldly announced that the Australian game had been taken up in Brisbane, following the earlier formation of clubs in Sydney in 1880.

Stafford told of "the strides" which the Melbourne game had of late made in NSW, which was considered to be the stronghold of rugby in the colonies, and ventured to assert that before long the Melbourne game would assert its superiority over rugby, which would be eventually become a thing of the past in the colonies. Several members of the Victorian clubs also spoke in glowing terms of "the superiority" of the Melbourne game over that of rugby and over what they termed British Association - soccer.

Such was their confidence in their game's superiority over all else in the colonies, the committee resolved to henceforth call their game "Australasian rules" football, and fired off letters to the rugby union bodies throughout NSW, Queensland and New Zealand, suggesting the immediate adoption of the Melbourne-born game on the grounds that everyone else was playing it.

According to the Otago Witness, in one example, upon being read the letter "caused considerable laughter". Rebuffed by the Kiwis, the VFA decided on "Australian rules" instead.

Two years later, the English FA issued a tour invitation to its fledgling Sydney counterparts. The idea, which ultimately failed, was to send to England a team of Australia's best footballers, who would play soccer against the FA's clubs. Great offence was taken in Melbourne that the colonial football team would not "consist of men who represent the football strength of Australia" as they "nearly all play the Australian game, and [they] will not be induced to discard it in favour of one which certainly does not possess equal attractions".

The criticism against the tour was so pronounced that the Victorians argued the Australian soccer team should never be permitted to leave our shores "for the sake of Australia's athletic prestige".

Sports editors took note of the disdain. "I fancy the Australians will wait a long time before they will be asked to send Home a team to play the Victorian game," wrote one.

The years immediately after Federation quickly changed the focus of many - they now no longer saw themselves as colonial Britons but as Australians. In 1903, a small group of men thought it was time Sydney football fully embraced the "the Australian game".

Led by Test cricketer Victor Trumper and Edward O'Sullivan, a NSW politician and one of the prime movers of the Federation movement, an 11-club Australian football competition was formed.

Forsaking any arguments about the merits of the code itself over rugby or soccer, O'Sullivan declared that NSW should "support a game that was invented by Australians for Australia".

The VFL aided the campaign by sending Fitzroy and Collingwood north to play at the SCG. More than 26,000 Sydneysiders flocked to the ground. It was a spectacular number, with Australia's first home rugby union Test against New Zealand, held a few weeks later, attracting just 4000 more.

The gate money from the SCG match was used to employ "lecturers" to visit schools. They taught the boys the rudiments of the game, and left behind a football - a substantial and highly prized gift in those days.

The investment paid off. By the winter of 1905 rugby's hold on schools and juniors had been cut in half as youngsters embraced the alternative of Australian football - including Dally Messenger's two younger brothers. Some accounts even place "Dally M" himself playing first grade Australian rules for Easts in that same year.

NSWRU officials were startled by the trend, but could only observe. Tied to the RFU in England, rugby in Australia could do nothing to change the playing rules to improve the players' and spectators' enjoyment. The popularity of rugby was on the wane, and the NSWRU was facing a real challenge to hold the support of the city. If Sydney fell, the rest of NSW and Queensland would follow.

Worse still for rugby, being an amateur sport, it could not address the growing call for Sydney footballers to be paid a cut of the gate money. The long-term view was that Australian rules would establish professional football in the state capitals.

Ironically, the advent of professional rugby league in 1908 settled the dispute, leaving NSW and Queensland with the football landscape of today - where four football codes, each with their own enthusiastic players and followers, fight for supremacy. In the century that has passed, rugby league has held the ascendancy above the other three codes, but each has enjoyed its large crowds and periods of popularity.

"Australia is a big paddock," offered O'Sullivan back in 1903, "and there is room enough for all of us to play in it, whatever game we may prefer."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/afls-offensive-just-another-battle-in-a-long-long-war/2008/02/22/1203467387528.html

[Sockeye Salmon]

The AFL are running scared. Don't need Roy Masters to know that a move to West Syddney or the Gold Coast won't work.
Its all about the fear of other codes getting into the market. Soccer will now be in the GC later this year. That opportunity is gone, just like the Canberra one was all those years back.

But that's OK.

Why do we need world domination? Let the 16 clubs we have consolidate their finances.

We'll gradually get kids playing footy in places like GC and West Sydney by playing pre-season cup games there and from them watching TV - but only if the product is good enough.

At the moment we're making the product worse and throwing millions of dollars trying to make kids play the game.

