AFLPA CEO Matt Finnis insists the rejection of the AFL's latest pay deal is not because the players want more money.

The Players Association rejected a $1.144 billion pay deal put forward by the League on August 31.

The deal had intended to span five years and increase player earnings by 11 per cent from 2012, another five per cent in 2013 and three per cent in each of the next three years after that.

But Finnis said a three-year deal was a more realistic compromise, with five-year agreements not common across the economy.

"The players are not asking for more money. They are simply seeking to negotiate an agreement within the scope of what has been offered," Finnis said on Thursday afternoon.

"It is very important that I make it clear that the players' response did not ask for more money. In fact it is within the $667 million cost of the AFL's offer adjusted over three years."

The players' proposal involved salary cap increases by six per cent next year, another six the following year and seven the year after.

"We've certainly made adjustments in our proposal which provided for a flatter or smoother delivery of benefits that don't involve an 11 per cent increase in the player payments in that first year," Finnis said.

"The quantum of the AFL players' response is within the financial parameters of what the AFL has offered over three years."

The AFL's offer had tied in with the broadcast rights agreement signed in April that had brought in $1.25 billion of revenue for a five year arrangement.

But Finnis said that revenue stream was not the only one to affect the AFL's business operations.

"The TV rights provide a significant proportion of the revenues of the game but they're not the only proportion. In fact we all know there is a whole range of other commercial streams," he said.

"The players contribute a lot to that and the players believe that as the game grows, the role they play in growing the game should be reflected."

Finnis said industrial action had not yet been considered an option by the association.

"Six, seven, eight weeks ago the players gave us a mandate to try to reach an agreement. But if they weren't able to reach a satisfactory arrangement we do need to explore our options under Fair Work Australia," he said.

"The players have authorised us as their bargaining agent in writing to take that action. But I think that's premature."

The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs