The allowance has come under pressure because some clubs are perceived to have received an unfair advantage by being able to pay several veterans' wages outside the salary cap.
However, the AFLPA will argue it is yet to see evidence that proves some clubs receive an unfair advantage because of the rule.
The association believes the rule is not only important to ensure veterans are retained in the game on a fair and reasonable wage, but it is also critical that clubs have some incentive to keep experienced heads around the team to support and guide younger players on and off the field.
Current players listed as veterans include the Brisbane Lions' Jonathan Brown, Collingwood's Nick Maxwell, Hawthorn's Sam Mitchell, Geelong's Corey Enright and the Western Bulldogs' Daniel Giansiracusa.
AFLPA player relations manager Ian Prendergast understood why the AFL had raised the issue in a bid to ensure there were no unfair advantages delivered to clubs under player payments arrangements.
However, Prendergast said targeting the veterans' rule was a misguided strategy.
"We still believe that the objectives it is designed to achieve – it potentially extends players' careers who have been at a club for more than 10 years, together with ensuring they get paid a fair and reasonable amount during those final years – are still sound," he said.
At a forum held on Thursday, many player agents expressed their displeasure to the AFLPA at the prospect of the veterans' rule being removed.
There is a belief among agents that it is a positive rule that needs time to work its way through the system.
They argued that the rule has prolonged the careers of many of their clients, helped them make an easier transition from football to life after the game and also emphasised the important role veterans played in supporting younger players.
One player agent told AFL.com.au he would be "very, very disappointed" if the rule was removed.
He said that even though it was debatable whether clubs with veterans did enjoy a salary cap advantage, it could also be argued that clubs that managed to hold on to players for 10 years because they created the right environment for them to stay should be rewarded.
Another said that if evidence was found that the veterans' rule made the competition less even, then other mechanisms could be used to help other clubs, rather than removing the veterans' allowance.
There is a belief among agents that making structural changes through an updated equalisation policy will have a sufficient impact and that the competition would regret the removal of the veterans' list.
There are 38 players listed as veterans, with Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney the only clubs without one. Those clubs have been given additional salary cap allowances under the list establishment rules.
Last season, the veterans' allowance was cut to a fixed amount per veteran – $118,380 in 2014 – but clubs can now list all of their 10-year players as veterans.
Up until the end of 2011, clubs could only list two veterans under the rule.
This year, Geelong boasts a league-high six veterans – down from a remarkable nine in 2012 – which will enable them to pay an additional $710,280 more than the salary cap this season.
The Sydney Swans (five veterans) and Essendon (four) will be the next biggest beneficiaries under the veterans' rules this season.
Several clubs said the removal of the veterans' allowance also make them more vulnerable to free agency raids.
"When you're looking to match an opposition offer, or at least get closer to it, that extra [$118,380] comes in pretty handy," a club list manager said.
The AFL is due to present an update of its equalisation plans at its meeting with club chiefs in Adelaide on Tuesday, following months of negotiations with its club-based working party.
