If Australian football is to survive in an increasing globalised sporting market place, it needs to retain those things that are unique to the code.

The first and most obvious of these is the game itself.

For all the disappointment of Saturday’s grand final, there was ample evidence that, despite the threat posed by over-coaching and excessive rotations, the essence of the game is still intact.

• Football and loyalty? Well, it’s complicated 
• Farewell Jonathan Brown, the anti-Buddy

Think Brian Lake’s speccy, Will Langford’s dash, Shaun Burgoyne’s evasive skills, Cyril Rioli’s silkiness, Luke Hodge’s ferocity. No other sport could replicate the improbable, bouncing goal Langford conjured from the pocket at the city end.

Nick Dal Santo as Saints fans would like to remember him. Photo: Getty

The other difference between AFL and most other professional team sports is club loyalty.

This is not the naïve observation it might seem.

For all the game’s professionalism and pragmatism, the phenomenon of players switching clubs remains – at least for now – the exception rather than the rule.

Many of us are happy to indulge in the harmless self-deception that “our” players are loyal to “our” club. It is part of the fabric of the game. We like “our” players, but we don’t like “theirs”. (Greig Johnston wrote earlier this year that he had never heard the term “one-club player” until he came to Australia.)

Yet the emergence of free agency is putting this aspect of the Australian football culture at risk.

So far, free agency has been used mainly as a device to move good players from weak clubs to strong ones: Brendon Goddard to Essendon, Nick Dal Santo to North Melbourne, James Frawley to wherever.

This further undermines another aspect of Australian football that must be protected – the evenness of the competition.

For all the complaints about superpowers, it should be remembered that Port Adelaide missed this year’s grand final by a whisker, St Kilda played off in 2010 and Fremantle made its debut last year. (The equivalent in the English Premier League is unthinkable.)

There is a trend among some in the media to welcome the increasing mobility of players.

We are about to enter the AFL’s annual trade period. It has almost become a season in itself, with winners, losers, sponsors and its own website.

They lecture us on how we need to grow up and accept the practice of other sports – notably soccer and basketball, but also rugby league – in which players become de facto franchises in themselves and often declare mid-contract that they will be playing with such-and-such the following season.

We reject those suggestions, observing that they are generally made by people who are part of the “industry” – in other words, people who make their living from the game – and whose experience is far removed from the average fan.

James Frawley will be heading to a more powerful club than Melbourne. Photo: Getty

We contend that the AFL should, as a matter of principle, aim to reduce, rather than increase, player mobility.

Yet the AFL is heading in the opposite direction, introducing free agency and proposing to water down the veterans’ allowance, which helped encourage old warriors to play out their days in familiar colours.

Of course, the AFL’s hands are tied to a large extent by restraint of trade rules and the rise of player power.

Yet surely an incentive scheme could be established to protect this aspect of the game.

We propose a sliding scale of payments, made on a percentage basis and paid outside the salary cap, to reward loyalty. This would start small and grow incrementally as a player’s career progresses.

This would not, of course, stop player movements. Such a scheme could not counter the mega-bucks that were on offer for Gary Ablett Jnr, for example, and players will always lose favour (Heritier Lumumba), fall out (Paddy Ryder) or want to go home (Dayne Beams). And mobility is essential for journeymen such as Matt Spangher, the feelgood story of the 2014 grand final.

We are about to enter the AFL’s annual trade period. It has almost become a season in itself, with winners, losers, sponsors and its own website.

Player trades are a separate matter to free agency (for which clubs are compensated in the draft), but the principle is similar.

If a loyalty payment made it less likely that Patrick Dangerfield would “seek a trade”, surely that is a good thing. Ask any number of Adelaide kids with 32 on their back.

The AFL “industry” loves the trade period. Average fans, who nervously wait to see which of their favourites will be in enemy colours next season, hate it – and with good reason.