The AFL’s trading season is not just a numbers game; it’s a reflection of how clubs balance value against ambition, risk against reward. In a league where every megadeal and mid-market upgrade can tilt a club’s trajectory for years, the current chatter about who’s overpaid or underpaid isn’t mere gossip—it’s a case study in list management, market psychology, and the stubborn realities of contracts in a star-driven sport. What follows is my take on why these paychecks matter, what they reveal about our clubs, and where the next waves of value might actually come from.
The economy of football: why price tags don’t always map to value
In my opinion, the most revealing truth about AFL contracts is that a big number on a spreadsheet rarely captures the full value of a player to a team. A star who occupies a critical role, or a durable defender who prevents goals in key moments, can be worth more in wins and leadership than a flashy stat line suggests. Yet this is also where the risk lies: the market often inflates for marquee players, while true value is hidden in role players who understand systems, culture, and the club’s competitive tempo. Personally, I think clubs need to separate “market value” from “on-field worth” and measure the latter with impact metrics that actually correlate to victories, not just highlight reels.
Unders and overs as diagnostic tools, not moral judgments
The discussion around who is underpaid or overpaid looks like pure arithmetic on the surface, but it’s a diagnostic instrument about a club’s development arc, not a condemnation of individuals. What makes this topic fascinating is that the same contract can look overs in one context and perfectly reasonable in another. For instance, a player who signed a long-term deal at a submarket rate can become a bargain if they stay healthy and productive; conversely, a player who looks overs might still be offering intangible benefits—leadership, mentorship, training standards—that can alter a club’s culture. From my perspective, the real question is: does the contract align with the player’s evolving role, the club’s strategic timeline, and the financial latitude the club can sustainably maintain?
Injuries, timing, and the open market: three accelerants of value misreads
A recurring theme in the current chatter is how injuries and timing distort valuation. If a star exits a rough patch or recovers from a setback, markets reprice them quickly. I find it especially interesting when a player like an ACL survivor is discussed in terms of “overs,” because the on-field impact—how they influence ball flow, pressure, or structure—can redefine a contract’s fairness. If you step back, the broader trend is that the AFL’s market is catching up to the real cost of resilience: players who can stay on the field and perform in pressure moments are the true premium. This raises a deeper question: are clubs adequately pricing risk of decline due to age or injury, or are they simply chasing the next big payday without accounting for volatility?
Tiering the list: who actually drives wins versus who signals potential
The debate frequently labels a handful of players as “stars” or “unders,” but what matters is marginal value creation. A midfield anchor who rarely misses games might be worth more than a high-salaried flashy forward who underperforms in the system’s needs. What many people don’t realize is that a team’s success often hinges on a balanced mix of reliability (the “glue” players) and explosive talent (the difference-makers). If you take a step back and think about it, teams that overinvest in one or the other—overpaying for the unreliable superstar or underpaying a dependable contributor—risk structural inefficiencies. The key insight is that contracts should reflect role clarity and the club’s strategic plan, not merely a player’s reputation or a season’s highlight reel.
A transfer market with two speeds: list building and short-term wins
One thing that immediately stands out is how the AFL’s trade market operates on two speed-dials: long-range list building and short-term competitiveness. Some unders are hidden gems, contracted on modest terms, waiting for a breakout season that can unlock a club’s ceiling. Others who are labeled overs carry outsized responsibility for a club’s health—salary cap integrity, development pipeline, and the ability to attract complementary talent. The complexity lies in forecasting who will mature into a pillar and who will plateau, then aligning that forecast with contract structures that can weather peaks and troughs. This is not just about one player; it’s about a club’s ability to create a durable ecosystem.
What it signals about the club’s philosophy
The recurring sentiment—“he’s on overs, she’s on unders, but what does it say about the club’s philosophy?”—speaks to a broader strategic orientation. A team that consistently undervalues its own performers may be signaling patience with development, loyalty, or a belief in uniform culture; a club that pays top dollar for select players can be signaling an appetite for rapid credibility and a willingness to front-load potential. In my opinion, the best clubs strike a balance: they invest in core, culture-setting players who outperform their salaries over a multi-year horizon while controlling the risk by maintaining flexibility with depth players and draft leverage.
The cultural and psychological layers: how money shapes ego, motivation, and accountability
A detail I find especially interesting is how contracts shape, and are shaped by, player psychology. High pay can be both a motivator and a trap; it can anchor expectations or fuel a relentless work-rate. What this really suggests is that money is less a neutral signal and more a social instrument inside a club’s ecosystem. If players believe they’re underpaid, they may redouble effort; if they feel overpaid, they risk complacency or pressure to maintain a higher standard. That tension is not just about payroll; it’s about identity within the team’s narrative. From this vantage point, clubs should couple contracts with clear, measurable milestones tied to game impact, not just positional counts.
Hidden implications for the next generation
Finally, there’s a broader trend to watch: perceptions of value will increasingly be shaped by longer-range data analytics, wearables, and the ability to project sustainable contribution. If teams begin to reward longevity and consistency through progressive contracts, we may see a shift away from one-off mega deals toward smarter, tiered structures. A detail that I find especially interesting is how markets may begin to reward players who demonstrate high availability and adaptability across roles. This could recalibrate what it means to be a valuable asset in a league where injuries and form can swing quickly.
Conclusion: value, not vanity, should drive the market
What this conversation ultimately reveals is a fundamental tension between appetite for instant success and discipline in long-term optimization. The most compelling teams will be the ones that treat contracts as tools for building pipelines, not just for rewarding flash moments. Personally, I think the real measure of wisdom is not who’s the biggest current earner, but who can align talent with a durable plan, navigate risk without choking under it, and cultivate a culture where every dollar is tethered to a clearly defined contribution to wins.
If you’re drawing up a wishlist for 2026 and beyond, I’d prioritize:
- Role clarity: ensure every contract reflects a specific on-field function within a multi-year plan.
- Health-adjusted valuation: price risk into contracts and create incentives that reward durability.
- Depth with potential: invest in players who can grow into impactful roles, not just fill slots.
- Cultural alignment: measure intangible contributions—leadership, professionalism, resilience—alongside on-field metrics.
Ultimately, the AFL’s contract arithmetic is a mirror of how clubs narrate their ambitions. The smarter teams won’t chase the loudest headline; they’ll design sustainable value that compounds over time, turning good lists into great teams. This is less about who is overpaid or underpaid in a single season and more about who’s building a system that can survive the inevitable ebbs and flows of the sport.