The long term aim is to make even more money out of TV rights but why? The AFL already have a gazillion dollars in the bank, they couldn't spend it if they tried (and they are trying). Half the clubs are still struggling for cash and they want to make sponsorship harder to get.

In the pursuit of even more money the AFL are losing sight of what they are supposed to be doing - running a football competition.

[hujsh]

But that's OK.

Why do we need world domination? Let the 16 clubs we have consolidate their finances.

We'll gradually get kids playing footy in places like GC and West Sydney by playing pre-season cup games there and from them watching TV - but only if the product is good enough.

At the moment we're making the product worse and throwing millions of dollars trying to make kids play the game.

The long term aim is to make even more money out of TV rights but why? The AFL already have a gazillion dollars in the bank, they couldn't spend it if they tried (and they are trying). Half the clubs are still struggling for cash and they want to make sponsorship harder to get.

In the pursuit of even more money the AFL are losing sight of what they are supposed to be doing - running a football competition.

One thing i wonder about is why do the AFL need money. The VFL worked in the 1900's without millions so why is it needed now.

I'm not saying that they could run off $1.95 an hour but what is the point of a West Sydney team if West Sydney doesn't want 1?

[westdog54]

One thing i wonder about is why do the AFL need money. The VFL worked in the 1900's without millions so why is it needed now.

I'm not saying that they could run off $1.95 an hour but what is the point of a West Sydney team if West Sydney doesn't want 1?

Question 1: The league is more expensive to run nowadays. The players get paid more, operating costs are higher, more staff are needed to run the league and the game in general. Think of how big Melbourne was when it was colonised, and how far it stretches now. That's the best analogy I can come up with.

Question 2: Whilst I'm not against expansion, I'm with you on this. What The AFL sees in W. Sydney is absolutely beyond me.

[hujsh]

Question 1: The league is more expensive to run nowadays. The players get paid more, operating costs are higher, more staff are needed to run the league and the game in general. Think of how big Melbourne was when it was colonised, and how far it stretches now. That's the best analogy I can come up with.

Question 2: Whilst I'm not against expansion, I'm with you on this. What The AFL sees in W. Sydney is absolutely beyond me.

The only problem i have with that is that the AFL would have more than enough money to cover that so why do we need more? Put it down to the AFL just doing whatever it feels like?

[westdog54]

The only problem i have with that is that the AFL would have more than enough money to cover that so why do we need more? Put it down to the AFL just doing whatever it feels like?

Put it down to wanting them to grow the game even further. All that it means for the AFL to have more money now is that more people are holding their hands out for a cut of it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Question 1: The league is more expensive to run nowadays. The players get paid more, operating costs are higher, more staff are needed to run the league and the game in general. Think of how big Melbourne was when it was colonised, and how far it stretches now. That's the best analogy I can come up with.

Question 2: Whilst I'm not against expansion, I'm with you on this. What The AFL sees in W. Sydney is absolutely beyond me.

Demetriou must use $100 notes to wipe his arse.

They have $100's of millions in the bank and were prepared to offer North $100 million to go to the GC.

West Sydney will cost more.

Essendon have $10's of millions in the bank, what will they do with it? At the moment it's sitting there getting bigger and bigger. They can't (legally) pay their players more, they've bought everything there is to buy, what do they do now?

[LostDoggy]

As a business (and that is what the AFL is now) it's primary duty is to make a profit. I don't necessarily agree with this as a general philosophy, but that's why they keep making more and more money. Money is also a buffer/guarantee against fluctuations in the marketplace and allows the AFL breathing room to continue to be more competitive against other forms of entertainment.

Expansion is due to the philosophy of growth or stagnation. Businesses cannot stay still as competitors are always aiming for growth of their own, which, if one does not keep pace with or outpace, will eventually cut into one's market share. The only way AFL can choose not to grow is if they sign a stalemate agreement with League and Soccer etc. stating that no one is going to expand. If AFL stands still while League and Soccer grow, it will be to the eventual detriment of the AFL, unless we are all happy for it to go back to amateur status and played at suburban grounds, but that's another debate for another time.

[LostDoggy]

ps. the best administrators also cost more money, and will go to whoever is willing to pay them their worth according to the marketplace, so if the AFL wants to have better management than League or Soccer (or other sports, for that matter), then it has to have the continual profit stream to keep paying better and better wages.

pps. As sports become professional sports and thus viable career choices for talented school-sportsmen/women, one has to be seen as more 'attractive' as far as rewards go in order to entice larger participation rates. This is not an insignificant factor as many children now go into tennis or golf or soccer because the 'potential' renumeration is far higher than other sports. For example, even a player with a contract with a lower league soccer club in Europe earns far more than our middle-tier elite AFL players. Of course AFL and cricket still have a cultural advantage, but it has always been a pragmatic decision, and is becoming more and more so in this day and age.

