The spectre of free agency hangs heavily over player-club dealings and will become the hottest issue in the game over the next 12 months.
The AFL must employ all of its considerable resources to ensure it does not happen.
Proponents of the free agency push seized upon the Luke Ball case to argue that while his move from St Kilda to his desired club Collingwood eventually came to fruition, it was only after a protracted and stressful process with no guarantee of satisfaction.
Had he been drafted to, say, Brisbane Lions, against his wishes, be assured that the free agency advocates would now be trumpeting from the grandstands.
While Ball is universally acknowledged for his good character and it was unedifying to see the saga stretch out over several weeks, there is a bigger issue here than the angst inflicted upon one individual.
I believe free agency threatens the fabric of the game, and while it will undoubtedly gain heat as an issue with the advent of the Gold Coast and West Sydney franchises, this genie should be kept in the bottle.
Although the Luke Ball situation emanated from him and his club falling out of love, other situations pose more serious threats.
Under free agency, the talented player in a perennially bottom eight club would be a ripe target for a cashed up, wealthy club in the top echelon.
It would then come to a question of whether we want a situation akin to the English Premier League where the four richest clubs – Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool – dominate the competition, leaving the rest to struggle in a scrapping pack beneath them with no real hope of a premiership.
That is not a situation we want in footy, and if a small part of players’ rights has to be sacrificed, then so be it.
Forget about the spruiking of player agents who talk about the inevitability of free agency. They are talking from their hip pockets.
Even with a stringent AFL salary cap to limit the poaching ability of the stronger clubs – absent in the EPL – small advantages become enormous in this competition, and it is inevitable that the strong simply get stronger.
Interestingly Mick Malthouse, coach of one of the most powerful clubs, has publicly stated that free agency could result in the collapse of one or more clubs and was not in the game’s best interests.
The warning should be heard loud and clear by all sections of the football community.
Just think of the disenchantment factor among fans of a club that loses a gun player to a cashed-up adversary.
When Fitzroy folded in 1996 the turn-off effect spread even beyond the confines of the maroon fraternity.
Footy’s only previous toe-dipping exercise in the free agency pool was the 10-year rule of the early 1970s when players were allowed to cross freely after 10 years at one club.
That was jettisoned after one year and has not been touched since.
Those who sneer at what they see as football socialism need to be reminded that if the game was in the hands of the type of club presidents who ruled in the 1980s it would be on its knees by now.
The philosophy of “the rich get richer and the poor can get stuffed” was the destructive line that threatened to ruin the competition.
The draft/salary cap structure led to an equalisation of the competition and the AFL’s oft-quoted line about all clubs reaching preliminary finals in the past decade should not be ignored.
In the end, keeping every club competitive maintains public interest and enhances the competition. In short, it is that quality that enables the AFL to place the expected $1 billion price tag on the next set of TV rights.
So let’s not get carried away with players’ personal rights and the fascination of some parts of the media with the machinations of trades and player movements.
No-one can sustain an argument that a large number of movements between clubs is healthy for the AFL.
No, there is a big issue here – the fabric of the game. That comes ahead of clubs, players, agents – everything.

– RUSSELL HOLMESBY