A HUGE factor in the AFL's popularity is its determination not to become a competition in name only.

In the 1980s, the League introduced the draft with the aim of ensuring success came to clubs on a cyclical basis, and the salary cap to stop richer clubs prospering from 'cheque book' recruiting.

On Monday, the AFL unveiled a club funding and equalisation strategy designed to bring similar equilibrium to clubs' football (non-player) and non-football spending.

Under the strategy, the clubs will receive $1.1 billion in AFL funding from 2012-16, an increase of $320 million on 2007-11. But the key component of the strategy is the creation of a $144 million Club Future Fund.

Each of the competition's clubs will receive 'equal' payments of $3.25 million under the Future Fund. But, most significantly, about 60 per cent of the fund - $85 million - will be distributed to clubs on a needs basis in 'unequal' payments.

The scale of the AFL's commitment here is also worth noting, with the Future Fund representing a $92 million increase on the League's combined Annual Special Distribution ($38 million) and club facility funding ($14 million) from 2007-11.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou made it clear at Monday's announcement of the equalisation strategy that it was designed to leave a legacy of 18 viable and competitive clubs.

"Supporters want strong, financially viable clubs with first-class facilities, more resources, strong membership and revenue bases, reduced debt and strong futures,” Demetriou said.
 
"Most of all, they want to know that their club is able to compete equally for premierships. This strategy aims to ensure that no matter which club you support, play for or work at, you have the opportunity to compete for the ultimate prize."

The widening gap in club spending was a problem that needed to be addressed. In 2010, Collingwood led the League in football department (non-player) spending with $8.8 million, a whopping $4.1 million more than the lowest spender, the Western Bulldogs.

Put simply, the Future Fund is partly based on a "minimum required capability" model of the staff numbers a club needs in its football department (excluding players) and non-football department to be competitive.

In 2011, the AFL has set this model at 68 full-time employees - 28 in football (including coaching, welfare, list management and conditioning) and 40 in non-football (membership, corporate, marketing, communications, digital, finance and IT). 

The AFL's focus on creating a larger non-football staff is not accidental. This department is where a club generates most of its revenue. By investing in more staff, a club should generate more revenue, which it can then invest in its football department. Which, in turn, means it will need less AFL funding to maintain competitive football staff levels on a sustainable basis.

It should be noted that the AFL has set the staffing model as a target, not a requirement. But a quick look at 2011 club staffing levels shows how much some clubs will benefit from the Future Fund.

This year, Port Adelaide had the competition's lowest number of football staff, 21. So part of the $7.2 million in 'unequal' funding it has been allocated from 2012-14 must be used to bolster these numbers to a competitive level.  

In non-football staff, North Melbourne was the most poorly resourced club this season, with 25 employees. Not surprisingly, then, it will receive the equal highest allocation of unequal funding ($7 million from 2012-14), a good proportion of which the AFL will expect it to invest in non-football staff.

The Western Bulldogs will receive the same level of unequal funding as North, in recognition that its staff numbers are the equal second lowest in both football (23) and non-football (30).

In addition to staff, clubs may also receive funding under the equalisation strategy for facility developments and debt reduction.

But in tailoring the level of funding clubs receive, the AFL has also factored in the inequities that exist, and will continue to exist, in an annual fixture, which rewards strong clubs with blockbuster games and regular Friday night matches, and in the clubs' various stadium deals. 

However, it is significant the AFL reached the models that underpin the Future Fund after what Demetriou said was its most extensive club consultation process. In fact, it was the clubs' feedback that provided the basis for the fund's competitive models.

The wealthier clubs supported the fund's equalisation payments on the basis they want to be part of a strong and vibrant competition, Demetriou said.

But their support was contingent on no cap being introduced to their non-player spending, Demetriou said, and on the basis that clubs that received unequal payments were held accountable for how they spent them.

"So clubs don't squander this unbelievable opportunity," Demetriou said.

In this regard, Demetriou said clubs would be given strict guidelines on how they were to spend their equalisation funding and any "material departure" from those would give the AFL the right to conduct a detailed review of the club concerned.

Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon said at Monday's announcement the disparity in off-field spending between the AFL's rich and poorer clubs had been a problem for 20 years. But Smorgon applauded the AFL's "far-sighted leadership" on the issue, saying the Future Fund would give all clubs an "opportunity to lift their games".  
 
The fund's unequal payments have only been allocated for the next three years at this stage. An additional $37 million of unequal funds have been set aside for 2015-16, but these will only be allocated after a review of the current funding.

Any way you look at it, the equalisation strategy speaks volumes of the AFL's commitment to the future and welfare of its existing clubs.

It's now up to the clubs to take full advantage of the AFL's generosity.

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