Can the AFL and NRL competitions be made fairer?

With the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL) just completing their seasons with their respective grand finals, just how fair are both competitions?

Much of the discussion about fairness focuses on the different final eight systems used by the AFL and NRL. This is despite both leagues eliminating two teams each week until two remain to fight out the grand final on the fourth week, after the top two ranked winning teams from the first round of finals advance straight to the third week (preliminary finals).

The AFL has a fairer top eight if one believes that the top four teams from the regular season should be guaranteed a double chance. While both systems eliminate the two lowest ranking teams of the four losing teams during the first week of finals, the NRL system does not guarantee the survival of the 3rd and 4th ranked teams. This is because the NRL, under the McIntyre Final Eight System since 1999, sees 1st play 8th, 2nd play 7th, 3rd play 6th, and 4th play 5th. In contrast, the AFL protects the top four teams given that 1st plays 4th, 2nd plays 3rd, 5th plays 8th, and 6th plays 7th.

Under the McIntyre system, when one includes the disqualified Melbourne Storm for salary cap breaches, the top two NRL teams have won six of 12 grand finals since 1999 (including St George 2010), and were runner up eight times. NRL teams that finished outside the top four in the regular season won no premierships but finished runner-up on four occasions (including Sydney Roosters 2010).

When the AFL used the McIntyre system from 1994-1999 with its final eight, the top two teams won four of six flags and were runner-up on four occasions. Of the teams that finished outside the top four during the regular season, one won the premiership and two came runner-up.

In contrast, with the AFL using the different play-off system since 2000, the top two teams have won 9 of 11 flags (including Collingwood 2010) and finished runner up seven times. Since 2000, no AFL teams finishing outside the top four in the regular season has made the grand final.

But the main factor limiting fairness in the AFL and NRL is not the final eight system. Rather, it is the reality that all teams do not play each other twice given the ongoing expansion of teams and the physicality of the two sports. In contrast, major soccer national leagues, even with many more teams, play each other twice. For instance, England’s Premier League with 20 teams play 38 matches. At present, the AFL’s 16 team competition plays 22 matches (17 teams in 2011), and the NRL’s 16 teams play 24 matches each.

In a previous era, notably 1970-1986, the VFL/AFL draw was completely fair as the 12 clubs played each team twice (22 matches).

So what can be done about the AFL and NRL to make the competitions fairer in terms of deciding who plays who, given that it cannot be expected that leagues of 16-18 teams (by 2012) could not play 30-34 rounds because of the extreme physicality of such sports?

At present, both the AFL and NRL have no clear rules, openly supporting profit over fairness. The AFL especially ensures that the big teams play each other twice, as evident by Collingwood playing Essendon (including Anzac Day).

The NRL is similar with its chief operating officer Graham Annesley indicating in 2009 that “we have worked with the clubs to ensure that the draw takes into account the contests that fans most want to see”.

The National Football League (USA) provides an example of a greater fairness with its 32 teams playing 16 regular season matches. With two conferences (American and National) each having four divisions of four teams, each team plays the other three teams in their division twice (home and away); plays four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle; plays four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle; and plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division each is already scheduled to play.

While this scheme would be impossible to apply in the Australian situation, there is one sensible way that the AFL and NRL could ensure some greater degree of fairness. With each team playing all teams once, remaining matches could be rotated on a yearly basis to ensure that each plays every team twice every two to three years (depending on the number of teams).

Again this would not be a perfect proposal as the standard of each team waivers from year to year which means that some teams will face tougher draws from year to year. However, such an arrangement would at least provide a schedule that is fair and consistent to all teams.

There are other measures that encourage a degree of competition fairness, although there are critics. Despite the recent controversy associated with Melbourne Storm’s breach of the salary cap, both leagues ensure some fairness with such a scheme. With the AFL implementing a salary cap on its clubs since 1987, the 2010 competition allowed total player payments of about $8 million for the 2010 season. The NRL, which adopted a salary cap in its first season in 1998, had a level of about $4.7 million in 2010.

One important difference between the two leagues is that the AFL has a players draft whereas the NRL does not. While the NRL wants a draft, it has been unable to get the permission of the Rugby League Players Association, a reality evident since 1990 when the players successfully challenged in court the Australian Rugby League’s bid to introduce a salary cap and draft together on the basis of restraint of trade.

As the former Rugby League great, Ricky Stuart, points out, the salary cap was designed to work in tandem with a draft, and the AFL draft has been a great success after it gained agreement with their players’ association to provide concessions if the players didn’t challenge it. As Carlton found out when cheating the salary cap in 2002, the $1 million fine was dwarfed, in effect, by it being penalised from obtaining future draft choices; it was only in recent years that the club has rebounded to play finals football.

Australia is lucky to have two great football codes. The AFL is the fourth most attended sporting league in the world in terms of average crowds (about 38,000 per game in 2010), while the NRL also enjoys a healthy average (about 17,000 in 2010).

Nevertheless, we can make the AFL and NRL fairer. Do we simply go on promoting regular seasons that seek to maximise crowds, revenue, and preferences? Or do we adopt a set of rules to ensure that the competitions are made fairer in terms of who plays who on a consistent basis. I, for one, support the latter.