In researching a story about Chris Judd and the AFL Salary Cap, Crikey contacted the AFL to try to obtain information regarding the particulars of the cap. The request did not seem too burdensome. Simply, Crikey asked for the rules surrounding the salary cap to determine what kind of payments would fall within the limit. In a sense, the request is not all that different to asking for the specific guidelines regarding the hands-in-the-back rule.

Surprisingly, the simple request was refused. Patrick Keane, AFL media spokesperson, provided the curt response that the AFL does not disclose rules regarding the salary cap and it does not comment on the work carried out by the department which investigates salary cap issues.

When a follow-up email was sent, Keane did not bother to reply.

The arrogance of the AFL lies in stark contrast to its main competitors in Australia’s sporting landscape. When Crikey contacted the NRL, its media spokesperson stated that he would be more than happy to provide a detailed answer to any question regarding rugby League’s cap and provide specific sections of the rules as required.

Similarly, soccer’s governing body, the Football Federation of Australia, were also willing to provide information regarding the salary cap, specifically, how collateral benefits are treated by the cap.

Many would argue that the AFL should be operating more like a public company in terms of disclosure than a Bahamas-based hedge fund. The AFL Commission (and by extension, the AFL executive) is the body appointed to govern the game on behalf of the sixteen clubs (who themselves are delegated responsibility by the club members). That very executive should have no right to keep its rules secret. A public company is required to disclose its Constitution – if a shareholder of Telstra wants to know the rules which govern the organisation, they can obtain them from ASIC for a small fee. Why shouldn’t a paid-up club or AFL member be entitled to view the rules of the game which they pay hundreds of dollars annually to belong to?

Aside from the corporate governance angles, what makes the refusal even more bizarre is the fact that the AFL would have no reason to not disclose the rules to the media anyway. All the clubs have copies of the rules, so clearly those rules are not privileged or confidential information.

The AFL attitudes to the media and its members represent corporate governance at its lowest ebb. Contrast the AFL’s position with the views of South Sydney Rabbitohs Chairman, Peter Holmes a Court, who noted that “a football club exists in the community in a symbiotic relationship. We’re there to represent the community on the field and we exist because of their support.”

While AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou earns more than $1 million annually, the supporters who bankroll the game are not even allowed to view its rules. Clearly, the AFL doesn’t believe in a symbiotic relationship with the community.