[Sockeye Salmon]

As a business (and that is what the AFL is now) it's primary duty is to make a profit. I don't necessarily agree with this as a general philosophy, but that's why they keep making more and more money. Money is also a buffer/guarantee against fluctuations in the marketplace and allows the AFL breathing room to continue to be more competitive against other forms of entertainment.

Expansion is due to the philosophy of growth or stagnation. Businesses cannot stay still as competitors are always aiming for growth of their own, which, if one does not keep pace with or outpace, will eventually cut into one's market share. The only way AFL can choose not to grow is if they sign a stalemate agreement with League and Soccer etc. stating that no one is going to expand. If AFL stands still while League and Soccer grow, it will be to the eventual detriment of the AFL, unless we are all happy for it to go back to amateur status and played at suburban grounds, but that's another debate for another time.

Bollocks.

The AFL runs a sport, not a business. If it was a business it would have to distribute it's profits to shareholders, but it doesn't (it gives the clubs pocket money, but keeps most for itself).

It's primary function is to run a competition and look after the development of the game. Making enough money to secure it's future if prudent, and they've done that but their primary focus should not be on how much profit they can make.

They are running a compromised competition and established fans are getting disenchanted with their product. They need to clean up their own backyard before they need to worry about elsewhere.

[westdog54]

Bollocks.

The AFL runs a sport, not a business. If it was a business it would have to distribute it's profits to shareholders, but it doesn't (it gives the clubs pocket money, but keeps most for itself).

It's primary function is to run a competition and look after the development of the game. Making enough money to secure it's future if prudent, and they've done that but their primary focus should not be on how much profit they can make.

They are running a compromised competition and established fans are getting disenchanted with their product. They need to clean up their own backyard before they need to worry about elsewhere.

Sorry SS, but I can't agree with you on this one. With the dollars involved, the competition around and the sheer size of the game, the AFL can't afford to treat it as anything but a business. The skills and professionalism needed to oversee the code demand that it be treated as more than just 'a sport'.

It may be a compromised competition and supporters may be disenchanted, but as long as they keep coming back, which they are, then the administration are doing their job.

In the same way that Kerry Packer revolutionised cricket and changed the game for the better, as painful as it may be, Allan Aylett changed football for the better by experimenting in Sydney. The game would not be anywhere near as successful/popular had it remained the VFL.

I do believe that they're being hasty trying to force their way into Western Sydney so soon, but for they AFL to 'rest on its laurels' as it were, would be a mistake in the long term IMO.

[LostDoggy]

It may be a compromised competition and supporters may be disenchanted, but as long as they keep coming back, which they are, then the administration are doing their job.
Where is the guarantee they will come back? Continue to treat the regular fans with comtempt and concentrate more on the corporates and TV and people won't come back.


In the same way that Kerry Packer revolutionised cricket and changed the game for the better, as painful as it may be, Allan Aylett changed football for the better by experimenting in Sydney. The game would not be anywhere near as successful/popular had it remained the VFL.
Hardly the same issue. WSC was a player money issue. The game changed afterwards. Going to Sydney didn't change the game, and even if it did its arguable if its better.
VFL was a state comp and you can't compare it to hybrid state comp we have now.


I do believe that they're being hasty trying to force their way into Western Sydney so soon, but for they AFL to 'rest on its laurels' as it were, would be a mistake in the long term IMO.
Rest on its laurels is a poor choice of words. How about fix up its own backyard first?

[LostDoggy]

The AFL are running scared. Don't need Roy Masters to know that a move to West Syddney or the Gold Coast won't work.
Its all about the fear of other codes getting into the market. Soccer will now be in the GC later this year. That opportunity is gone, just like the Canberra one was all those years back.

they lost it when the titans went up

[LostDoggy]

they lost it when the titans went up

I think the basketball side is new too? They might have had 3 new sides in the last 3 years.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Sorry SS, but I can't agree with you on this one. With the dollars involved, the competition around and the sheer size of the game, the AFL can't afford to treat it as anything but a business. The skills and professionalism needed to oversee the code demand that it be treated as more than just 'a sport'.

It may be a compromised competition and supporters may be disenchanted, but as long as they keep coming back, which they are, then the administration are doing their job.


