AFL Clubs Voice Strong Opposition to League’s “Opening Round” Concept
A growing chorus of discontent is emerging from Australian Football League (AFL) clubs regarding the league’s “Opening Round” initiative. Multiple clubs are reportedly bracing for the possibility of an expanded Opening Round, potentially involving even more teams as soon as next season, a prospect that has amplified existing frustrations.
The contentious issue took centre stage recently when AFL Chief Executive Andrew Dillon convened a meeting with the chief executive officers of all 18 clubs. Sources close to the discussions revealed that the league’s controversial season launch was a primary topic, with clubs forcefully articulating their concerns not only about the current model but also its potential for further expansion.
Several club representatives left the meeting with the distinct impression that the Opening Round could be broadened to encompass more teams, and possibly all 18 clubs, within the next two years. While the AFL has not officially committed to such a structure, this looming possibility has heightened unease among club leaders who are already questioning the fundamental merits of the concept.
Introduced in 2024, the Opening Round was conceived as a marquee, standalone curtain-raiser to the AFL season, specifically designed to promote the sport in New South Wales and Queensland. The initial format saw Sydney, GWS Giants, Brisbane Lions, and Gold Coast Suns hosting home games against Victorian clubs, with the remaining teams commencing their seasons the following week in Round 1. This season, a single match in Melbourne was added to the Opening Round lineup, featuring St Kilda and Collingwood on the Sunday evening preceding the Labor Day public holiday.
The AFL has consistently positioned this initiative as a strategic manoeuvre to cultivate the game in rugby league heartlands, capitalising on exclusive broadcast windows and a less crowded sporting calendar. However, when approached for comment, the AFL declined to provide any statement. Internally, there is a prevailing sentiment at AFL House that the Opening Round will continue to evolve, with ground availability being a crucial consideration.
Despite the league’s strategic outlook, club executives are increasingly scrutinising whether the purported benefits of the Opening Round justify the disruption it causes.
Competitive Integrity Under Scrutiny
A significant concern voiced during the meeting with Mr. Dillon centres on competitive integrity. Clubs that are mandated to take an early bye have argued that this creates an uneven start to the season. This early break, they contend, disrupts their meticulously planned pre-season regimens, leaving some teams inactive while others are actively building continuity and match fitness.
The Hawthorn Football Club, for instance, has recently commenced an 18-day break following their victory over the Sydney Swans in a thrilling Thursday night encounter. Their next fixture is not scheduled until their clash with Geelong on Easter Monday.
Similarly, Carlton players are currently in the midst of a 17-day hiatus. They participated in the Opening Round and then played a Thursday night Round 1 match against Richmond.
Beyond the immediate effects, there is also considerable unease about the potential flow-on consequences later in the year. The staggered start to the season could lead to a compression of the fixture, creating a more demanding schedule for some teams.
Fremantle CEO Simon Garlick did not mince words when recently discussing his perspective on the league’s season commencement. He told The West Australian:
“There’s performance implications of opening round. There’s no doubt there’s an advantage for the teams that have played in opening round when they play against teams who don’t in round one. I think it’s served a purpose, I think it’s got real momentum in those northern markets for that period of time. But, if we are now opening it up to St Kilda and Collingwood, then to my mind I think we should go back to starting round one with all teams on a more even keel.”
Commercial and Fan Engagement Concerns
Commercial implications have also emerged as a significant point of contention. Victorian clubs, in particular, express frustration at being excluded from the Opening Weekend. This period traditionally generates strong attendance figures, lucrative corporate opportunities, and heightened member engagement.
Even the prospect of an expanded Opening Round has not assuaged these concerns. Some club officials have indicated that a full 18-team Opening Round could introduce a fresh set of logistical hurdles. These include challenges with venue availability, increased travel demands for teams, and further scheduling complexities. Crucially, these potential new issues might not necessarily resolve the underlying problems related to clarity and fan engagement.
Broadcast performance has added another dimension to the ongoing debate. While the AFL has highlighted solid ratings in northern markets, several clubs are of the opinion that the novelty of the Opening Round concept is beginning to wane.
Fan confusion has also been raised as a point of criticism. The split commencement of the season, where some teams feature in the Opening Round and others do not play until Round 1, has been labelled as lacking cohesion and diminishing the sense of a unified competition launch.
Despite the widespread dissent among clubs, the AFL remains steadfast in its commitment to the Opening Round as a component of its national growth strategy.
Wednesday’s meeting did not yield any formal resolutions. However, it has undeniably sharpened the focus on the Opening Round as a pivotal issue for clubs as they look ahead to upcoming fixturing decisions. For the AFL, the immediate challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between its ambition to expand the game’s reach and the legitimate concerns of its clubs. These clubs argue that the current system, and any potential expansion, risks undermining competitive fairness and commercial opportunities.
