by

To equalise a situation means to give everyone the same rights or opportunities. In football terms, equalisation has been a hot topic for a number of years, is multi-layered, and is often controversial. A much publicised equalisation measure was the Cost Of Living Allowance (COLA), introduced by the AFL to the two Sydney clubs. The AFL believed that this payment was necessary due to the cost of living in Australia’s largest city. The AFL introduced the measure, and made it compulsory for all player contracts to include COLA. Every contract that contained COLA was approved by the AFL.

In the off-season of 2012/2013 the Swans acquired the services of Kurt Tippett from Adelaide. In the off-season of 2013/2014, the Swans pulled off a miraculous recruiting coup, signing Buddy Franklin to a $10 million, 9-year deal. Both contracts were approved by the AFL. However, due to the subsequent football community meltdown, a knee jerk reaction to remove this equalisation measure was enforced. The COLA was never used as payment to recruit an individual player. Every player on the Swans’ list received 9.8% of their entire contract as a Cost of Living Allowance. This allowance was paid for by the AFL. Again, this was compulsory.

The additions of Franklin and Tippett were made possible through outstanding list management, which has seen players such as Jude Bolton, Andrejs Everitt, Shane Mumford, Matt Spangher, Jesse White, Ryan O’Keefe, Nick Malceski, Lewis Roberts-Thomson, Mitch Morton, Marty Mattner, Jed Lamb and others leave the club over the past two to three seasons.

And so, with equalisation at the forefront of footy discussion, the AFL informed the Sydney Swans in March last year, that the COLA would indeed be phased out, so that by 2017, it would be disbanded and a new ‘Rental Assistance Scheme’ would be brought in for players earning under $300,000 a season. Whilst unhappy that COLA would be phased out, the Swans complied. The reward for their compliance? A two-year ban from trading.

On Friday night, prior to the Sydney Swans match against Collingwood, Swans chairman Andrew Pridham addressed a gathering of AFL constituents, Swans members and members of the wider football community. In his address, Pridham spoke of the injustice of the trade ban. This ban received little to no coverage at the time of being introduced. It is no coincidence that the majority of the football media exercised their right to remain silent on this issue, as much of the mainstream media throng has strong professional or personal connections to certain club administrators or AFL commissioners. Pridham described the ban as ‘the senseless sanction.’

Just last week, the AFL maintained their stance that the Swans knew of the trade ban prior to it’s announcement, and that the ban was enforced due to the Swans’ decision to ignore their ridiculous ultimatum: Stop paying COLA or we will impose the above-mentioned trade sanctions. Emma Quayle summed it up perfectly at the time, when stating that “The Swans can’t simply stop paying COLA, because the money is written into existing contracts they are obliged to fulfill, that the AFL would never let them not fulfill, and that the league is actually a third-party to”. However, in all of their wisdom, the AFL have decided that the Swans should be punished for complying with a rule that was established and enforced by you guessed it – themselves.

This sanction has never been publicly explained or addressed by the AFL with any conviction or substance. In his chairman’s address on Friday, Pridham dealt in the facts of the issue:

“On 16 July 2014 AFL General Council Andrew Dillon wrote to the Sydney Swans and GWS outlining the terms for the phasing out of COLA. Both the Swans and GWS were to be treated equally and there was no mention, nor had their ever been any mention, of a trade ban in the many meetings leading up to the 16 July letter.”

“On 28 July 2014 the AFL Commission met to approve the transition arrangements for the removal of COLA. At this meeting the executive recommendations were not accepted and it was decided, by the Commission, to add a two-year trade ban on the Sydney Swans, but not GWS.“

“On multiple occasions the AFL Chairman and some AFL Commissioners have told me directly that the reason Sydney has a trade ban has nothing to do with COLA. The explanation for the trade ban was that the Commission, and I quote, “did not want to be embarrassed by the Swans, with another high-profile player signing following the signing in consecutive years of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin.”

“So there you have it. The Swans were banned from trading when other clubs continue to recruit top line players year after year – often from lowly positioned clubs. The trade ban was subsequently relaxed to only ban trading players paid above the average wage. This reinforces the fact that the ban is about stopping the Swans trading top end talent, not COLA. “

The Swans have never received an infraction notice. There has never been a rule breached. The trade ban was never discussed prior to the AFL Commission’s announcement of the sanction. So, if equalisation is for the advancement of the competition, and to provide all clubs with essentially the same opportunities, why is a club being punished for following the rules? This ban only ensures that a severe restraint of trade is occurring. The fact that a club is banned from improving its list for two years, while other prominent clubs continue to recruit high-profile players year-upon-year-upon-year-upon-year is quite frankly, bloody outrageous.

You can debate the appropriateness of COLA all you like, but disgracefully, this club has been punished for following the rules. The AFL Commission remain suspectly silent on the issue, as the Swans push for its removal. I believe this may just be the beginning of the fight, and may sanity eventually prevail. If it doesn’t, may this spur the Sydney Swans onto even bigger and better things. Gillon McLachlan’s self-proclaimed ‘you can’t have everything’ rule is placing the integrity of the competition in serious jeopardy.