The AFL didn’t just adjust the draft today, it further ingrained the gap between the way it prioritises clubs that do and do not align with its strategic and financial goals.
The changes to the father-son and academy bidding system tighten the discounts and the quality of picks required when clubs match bids, particularly in the early part of the draft. In simple terms, access to top-end talent through these pathways just got harder, especially at the pointy end of the draft.
On the surface, it’s being framed as a move toward fairness.
But if you follow the AFL closely, you’ve probably heard this language before, and you’ve probably learned to look a layer deeper.
Because this isn’t just about how bids are matched. It’s about who has already benefited, who continues to benefit, and who tends to wear the “corrections” when the AFL decides the system needs balancing.
For years, northern clubs, including Brisbane Lions, Gold Coast Suns, Sydney Swans and Greater Western Sydney Giants, and Victorian teams like Collingwood Football Club, Western Bulldogs and Geelong Football Club have delivered elite talent at heavily discounted rates. That was justified in the name of growing the game in expansion markets, and to an extent, it worked. But the advantage was real, it was significant and for some of these teams, like Brisbane with the Ashcrofts, Fletcher and others, it will persist for decades.
Now, with the rules tightened, the messaging is about equity. But equity introduced after the advantage has already been realised doesn’t rewind the clock.
A cynic would add that it is convenient that these new rules add to the pressure on Port to trade out it’s best player Zak Butters at the end of the year to a Victorian suitor.
When you zoom out, it fits a broader pattern. Port Adelaide Football Club doesn’t sit at the centre of the AFL’s commercial priorities. It’s not a Victorian powerhouse driving broadcast numbers. It’s not an expansion club like GWS, or a future project like a Tasmanian side, where the league sees long-term growth potential and is prepared to invest accordingly.
Victorian clubs continue to operate with structural advantages that are rarely acknowledged because they’re so deeply embedded. The Grand Final remains in Victoria. The bulk of Friday night games, standalone fixtures and marquee slots are funnelled toward Melbourne-based teams. Exposure drives relevance, and relevance drives opportunity.
Interstate clubs, including Port, deal with the travel burden that comes with geography. It’s accepted as part of the landscape, but it’s not neutral. Over a season, it adds up, physically, mentally and competitively.
Then there are the more subtle layers.
This year’s free kick differential between Victorian and non-Victorian teams has again raised eyebrows. Not because anyone believes there’s a deliberate agenda, but because unconscious bias is real. The AFL’s administration and umpiring base is overwhelmingly Victorian. Over time, that shapes interpretation of the game, of contests, of what is and isn’t a free kick.
The tribunal tells a similar story. Ollie Wines received a three-week suspension that felt heavy relative to comparable incidents. Zak Butters fined for alleged umpire abuse without clear, publicly substantiated evidence. Individually, each decision can be explained. Collectively, they start to form a pattern.
And Port has been on the wrong end of enough of these moments to notice.
We haven’t forgotten the Paddy Ryder situation, where Port lost a key player due to the Essendon supplements saga without receiving a replacement, while Essendon Football Club, the club at the centre of it, was granted top up and replacement list concessions.
These aren’t isolated frustrations. They’re part of a broader reality.
Because the league is both the administrator of the competition and a commercial entity tasked with growing revenue. Decisions are inevitably influenced by what expands the game, increases viewership, and strengthens the bottom line.
And in that equation, the priorities of AFL House and the priorities of Port Adelaide are not always aligned. That creates an inherent conflict.
When AFL House is responsible for driving profitability, favouring big Victorian markets, expansion clubs and broadcast outcomes, and at the same time selects the majority of the Port Adelaide board and holds veto power over the rest, it creates a structure that is increasingly untenable. The club is expected to advocate for itself, while ultimately being governed by a body with different incentives.
That leaves Port in a position where it can find itself on the outside.
Not targeted. But not prioritised either.
Which means when systems are adjusted, like today’s changes to the father-son and academy bidding process, Port often feels the impact without having reaped the same level of benefit on the way through.
This isn’t about resisting reform. It’s about recognising context.
If the AFL wants to genuinely level the playing field, the conversation has to go beyond draft mechanics. It has to include fixture equity, travel demands, exposure, governance, and the structural realities that continue to favour certain clubs over others. And the timing of these changes need to be done in a way that minimises the impact on everyone, not just the favourites.
Until then, every “balancing” decision will be viewed through the same lens.
Not as a reset.
But as another shift in a system where Port Adelaide is still fighting for equality of opportunity.
Leave a Reply