AFL pushing for players to be traded against their will in major shake-up to player movement

Under a radical proposal by the league, players could be traded against their will. But the AFLPA has strong views on the plan.

Dustin Martin was involved in trade speculation last year. Picture: Michael Klein

• AFL slammed for failures to women’s game

The AFL’s superstars would be traded against their will NBA-style under a radical proposal raised by the league as part of its pay talks with the AFL Players’ Association.

And the league has for the first time officially asked the AFLPA to consider a mid-season trade period under the next collective bargaining agreement to help increase player movement across clubs.

The AFL gave its first proposal to the AFLPA three weeks ago as part of negotiations which have both parties a long way apart on the finances and tenure of the new CBA agreement.

The AFLPA is adamant the next CBA should run no longer than four years given the uncertain climate and possibility of a Tasmania licence being granted, whereas the league is pushing for a nine-year contract.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh on Monday told the Herald Sun the players and the player union were firmly against any proposal to trade players against their will.

“They want to reduce player freedom contracts and take away choice of movement and they want us to fund past player liabilities,” Marsh said.

“They put some conditions around that (trading players) – players would have to be earning a certain amount to be able to be traded without consent.

Dustin Martin was involved in trade speculation last year. Picture: Michael Klein

“But our players just don’t get paid enough to be put in that position.

“I’m taking the p*** here a bit, but I said we’ll consider that if we’re able to trade CEOs without your consent.”

Marsh said “certain coaches” supported the AFL’s proposal to move players without their consent – but the AFLPA’s position was that forcefully relocating players and their families was off limits.

Asked about the possibility of playing more Thursday night football, which the AFLPA has approved, Marsh said: “You do have to weigh it up too with the health and safety piece. The game’s never been quicker. I think we often think that professional athletes aren’t humans.

“Like some of the stuff that gets put in front of you in these discussions is just … oh my god. We’ll just trade them without their consent, we’ll push them over to another part of the country – that sort of stuff really shits me.

“Because they are humans and we deal with all the stuff on the back end of the players’ career after they’ve been treated poorly.

“Let’s not run these young athletes into the ground because everyone wants to sit on the couch on a Thursday night. But in saying that there’s enough opportunities here to do that.”

Marsh said when that landed in the AFL’s first proposal he knew it was “going to be a tough negotiation”.

“The gap between our proposals is really significant,” he said.

“The AFL proposal’s structurally worse for AFL players than the current deal, and it doesn’t meaningfully progress the AFLW vision.

“They want to cut back on men’s leave, they want to be able to trade players without their consent … the AFL proposal falls way short of our vision, but also it’s own vision and entrenches inequality.

“They want to grow the women’s pay at the same percentage rate as the men’s pay and if you follow that through they’ll never bridge the gap.

“There’s no intent to bridge the gap.

“There’s a number of workplace condition issues, there’s some footy issues, there’s some commercial issues as well.

“The financial model they put to us is actually a diminished revenue share model in its structure and doesn’t include the AFLW players in it.

“So they’re talking about a joint CBA that isn’t really because they’re saying the men can have this revenue share deal and we’ll just pay the women this.”

Marsh confirmed the AFL’s proposal also included a mid-season trade period, which the AFLPA was open to.

“There’s some benefits to a mid-season trade. Players who are not getting a game may get a game somewhere else,” Marsh said.

AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh. Picture: AAP Images

“There are some negatives, too. Competitive balance means it might actually be a poor thing for a club.

“It may be terrible for the second half of every season as clubs who are no longer contending start to push out talent.”

The AFL’s general manager of finance, clubs and broadcast Travis Auld has taken the lead for the league on negotiations so far.

The AFLPA wrote to the AFL two days after the seven-year $4.5 billion broadcast deal – which runs from 2025-2031 – was signed last September.

Marsh said the AFL responded just before Christmas, about three and a half months later, and then the AFLPA tabled its first proposal five weeks after that.

That early February proposal was met with the AFL’s counter offer three weeks ago.

The AFLPA is adamant men’s salaries can’t go backwards to subsidise AFLW wages and wants a 32 per cent revenue share model, where players are paid 32 per cent of the game’s revenue.

That would see men’s players pocket 30.5 per cent of the pie under an 85-15 per cent split between men and women.

Originally published as AFL pushing for players to be traded against their will in major shake-up to player movement