Skip to main content
Topic: BBL - One State Teams Advantaged? (Read 1901 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BBL - One State Teams Advantaged?

There is a growing movement to see second BBL teams established in some of the single team states.

It would seem to me the critics have a point, SA and WA in particular have a significant advantage given the wealth and resources in those states.

Is it fair to have WA and SA telling the country how much GST they should receive from the wealth they generate, and then argue that they are too poor to support a second team?

Proponents for the change are saying it's too easy for the wealthy single state teams to attract and retain players.

I think Qld is borderline, simply because it's Qld and many players do not want to go there, the state basically runs on welfare, and there are too many issues with social boundaries in the North, Central and South of the state. North Qld thinks it's another country, Central thinks it runs the show and the Southern Border believes they are part of NSW. ;D

I appreciate Tassie shouldn't come into the consideration, it's GDP and population is a bit low to sustain two teams.

This call seems consistent with the AFL's national stance, but I appreciate the AFL "subsidises" some teams, at least in principle if you can call it a subsidy.

I suppose Perth and Adelaide would defend their patch as vigorously as The Melbourne Storm!
The Force Awakens!