YES

The average length of a footballer's playing career is six years. That isn't a long time for anyone, let alone a young man in his early 20s that has thought about nothing but football since he was a teenager. If the draft age was raised by a year, young players would have more time and less distraction when it came to their year 12 studies. They wouldn't have to participate in combines and testing and interviews in the lead up to their exams, and instead could focus solely on getting the best out of themselves academically when it mattered most. Then, a year off would give them the opportunity to experience university or the first year of an apprenticeship in the real world, like other kids their age. It's something that could give them the beginnings of what direction their life could take if football didn't work out. The argument it would turn into a "gap year" is fair but at the same time, so what if it did? Travelling, working part-time, being young without any significant responsibilities could all help prepare a draftee for life at a football club where suddenly they're met with rules and restrictions and constant standards they're expected to exceed. And, if they lose their way and suddenly aren't considered suitable to be drafted, perhaps it wasn't supposed to happen anyway. Yes, some draftees make an impact in their first year at clubs, some even while they are still at high school. But some struggle with the sudden step up from school life to an elite sporting environment, or with moving interstate. Some are physically ready to play but the large majority are not. An extra year of natural development and training would help them adjust quicker to life as a professional sportsman – and allow more of them to have a bigger impact, sooner. A year is a long time, and the difference between a kid who's just finished his final exam and one year into adult life – with a potential start on a non-footballing career that could end up being a reality sooner than they expect – could be significant. - Jennifer Phelan

NO

There are many reasons why raising the draft age is not a good idea, and perhaps the main one is that it would take many other things to fall into place before that decision could even be properly considered. As part of its talent review, the AFL this year quizzed clubs on their thoughts about lifting the draft age. Club representatives were split on the issue, but the League decided to stick with the status quo while initiating formal research into the social, education and economic benefits of making the change. To make the change, though, plenty of other things would need to fall into line. Junior competitions around the country would need to jump to under-19 level, a structural change that would be of major financial cost. The view that lifting the draft age would help potential draftees concentrate on their studies in year 12 before focusing more permanently on football the next year has some merit. However, just as some might find the focus good, others might twiddle their thumbs for a year, simply waiting and counting down to the draft with only football on their mind. That can't be a good thing, and in a post-school phase there are new challenges to negotiate: more nights to go out, less day-to-day structure. Who's to say that would work for everyone? And for some, having school to finish is a good distraction from the draft. Then there is the footy argument, because pushing the draft age to 19 means many players who are ready to play at the top level will need to wait an extra year. Last season, Lewis Taylor, Josh Kelly, James Aish, Jack Billings, Luke McDonald, Marcus Bontempelli, Christian Salem, Zach Merrett and many others highlighted if you're good enough, you're old enough. Next season, we expect Angus Brayshaw, Isaac Heeney and Christian Petracca to do the same. The real question is: should we really hold them back? - Callum Twomey