The stunningly poor financial performance of AFL side Port Adelaide has cast further doubt over the AFL’s poorly planned Queensland and New South Wales expansion.

Yesterday, The Australian revealed that Port Adelaide, Australia’s most successful football club, announced a $1.4 million loss for 2008 — spurred by poor attendances, lower membership and rising costs.

Yesterday seemed to be the day to release bad economic news if you’re in the AFL because the Brisbane Lions also announced a loss of more than $2 million, which was blamed on the global financial crisis.

While many are quick to point the finger at struggling Victorian clubs, it is Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney that have proved constant financial disappointments for the AFL. Port Adelaide has been an on-field success since joining the competition in 1997, narrowly missing the finals in its first year, but achieving an enviable record of success, culminating in the 2004 premiership.

However, last year, Port Adelaide were only able to draw on average a measly 23,842 fans to its 11 home games. Of the eight highest attended clubs in 2008, seven were Victorian sides. Port Adelaide had the lowest attendance, followed by Brisbane, which recorded an average attendance of only 28,374 (North Melbourne had a slightly lower average than Brisbane, but its figures were distorted by playing matches on the Gold Coast). Brisbane also recorded the lowest number of members as at April 2008.

The poor financial performance and levels of support for non-Victorian clubs cast further doubt over the viability of the AFL’s expansion plans in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney. Even the AFL, which ploughed ahead with its Gold Coast plans without conducting adequate financial feasibility studies (instead, relying on the views of a focus group consisting of Gold Coast identities), has apparently realised that a Gold Coast side may not be the panacea some have hoped. In a shock move, on 18 November, AFL Chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick, stated that the AFL may actually take the time to consider the financial ramifications of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a money-losing expansion:

This is a generational decision for Australian football and the AFL Commission is committed to making prudent financial decisions based on a complete and proper process and a clear understanding of the current economic situation.

The Commission did not make a final decision today about the licence but has instead asked the AFL executive to clarify several matters from today’s discussion and provide a further analysis and financial modelling of the impact of the new club on the existing competition.

A “normal” business, answerable to shareholders would not dream of considering an expansion into the Gold Coast as the economy enters a recession. It should also be remembered that the Gold Coast is the venue of the failed Brisbane Bears (which was virtually bankrupt before moving to Brisbane), and will cannibalise Brisbane’s supporter base, already the lowest among all AFL clubs. Of course, the AFL is anything but a normal business. AFL directors like Fitzpatrick and Andrew Demetriou are not accountable to shareholders, and certainly not to club members.

While the AFL is happy to spend upwards of $100 million on a Gold Coast expansion, it is easily forgotten that those monies actually belong to the clubs, and by implication, club members. It is not without irony that while the league is enjoying record broadcast and corporate revenues, the costs faced by ordinary supporters continues to rise. It has recently been revealed that the cost of a Full AFL Membership and Premium Reserved Seat (for 10 home games) for a Melbourne-based club has increased to more than $900 annually — having more than doubled in a decade.

If the AFL executive had a true understanding of their role, the $100 million being spent on a money-losing Gold Coast side would instead be used to reduce membership costs for ordinary members. But what kind of legacy would that leave for Fitzpatrick and Demetriou?