Their primary objective is to run a football competition not to generate more and more profits. They have no shareholders requiring ever increasing dividends (other than the clubs, but that simply covers the AFL sanctioned player payments).

Money is important in that money secures your future but they've done that. Making even more money makes no difference to our code, they already have enough to do their job for the next two decades.


Are supporters still coming back or have attendances increased because there is now more games each week and the stadiums are bigger (not to mention the manipulated draw)?

I am a football tragic, but I can't watch a game that the Dogs aren't involved in. I used to watch every minute I could but now I find that if I turn on Friday Night Footy I fall asleep before half time.

They should be dealing with the problems they have now rather than worrying about making even more money in the future.

[westdog54]

Their primary objective is to run a football competition not to generate more and more profits. They have no shareholders requiring ever increasing dividends (other than the clubs, but that simply covers the AFL sanctioned player payments).

Money is important in that money secures your future but they've done that. Making even more money makes no difference to our code, they already have enough to do their job for the next two decades.


Are supporters still coming back or have attendances increased because there is now more games each week and the stadiums are bigger (not to mention the manipulated draw)?

I am a football tragic, but I can't watch a game that the Dogs aren't involved in. I used to watch every minute I could but now I find that if I turn on Friday Night Footy I fall asleep before half time.

They should be dealing with the problems they have now rather than worrying about making even more money in the future.

They have 'shareholders' all over the country. Suburban/Regional leagues, Auskick programs, scholarship/development programs, to think the AFL's work/funding arrangements stops at the 16 clubs is narrow minded.

You say they have 'secured their future' but that's inadequate, they have to be securing their future for the next 20 years, not the next 5. The corporate environment these days is such that if you become complacent you can fall away very very quickly.

The stadiums may be bigger but they wouldn't need to be if there wasn't such massive demand. Why do you think NRL clubs still use their suburban grounds. Its nothing to do with tradition or history, its that with the exception of the Broncos they can't even half-fill a major stadium.

You say they need to deal with the problems they have rather than making money in the future. Wrong. They need to do both.

[hujsh]

I am a football tragic, but I can't watch a game that the Dogs aren't involved in. I used to watch every minute I could but now I find that if I turn on Friday Night Footy I fall asleep before half time.

They should be dealing with the problems they have now rather than worrying about making even more money in the future.

I have a similar problem with the TV scheduals i've started turning the radio on and listening to that while finding other ways to entertain myself. Why wait an hour to watch a game that you don't care about?

I rarely watch a game that isn't he Dogs unless it is Geelong or St.Kilda

[Sockeye Salmon]

They have 'shareholders' all over the country. Suburban/Regional leagues, Auskick programs, scholarship/development programs, to think the AFL's work/funding arrangements stops at the 16 clubs is narrow minded.


They spend lots of money here already, and still make (last year) $32mil profit.

They could afford to double the amount the spend on this and it wouldn't even make a blimp in their profits.




You say they have 'secured their future' but that's inadequate, they have to be securing their future for the next 20 years, not the next 5. The corporate environment these days is such that if you become complacent you can fall away very very quickly.


They have literally $100's of millions in the bank and are making $10's of millions every year.

They have literally millions of highly loyal customers (even if most hate them) with nowhere else (realistically) for them to go. If there was another Western Bulldogs in another national football league I would have gone long ago.



The stadiums may be bigger but they wouldn't need to be if there wasn't such massive demand. Why do you think NRL clubs still use their suburban grounds. Its nothing to do with tradition or history, its that with the exception of the Broncos they can't even half-fill a major stadium.

You say they need to deal with the problems they have rather than making money in the future. Wrong. They need to do both.

If we had bigger (cleaner, adequate toilets etc) stadiums 50 years ago we would have filled those too. We have had 40,000+ crowds at WO. Collingwood and Hawthorn got 92,000 into Waverley 30 years ago.

We never manipulated the draw to maximise crowds, either.

The NRL don't fill stadiums because it's a shit game. If it was any good I might have started following Melbourne Storm by now.

[FrediKanoute]

As a business (and that is what the AFL is now) it's primary duty is to make a profit. I don't necessarily agree with this as a general philosophy, but that's why they keep making more and more money. Money is also a buffer/guarantee against fluctuations in the marketplace and allows the AFL breathing room to continue to be more competitive against other forms of entertainment.

Expansion is due to the philosophy of growth or stagnation. Businesses cannot stay still as competitors are always aiming for growth of their own, which, if one does not keep pace with or outpace, will eventually cut into one's market share. The only way AFL can choose not to grow is if they sign a stalemate agreement with League and Soccer etc. stating that no one is going to expand. If AFL stands still while League and Soccer grow, it will be to the eventual detriment of the AFL, unless we are all happy for it to go back to amateur status and played at suburban grounds, but that's another debate for another time.


