New AFL player pay deal reached, list sizes revealed

New AFL player pay deal reached, list sizes revealed

CURRENT AFL players will be asked to take a pay cut of around 3.5 per cent as part of wider cuts communicated on Wednesday.

It comes as the total salary cap – including the additional services agreements (ASA) – will be slashed by nine per cent next season from around $14.5m to $13.1m.

However, the reduction in list sizes, decrease for first-year players' salaries and ability to shift money into future years will consume much of the difference for current contracted players.

Players will be briefed later this week after their agents and key stakeholders were informed of the moves on Wednesday.

While a vote will be held to ratify the changes, it is expected to go through unopposed.

The changes are only in place for the 2021 season, with 2022 expected to revert to normal in what is the final season of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Players contracted beyond 2021 will have the opportunity to push up to five per cent of their salary into 2022 and 2023.

Those who re-signed after the AFL's pay freeze was lifted in July won't be required to take a cut unless it was agreed upon in their latest deal.

Players had been bracing of a cut around 10-15 per cent this year after taking a 29.2 per cent decrease on 2020 wages due to COVID-19.

The nine per cent reduction is only minimal compared to the football department spending which has been slashed from more than $9 million in 2020 to a little over $6 million next season.

The maximum list size for next year have been reduced from 47 to 44 which includes the ability to list up to two Category B rookies.

The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie.

To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies.

Clubs and especially the players have come out of this very well all things considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

Clubs and especially the players have come out of this very well all things considered.

---

Very well - could have been looking at a much larger cut presumably

AFL players told to trust back-ended contracts

AFL stars have been told they should feel confident about receiving money delayed under a new pay deal. But will players want to follow the same path as Adam Treloar?

Footy’s stars have been told by their union not to fear back-ended deals under a new pay deal as Essendon goes back to the drawing board after its disastrous negotiations.

The AFLPA said on Monday the players who would defer 5 per cent of their 2021 salaries into a later year should feel confident they would still receive that money.

Under the player union’s modelling 15 of the league’s 18 clubs have enough cap space to immediately afford the league’s pay cut.

But three clubs with salary cap issues will have to go to players individually and make individual changes to deals that will see them get under the 2021 cap.

The Herald Sun believes some clubs have floated with players a 7 per cent pay cut across the board next year and warned they would have to cut a player if it could not gain agreement.

But many of those clubs were already under salary cap pressure that would have seen them asking players to back-end contracts, with players unwilling to agree to cuts of that scope.

Clubs have warned the back-ending of deals is a recipe for disaster, but AFLPA general manager of legal and player affairs James Gallagher said the average deferred amount per club is about $300,000, which is only 2 per cent of the 2022 salary cap.

But as AFL clubs hit out at the league’s new pay deal, which will save the AFL $23.4 million, it has emerged many players are scared to defer their salary after Adam Treloar’s experience at Collingwood.

Players who are contracted past 2021 will receive a 3.5 per cent pay cut overall but take an 8.5 per cent pay cut in 2021 receiving 2.5 per cent extra in return in both of 2022 and 2023.

Gallagher said the deal was agreed to by 99 per cent of players and was the fairest model to spread the pay cuts equally.

He said players would be paid despite some having to sacrifice 5 per cent of next year’s salary until a later date.

“The deferred payments are locked in for any player who signed their 2021 contract pre-COVID. Under the agreed mechanisms, the average deferral for a club into next year or the year after is just under $300,000. When you apply that to the current 2022 TPP limit, it makes up just over 2 per cent of that cap,” he told the Herald Sun.

“Players have a contractual entitlement to any payments that have been ‘back-ended’ and there should be an expectation that they will be paid. That would be the case with the deferred five per cent.”

As one veteran list manager said on Sunday: “It’s a recipe for disaster. It’s a complete balls-up.”

Essendon chief executive Xavier Campbell has admitted the club bungled the execution of an attempt to cut player wages by 9 per cent this month until it could come to an arrangement with players.

Under that aborted deal, high-profile “pre-agent” Zach Merrett would have had his wages docked by 9 per cent despite receiving only a 3.5 per cent cut in 2021 as a player with a deal expiring next year.

Gallagher said Essendon would have to work with its players on individual deals after conceding its mistake.

“Any variation to a player’s contract and the pay they receive has to be agreed between the club, player and manager.”

“Clubs aren’t able to unilaterally make changes to what players are paid.

“We’re there to assist players and it was brought to our attention on Friday evening. There were good conversations with players, player managers and the club on Saturday. It’s on the record from the club that there were some communication errors and we expect it will be resolved between the club and players in line with what’s been agreed in the CBA discussions.”

I don't think any player or their manager should put themselves in this position again
Yes you likely get all of your money but would you really want to go through what Treloar has had to endure?

