Mr PYNE (4:42 PM) —Today, the start of grand final week, I wish to grieve about the future of the Australian Football League and the fear that those running the game are about to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Their product, the AFL competition, is operating in a fool's paradise. The competition and the industry it supports have become the new dotcom economy. According to Australian sports writer Patrick Smith, as many as 10 AFL clubs could report a financial loss this year. The Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs make the headlines for their financial difficulties almost as often as they do for on-field performance. Carlton is reported to be paying Denis Pagan $2 million over three years, while it has a debt of $9 million and an expected loss of half a million dollars this year. Despite almost unanimous calls for a plateau on player payments, there are already indications that they will increase by about six per cent next year.

It is not just the competition itself that is in trouble. Colonial Stadium has already had a near-death experience after reporting a $225.5 million loss for the year to 30 June 2001. So it strikes me as passing strange that Colonial Stadium should bid so vigorously for the right to host tonight's Brownlow Medal. To host tonight's presentation, a temporary multitiered ballroom, complete with change rooms and surrounding four-metre high scaffolding, has been constructed on the playing surface of the stadium.

I am sure there are a lot of football fans wanting to know how this extravagance is being paid for and for what purpose. Surely it would have been more economical to stage the awards at the Crown Palladium, where a suitable ballroom already exists. Unfortunately, it is the fans who have been asked to subsidise this culture of extravagance that has crept into the AFL—and the fans are voting with their feet. On the first weekend of this year's final series, crowd figures were 40,000 down on the corresponding weekend last year. In the elimination final between Essendon and West Coast, held in the Bombers' home city of Melbourne, only 37,475 people ventured to Colonial Stadium. This is despite the fact that Essendon enjoys one of the highest support bases in the AFL and was playing the only game in Melbourne on that day.

On the same weekend in Brisbane, the premiers could only manage a crowd of 31,854 for their qualifying final against the Adelaide Crows. That is about 6,000 down on their ground record. At AAMI Stadium in Adelaide, Port Power's two home finals drew crowds of 33,131 and 27,661, despite a ground capacity of 54,000. Yet only four weeks ago, in the last match of the home-and-away season, over 46,000 fans crammed into AAMI Stadium to watch Port take on Brisbane. Media reports suggest that, following last weekend's games, the AFL had lost around one $1½ million due to poor finals crowds.

The AFL has priced itself out of the market. In fact, the real question is: how does the AFL think that the average family can afford to go to a finals game? The cheapest tickets to the Port Power versus Essendon semifinal at AAMI Stadium for a family of two adults and two children cost almost $120. By the time you add the cost of car parking, food and refreshments, you are looking at nearly $200 for a night out. That is about a weekly mortgage payment for many families. As each week of the finals series progresses, ticket prices increase. Last Saturday, tickets ranged from $182 to $210 for the Collingwood and Adelaide game at the MCG. The same family can expect to spend around $400 for standard seating at this Saturday's grand final.

The AFL's Chief Executive, Wayne Jackson, recently admitted: `The AFL football system is living beyond its means and there does have to be a significant correction.' I am an unabashed believer in the free market, but there is a strong argument to introduce a ceiling on football department spending as well as introducing other regulatory measures that provide the `significant correction' that Wayne Jackson advocates. Indeed, AFL Commissioner and President of the National Competition Council, Graeme Samuel, argues that salary caps and income equalisation schemes do not betray the free market. Mr Samuel likens sporting competitions such as the AFL to a franchise operation broadly akin to a KFC or McDonald's chain of restaurants. Under this analogy, the franchisor, the AFL, issues licences to teams to participate in the competition, to create and sell the company's product to their supporters—their demographic market. In turn, the franchisor sets rules and mechanisms to ensure that its product, the competition, is designed to attract the widest possible support.

Correcting the AFL's unsustainable economy is only one part of the challenge. Like any commodity in the marketplace, the promoters of the AFL need to keep their product fresh and appealing to consumers to keep demand and thus the growth of their product at high levels. If the product becomes stale, loses its appeal or outprices itself in the marketplace, then demand inevitably falls.

Over two decades ago, the VFL made the bold decision to expand their competition into interstate markets. But it is time for the AFL to freshen up the product again. If the AFL is to be a truly national code, they must revamp the hosting arrangements for the finals series. The current archaic system provides that the grand final and a minimum number of finals must be played in Melbourne, regardless of whether or not a Melbourne team is playing. The argument put forward by Melbourne interests is that their city is the home of Aussie Rules and as such they have the exclusive right to host every grand final and a minimum number of finals. I wonder whether Melburnians argued that Athens was the home of the Olympics when their city won the right to host the 1956 games. Would anyone seriously suggest that Athens should host the Olympic Games every four years? What makes the Olympic Games so great is that the whole world owns it, and that is why all successful sporting competitions rotate the venue for the staging of their flagship event. I am speaking not only of the Olympics but the Commonwealth Games, the NFL Superbowl and the world cups for soccer, rugby union and cricket.

It is time for the AFL to introduce a rotational system for hosting the grand final among the cities of Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. The AFL should begin a rotational system for the 2003 grand final. It would be an ideal opportunity given the MCG will be under redevelopment and its seating capacity severely reduced. Rotating the grand final venue would not only boost the profile and reach of the national game but it would deliver economic benefits to the host city. It is no secret that sport is a big money-spinner in terms of the tourism it generates. The hospitality industry—in particular, motels, taxis, restaurants and airlines—would welcome a move in this direction.

The AFL will stunt their growth if they do not have the vision to let go of the idea that Melbourne is the centre of the football universe. This includes the hosting of all finals matches, not just the grand final. In this year's competition, the Adelaide Crows came third in the home-and-away series but were not rewarded with a home final. Collingwood came fourth and by next Saturday will have played two home finals. It adds nothing to the game that two interstate teams could be forced to play a preliminary final in Melbourne because of an arrangement between the AFL, the Melbourne Cricket Club and the MCG Trust.

In recent weeks we have witnessed some classic grandstanding by Premiers Mike Rann and Peter Beattie. The arrangement, they claimed, was in breach of sections 45 and 47 of the Trade Practices Act. The ACCC has held, quite correctly, that this is not the case. If we are going to change the current hosting arrangements for the AFL finals series, we are going to have to change it from within. That is what I am arguing, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is incumbent on the AFL to stop paying lip-service to a national competition and to start making good on it.