AFL's flawed game plan

The AFL's premier position amongst the sporting codes of Australia is not disputed. In economic, strategic, governance and competitive terms, it is numero uno.

The AFL has had another stellar year, and is this week enjoying the luxury of double-dipping with the mega event that is the Grand Final. The AFL Commission and executive can be allowed a moment to salivate and self-congratulate over their success with crowd and membership numbers, and the imminent prospects of an even fatter broadcasting deal and code expansion via the Gold Coast and Western Sydney.

But the challenge for unambiguous leadership is the trap of becoming self-referential, a creeping sense that "we set the standard” and that "what is good for us is good for everyone”.

History is full of leaders and leadership companies that have succumbed, General Motors perhaps being the most recent examplar of self-arbiter slipping into self-delusion.

Just as a good indication of the strength of an organisational culture is to watch what people do when they are not being told what to do, so it's a good indication of the strength of organisational leadership that it constantly challenges its own thinking and performance, not merely when it faces an obvious "event” or "opportunity”.

It all goes to a simple but powerful word: integrity. Integrity of people, processes, policies, values, performance.

So in the relentless pursuit of perfection, the DNA of all champion athletes and champion organisations, what are some of the possible challenges facing our sporting champion, the AFL?

The integrity of game governance

Since 1993, the code has clearly benefitted from the creation of the AFL Commission as a national body assuming national governance of the sport, as well as the AFL, and since 2005 the international policy. A generation on, the test question is whether this is still the optimal structure: Should a single body of purely Australian residents, largely of a football background, be simultaneously responsible for a national code at all levels, a premier national competition, a major national business, and an emerging international business? Should a single commission be simultaneously responsible for strategy, policies, and audit across all these spheres? Should a single executive team be simultaneously and solely responsible for strategy, operations and code/game review and audit? Are there conflicts of interest between the various functions and roles?

The integrity of competition

The football landscape has changed enormously since 1993, but the pursuit of a national, level playing field remains unresolved. The game is not nationally represented: Tasmania and two territories are M.I.A; Melbourne has 10 teams, other major cities have two or one. Teams do not play each other an equal number of times in a season, be it once or twice. Venues are not consistent in dimension. Teams do not get equal access to key venues like the MCG. Teams do not get equal access to broadcasting airtime. Spending caps apply to the on-field team list, but there is less integrity around off-field remuneration, and no spending caps on football department spending.

This week we had the spectacle of the AFL resolving what to do in the event of a draw, post the event. Good governance, foresight and previous experience, should have allowed the AFL to have long had a clear and transparent policy on dealing with a draw and even a repeat draw, replays, extra time, Norm Smith medals, premiership medallions, penalties for reportable offences, player and club payments etc. The AFL has demonstrated its usual capacity for evincing control, calmness and professionalism, but a thoroughly prepared champion organisation would not have been forced to any policy on the run.

The integrity of the game

The AFL has acknowledged the risks posed by international gambling, albeit more sharply since the integrity of cricket has been questioned. But the corruptive risks of gambling have been long known, yet the AFL has, like other sports and government, taken the view that gambling isn't illegal, there are big revenues to be had to replace former cigarette and alcohol subsidies, and that risks and negatives are manageable. So the AFL has taken positive public policy stances in areas such as cultural diversity, indigenous and health issues (and fully leveraged such policies to attract greater amounts of taxpayer funds for its own benefit), it has been less pro-active, forthright and quick to act on gambling and alcohol. In the same way states have become financially addicted to gambling and alcohol revenues, while privately admitting they would prefer it otherwise, has the AFL taken all steps to ensure it is not also an unwitting "victim”?

The integrity of game officialdom

For the fans, concerns with the integrity of the game itself are all important. While the quality of game umpiring is generally of a high-standard, everyone's nightmare is not a draw, but a Grand Final decided by clear umpiring error. The AFL seems caught in a twilight zone between tradition and technology. It persists with the traditional but risky bounce of the ball, but if the umpires don't perform the bounce it is cancelled and corrected via a throw-up; similarly ball throw-ins are cancelled and redone if the job is not done effectively, and umpires more frequently caucus on line-ball decisions to minimise error. So acknowledging umpire error and correcting it during a game is not the issue, nor are short delays while matters are resolved. It is more an issue of the AFL not wanting to rely more on technology , but other sports, notably cricket and tennis have addressed the technology for their sport's benefit. And if a live game can be held up while broadcasters conclude their commercial "obligations”, or umpires confer for 30 seconds on an issue, then fans expect the AFL to at least openly and actively explore all possible technological aids to maximise accuracy.

The integrity of the fan relationship

A key reason for the AFL's success lies in the passion of the fans, and their increasing willingness to pay for membership and game day tickets, pay TV access, merchandise, at-ground food and beverages. But fans drift if and when they believe they are being short-changed. The low number of tickets available for club members for finals, against the numbers available to corporates and MCC members, is a sub-optimal outcome. There would be less angst over the AFL's extraction of maximum dollars from opportunistic corporate packages if greater effort was seen to be put into acknowledging and catering for long-term fans, through some effort to revisit the MCC entitlement, and/or pre-arranged AFL-endorsed screenings and entertainment at a couple of major venues in Melbourne, such as AAMI Park, Etihad Stadium, or Caulfield Racecourse.

The integrity of transparency

In short, just as coaches and players pore over every aspect of every match to extract all possible learnings and leverage, so the AFL Commission and executive need to be poring over every aspect of their own performance, and more importantly being seen to do so. In its early days the AFL Commission's key value was leadership through objectivity. The new currency is integrity, and not least in transparency, so all stakeholders feel engaged and embraced, and that agendas, accountability, and humility are all in full view.

Steve Harris is executive director of the Centre for Leadership and Public Interest at Swinburne University.