I wouldn't be deferring any more than 10% of my salary to the back end of the contract

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

I don't think any player or their manager should put themselves in this position again
Yes you likely get all of your money but would you really want to go through what Treloar has had to endure?

I wouldn't be deferring any more than 10% of my salary to the back end of the contract

---

Staggering really that people enter such good faith arrangements with their EMPLOYERS.

The same EMPLOYERS that would replace you in a heartbeat if someone better/cheaper comes along.

Workers owe their employers nothing but what they are paid to do, and should give them no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axe Man

AFL players told to trust back-ended contracts

Under the player union’s modelling 15 of the league’s 18 clubs have enough cap space to immediately afford the league’s pay cut.

But three clubs with salary cap issues will have to go to players individually and make individual changes to deals that will see them get under the 2021 cap.

---

Which three? No doubt Collingwood is one, probably GWS was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasternWest

Staggering really that people enter such good faith arrangements with their EMPLOYERS.

The same EMPLOYERS that would replace you in a heartbeat if someone better/cheaper comes along.

Workers owe their employers nothing but what they are paid to do, and should give them no more.

---

As someone who employs people in a small business, that attitude doesn't sit well. Employers and Employees can operate with a sense of trust only when both sides are prepared to do a little more when needed.

My personal experience is that employees who limit their effort to "what they are paid to do" are quickly providing an increasingly less amount of what they should do.

Of course there needs to be reward for extra effort, but that is easy to provide and a responsible employer will generally do that in the small business environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe

As someone who employs people in a small business, that attitude doesn't sit well. Employers and Employees can operate with a sense of trust only when both sides are prepared to do a little more when needed.

---

Are you saying workers should provide you with unpaid labour?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe

My personal experience is that employees who limit their effort to "what they are paid to do" are quickly providing an increasingly less amount of what they should do.

---

My personal experience is that employers that ask for more effort than what they pay for will continue to ask for more and more if that behaviour is normalised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe

Of course there needs to be reward for extra effort, but that is easy to provide and a responsible employer will generally do that in the small business environment.

---

I respect that you're probably a responsible small business owner BJ, but we both know that doesn't necessarily apply across the board.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not saying you shouldn't work hard and to the best of your ability for your employer. I'm saying you shouldn't feel obliged to "just give me an extra hour chop out and I'll make it up to you in future (I'm being flippant, but you know what I mean)" because that's a very slippery slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasternWest

Are you saying workers should provide you with unpaid labour?

---

Not expecting unpaid labour, but employees also shouldn't expect pay for no work.

I have sometimes used the analogy that the employees aren't Tiger Woods, they are not paid to appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasternWest

My personal experience is that employers that ask for more effort than what they pay for will continue to ask for more and more if that behaviour is normalised.

---

This is where the trust between both sides is important. It is easy to grant someone a day off or an early finish, when they do everything they can to help, when needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasternWest

I respect that you're probably a responsible small business owner BJ, but we both know that doesn't necessarily apply across the board.

---

I absolutely understand this point, as I have a new staff member who quit her previous job, because the demands were way beyond reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasternWest

For the sake of clarity, I'm not saying you shouldn't work hard and to the best of your ability for your employer. I'm saying you shouldn't feel obliged to "just give me an extra hour chop out and I'll make it up to you in future (I'm being flippant, but you know what I mean)" because that's a very slippery slope.

---

As per my point above, it is not giving the extra effort that is a problem.
However, it is a problem where the employer doesn't acknowledge or recognise the effort.

For my staff, I allow them additional personal time and/or a bonus when the business can afford it.

If they weren't prepared to make an extra effort when it is needed the business would not operate well enough for any staff to get more than basic.

Employers who demand more, often don't get it, but those that provide encouragement operate much more smoothly.

Fair enough, agree with the broader points, not sure we'll agree on the finer points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

I don't think any player or their manager should put themselves in this position again
Yes you likely get all of your money but would you really want to go through what Treloar has had to endure?

I wouldn't be deferring any more than 10% of my salary to the back end of the contract

---

Suppose that within a model where all clubs are back-ending contracts clubs will be shifting players largely under the same circumstances, and the ability to possibly pay some players you're wanting to bring in or hang onto on front loaded contracts might be a selling point for smart clubs who game the system well.

The Treloar example is unfortunate and if it was say North Melbourne and not Collingwood that tried to pull that BS then the press and scrutiny from head office would have been a lot worse. However, the situation there is still probably an outlier and unlikely to rear its head again for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe

Employers and Employees can operate with a sense of trust only when both sides are prepared to do a little more when needed

---

Agree with this but don't think it extends to backended contracts, promises of payrises or promotions etc.