I was wondering why AFL players are paid relatively low compared to other leagues that "rule" a country (like NFL in the USA).
Is it because the market is too small ("only" 24 millions live in Australia)?
Is it because the talent pool is smaller (240.000 kids playing footy at age 5-14 to become one of the aprox. 700 native AFL players in the future) than let´s say soccer (500.000 in Germany, aged 15-18, trying to become one of the aprox 300 natives in the top league)?
Is it because the skill set needed is too easy (like some soccer guys say)?*
No, it´s none of the above. Actually your players are robbed:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/nick-riewoldt-keen-for-players-to-get-fair-share-of-afl-earnings-20140305-347qb.html
They get only 25% of the revenue.
In the NFL it´s about 50%. The crazy european soccer leagues pay up to 80% of their revenues to players, thus needing help from all kinds of shady oligarchs & middle east oil sheiks to finance their greed (clubs not following this path have deep deep debts) > for further info, check my latest link.
So AFL players could easily double their income (aprox 500.000 instead of 250.000 on yearly average) if having a strong union fighting for their 50%. My opinion: They shall go on strike in 2016, when the current CBA (don´t know the name Australia uses, may Leftover can help out here) runs out.
I say something I never would in the NFL thread: I fully side with the players. Of what I saw so far is, they have to endure major stress to their bodies, and certainly will suffer like NFL players once the playing days are over. And they display athletisism in a violent environment, combined with speed, endurance, and fine motor skill (like kicking with amazing accuracy "bananas" from unreal angles and/or for distance, jumping on each others backs and still come up with the ball, run full gas while tipping a un-round, thus uncontrolable, ball on the ground several times) like I saw in no other team sport. All-at-once.That required skill-sets shall be paid fairly.
Coming up: 2nd Half predictions based solely on Inside50s-Stats. I just wanna see if that "killer-stat" is just descriptive for success (circa 70 % of games are won by teams that had more Inside50s**), or if it´s a predictive (for future success) stat like Y/PP in the NFL. (Hint @ Leftover: Better hope Inside50s have "future value", then you´ll be positively surprised)
Btw, my pre-season rookie-picks (based almost completely on regression) do pretty well against the insider bookie lines.
(* Ofc not, as you just saw in my post)
(** My rookie guess is: Great Ruckmen winning hit-outs > lead to more clearences > lead to fast-transition towards the opposing 50. Is that simple description correct (I know there is more to it, like having good mid-fielders disposing balls with great accuracy; but I mean in most basic terms)? And thus shall Ruckmen be paid among the best? Still learning...)