It is conceivable that Zak Butters will choose to play for Geelong, and that the Cats will not give up anything – not even their first draft choice – for one of the best four or five players in the competition.
The same can happen if Butters nominates the Western Bulldogs, an outcome that will cause fewer howls of indignation from the football public and some rival clubs, even though the scenario isn’t much different – that of a team around contention picking up a champion without losing any draft capital, nor player of value.
Due to the caprices of the free agency rules, Port Adelaide will find it difficult to source a better deal than pick No.5 for Butters, which is what the Power are entitled to in compensation if they do not match an offer for him.
Last week the dogs were barking, so to speak, that Geelong were in pole position for Butters. But whether he picks the Cats or Bulldogs (it would be staggering if he picked Richmond now), the Butters and Ben King exits have exposed a serious flaw in the AFL’s free agency system.
The cracks – and detrimental impact on equalisation in the AFL – are such that the league must rectify the shonky free agency rules.
They ought to introduce what I would term “the Butters rule” – an overdue reform to free agency compensation – after 2026. It is a change that Gold Coast lobbied for after Tom Lynch left the Suns for Richmond, who were then at their zenith and gave up zero for one of the AFL’s most valuable players.
Teams placed higher on the ladder, either top six or top eight, should be compelled to give up their first draft choice when gaining a tier one restricted free agent, such as Butters or King. The question is whether the pick should be handed to the club losing the free agent, or – better yet – if the pick vanishes completely.
The free agency rules give massive incentives for teams down the ladder, like Port (15th), not to force trades. And when the predator club is high on the ladder, as with Geelong and even the Dogs, the system is loaded in their favour.
This is not a shot at Geelong, who are increasingly viewed with cynicism by their opponents. Should the Cats land Butters and someone else of value (plus Toby Greene) without being required to give up anything for the Port champ, they will be working within a flawed set of rules, not breaking them.
Hawthorn are likely to gain King and Zach Merrett, when snaring one ought to make the other harder than a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Again, within the rules.
Here’s an explanation of how and why the AFL needs to make a change:
- Should Butters opt for Geelong, the Cats’ first draft pick will be no higher than 14 and more likely beyond 16 this year.
- Port need draft picks to pick up the standout player in the draft, their academy recruit Dougie Cochrane, who is short odds to be bid on at pick No.1 by Essendon; if they have picks four and five, Port will not only cover the bid for Cochrane, they will slide to a respectable pick inside 20.
- Gold Coast are in a somewhat similar position in their dealings with Hawthorn, who are about to grab King as a free agent. The Suns can match and force a trade, but the Hawks – who can win the flag this year – won’t have any picks on offer that are nearly as attractive to the Suns as pick No.7, their compensation if they let King walk, unimpeded, without a trade.
- Port had been on record saying that they would match any deal for Butters. The Suns made similar threats about King. Well, the sands have shifted since then because both of those clubs finished low enough to gain better compensation than the destination clubs can offer.
Tasmania’s entry into the competition simply compounds the situation, since the Devils will swallow much of the 2027 draft; future picks will be as devalued as the Iranian rial.
Why would Port or Gold Coast bother matching offers and forcing trades for Butters and King, unless they can prise a good player out of those teams in return?
The potential for the predator clubs to make dodgy side deals is obvious to everyone, and the AFL would be wise to put out one of those memos before the trade period, warning that deals must be “commercial” and that they are willing to block trades that appear to, um, let’s say unduly “compensate” the club that loses the free agent.
How would a hypothetical side deal work?
Geelong, for argument’s sake, get Butters without Port matching the offer. Port have pick No.5. Then, mysteriously, there’s a secondary deal between those clubs (or a creative three-way), in which Port gains another player or picks cheaply.
The AFL would be watching closely, one would hope.
Rival clubs have a heightened awareness of such dealings – and are already whingeing privately about the prospect of Butters getting to the Cats or Dogs at zero cost, perhaps with a side salad that purports to be a separate meal.
It is not feasible, as has been proposed in the past, for the top four/top eight teams to be barred from top end (restricted) free agents. This would be a restraint of trade and the AFL Players’ Association won’t cop it.
But the AFL can reform the compensation along the lines I propose: That for those contending teams, near the top (six at minimum), there is a price for landing a free agent gun, and that is your first draft choice. If that pick vanishes, then the draft is less compromised for the other teams.
The gun players aren’t choosing the stragglers. If you believe in equalisation, free agency reform is the final frontier.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Jake Niall is a Walkley award-winning sports journalist and chief AFL writer for The Age.Connect via X or email.From our partners
About the Author