We've been sold the line that the AFL is a business, but is it? Is it not just the trustee of a game, a truly national game? What right does the AFL as a custodian have to disassemble the fabric of the game and create teams in areas which are unlikely to support the code? Promotion of the game yes and to this end I agree with clubs "selling" home games interstate if it is to promote the code. However I have issues with putting the financial viability of the competition at risk in pursuing additional teams in areas where AFL is not the first or even second or third choice of code. Who is going to support these teams? How much is going to be diverted to these clubs in order to for them to be successful? Which existing clubs are going to be sacrificed for the "progress of the game"?

[FrediKanoute]

They have 'shareholders' all over the country. Suburban/Regional leagues, Auskick programs, scholarship/development programs, to think the AFL's work/funding arrangements stops at the 16 clubs is narrow minded.


Stakeholders yes, shareholders no.

[LostDoggy]

We've been sold the line that the AFL is a business, but is it? Is it not just the trustee of a game, a truly national game? What right does the AFL as a custodian have to disassemble the fabric of the game and create teams in areas which are unlikely to support the code? Promotion of the game yes and to this end I agree with clubs "selling" home games interstate if it is to promote the code. However I have issues with putting the financial viability of the competition at risk in pursuing additional teams in areas where AFL is not the first or even second or third choice of code. Who is going to support these teams? How much is going to be diverted to these clubs in order to for them to be successful? Which existing clubs are going to be sacrificed for the "progress of the game"?


All great points F.K. (great name by the way.. always thought he was underrated at Aston Villa)..

As far as being a business, I don't think the AFL has a choice as long as other sports of similar type and scale think of it as a business and start scrapping for advertising share and tv revenue. If every sport in the world remained an amateur sport and had a gentlemen's agreement not to compete for dollars and kids, then it may remain a remote possibility to not run a professional competition as a business. However, if League or Soccer is coming and taking your kids and your public TV airtime and advertising dollars, the AFL -- as a trustee of a national game -- would be remiss if it did not compete on those terms. To be fair, I think the AFL was the first football code in Australia to be truly professional, and forced the other codes to follow suit to compete. I doubt that AFL would be anywhere near as 'national' as we see it now if it had not chosen to professionalise and make it a viable career choice for aspiring sportspersons at a school level, and that is only possible by continuing to maintain a level of renumeration competitive with other sports and professions.

As I said before, I don't particularly agree with this philosophy: my favourite sporting team in the world apart from the Dogs is Sheffield Wednesday, and rampant free market forces in international soccer have made it next to impossible for even a medium sized club with a very sizable local support and grand history to ever compete with the handful of mega-clubs in England, let alone Europe. (Having said that, Everton are making a good fist of it, and I await to see if they become a viable long-term model for other medium sized clubs to follow.)

However, in the AFL, one could argue that professionalism and equalisation policies have actually made it MORE likely for the Dogs to win a premiership than in the old VFL, as we can now attract the best players from all around the country, and have a (relatively) even playing field (we complain about the inequalities, but it's not as bad as compared to what they used to be, or even what they would potentially be), so that every team has a chance to 'build a list', so to speak.

--

As far as 'sacrificing' teams go, I am completely against that. I think it's bad business practice in any case to kill essential parts of one's own brand, and EVERY SINGLE CLUB currently in the AFL is an integral part of the whole brand, and the demise of South Melbourne and Fitzroy have shown that tearing away at the fabric of the brand only causes lasting damage that cannot ever be rectified. By all means expand the competition, but it cannot come at the expense of any of the existing clubs, because each of the clubs (even West Coast, now) bring with it a rich history and following that forms an essential part of the 'essence' of the national competition. I think the failed attempt at the relocation of the Kangaroos may have finally ended the AFL's ridiculous attempt at self-mutilation. The 'death' of the Kangaroos would have been a death knell to so much of what makes the AFL great, just as the demise of Fitzroy and South Melbourne has been. Regardless of what people say about 'having too many teams in Victoria', its just not true: This quirk of history and geography is what is unique about the sport called Australian Rules Football, and is an essential part of its cultural identity, which sport is as much about as it is about the week to week competition. It would be crazy to rip out the very heart of the game -- which Victoria will always be -- in the name of growth, It would be like cycling killing teams in Europe to start teams in the US and Australia, or soccer killing teams in England and Italy (because there are "too many of them there") to start new ones in China or India.