We’ve all seen that visual of the three children looking over a fence to try and watch a football game. Giving all three children the same box to stand on doesn’t work since they are all of different heights.

Therefore, the fairest solution was to give the shortest child more boxes so they could have the same experience as their taller peers.

This is a model that the AFL needs to adopt if it’s serious about equality. The AFL constantly promotes itself as the sport of equality, representing the wider egalitarian society that is Australia.

Salary caps and draft picks are all designed to ensure no one club is miles ahead of anyone else, both on and off the field.

Clearly, this has worked in terms of results as whilst many of the big football leagues in Europe see the same winners due to their better financial situation, every team in the AFL gets their chance to rise up and fall down.

Exemplifying the evenness of our competition is the fact that in the last 10 years, 15/18 clubs have played in at least one preliminary final, proving that the AFL is really good at ensuring every team gets a fair crack at success.

However, many fans, commentators and higher-ups at AFL House still hold the premise that all 18 clubs are at the same ‘height’ or starting point when in reality, different clubs have different circumstances that need to be accounted for.

Take Sydney and GWS for instance. For years, Victorian clubs despised the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) given to the Swans as it supposedly gave them an unfair advantage, leading to it being taken away in 2014.

Now, the topic is again on the radar much to the chagrin of the Victorian clubs who do not want to yield any ‘advantage’ to their northern rivals. But this is not an advantage, it’s an equalisation measure.

We cannot compare the salaries of players and coaches between Melbourne and Sydney clubs when the cost of living in the two cities and states vastly differs.

According to ABS data, the average dwelling price in NSW is just under $1.2 million compared to Victoria which sits at just under $900k. What a player living in a Melbourne club can afford is far superior to what a player from Sydney or GWS can buy with the same money.

The criticism against COLA was that AFL players are already earning comfortable wages so they should never really be pressured by the cost of living as they are among the highest earners in society.

This is a fair criticism, that’s why if COLA were to be introduced, it should only be for draftees on their first contracts and other players earning below a certain threshold.

It should also be mainly in place for assistant coaches as they are the ones impacted hardest by the cost of living.

Adam Kingsley revealed earlier this year, that three of five of GWS’s assistant coaches live away from their families due to the lack of resources required to sustain a whole family living in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Those against COLA should know that it should never be intended for someone like Buddy Franklin as an incentive to move to Sydney.

It is for those who simply cannot earn enough due to soft cap/salary cap values that are primarily based on what is required for Melbourne clubs.

The Sydney clubs aren’t the only ones that could benefit from a bit more help to remedy their extenuating circumstances.

We saw this year about how Victorian clubs had the audacity to complain about extra business class seats that the WA clubs received and how that somehow compensates for the fact that both clubs have to travel on four-hour flights almost every second week.

This is a slightly harder issue to resolve, given that Perth is so geographically isolated from the rest of Australia.

However, the AFL can and have to be willing to give West Coast and Fremantle some ‘special treatment’ which is really just equalisation measures.

The idea of clubs selling their home games to Perth has been raised and this would not be a bad idea to not just limit travel but also grow football in WA.

The fixturing team should definitely have a look at scheduling games in blocks, so travel is not required every second week.

We have seen with COVID that the hub model can work and without those stringent restrictions, the league can surely support players with families who have to go away for multiple weeks at a time.

The Victorian clubs won’t like the fact that I am suggesting ways to benefit certain interstate clubs. However, these aren’t benefits.

They are acknowledgements that interstate clubs have unique challenges in our game which they need special help with, so all clubs are treated equitably.