AFLW Needs Real Critics, Not Just Cheer Squads With Lanyards
Tom Morris said the quiet part out loud this week when he pointed out how hard it is for current AFLW players to be honestly critical of their own competition, and legit, it’s about time someone did. The reaction told you everything you need to know about where this conversation actually sits.
Because here’s the thing. I love this competition. I think it’s one of the best things to happen to footy in this country in my lifetime, and watching it take root in Queensland over the last few seasons has been genuinely special to witness. But loving something doesn’t mean you pretend it’s perfect. And right now the AFLW ecosystem is set up in a way that makes genuine, independent critique almost impossible to find from the people closest to it.
Why players can’t just say it like it is
Think about the position an active AFLW player is actually in. She’s employed by a club that answers to the AFL. Her media opportunities, her brand deals, her standing in the competition, all of it runs through relationships that depend on staying onside. If she goes on a podcast and says the fixture is a mess, or that some venues are an embarrassment, or that the standard of officiating has been inconsistent, she’s not just offering an opinion. She’s potentially putting her own career and reputation on the line in a competition that’s still small enough that everyone knows everyone.
That’s not a knock on the players. If anything it’s the opposite. These women are carrying so much already, building a competition from scratch while still working second jobs in plenty of cases, and we’re asking them to also be the ones who hold it accountable publicly? That’s not fair and it was never going to happen at scale.
The retired player problem
You’d think retired players would fill that gap, and some genuinely try. But even post-career, plenty of ex-AFLW players end up working in some capacity for the league, a club, or a broadcast partner that has its own commercial relationship with the AFL. The incentive to keep the tone positive doesn’t disappear just because the boots are hung up.
I’m not saying every panel comment from a former player is sugar-coated. Some of the most useful honesty I’ve heard about AFLW standards has come from past players who’ve been happy to call out soft fixturing or ordinary grounds. But structurally, the pool of people who can speak totally freely without any skin in the game is tiny. And that’s the actual problem Morris was getting at.
So who’s left to do the job
This is where independent media outlets, the ones not owned by the AFL or riding on broadcast deals, actually matter. Not because we’ve got some monopoly on the truth, but because we don’t have a seat at the table to protect. FootyTalk isn’t getting a cut of a broadcast rights deal. We’re not worried about upsetting a league that signs our paycheck, because it doesn’t.
That freedom is worth something. But here’s my issue with how this debate usually plays out: everyone nods along that independent voices are important, and then nothing actually changes about how those voices get built up. You can’t just wish a strong, knowledgeable, independent AFLW media pack into existence. It has to be developed, the same way talent on the field gets developed.
Development can’t just be a buzzword for the W too
Think about how much structure goes into growing a young player’s game. Academies, pathway programs, dedicated coaching time, actual investment of money and hours. Nobody expects an 18 year old draftee to walk into her first AFLW season fully formed. We accept that talent needs nurturing.
Why doesn’t the same logic apply to the people covering the game critically? If the AFLW wants a mature, sustainable media conversation around it, one with proper analysis and robust debate rather than just recycled highlight packages and good news stories, then outlets covering it independently need actual support to build that expertise. That means access for journalists who aren’t attached to broadcast arrangements. It means genuine press conference time, not just the leftover five minutes after the official partners get their questions in. It means not treating critical coverage as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a sign the competition is being taken seriously.
Because no notes, that’s actually the end goal here. A competition only gets treated as genuinely elite when it’s scrutinised like one. Nobody bats an eye when a men’s club gets torn apart over a bad draft pick or a shocking defensive structure, that’s just footy media doing its job. AFLW deserves that same level of serious, occasionally uncomfortable attention, not as a punishment but as proof it’s being taken as seriously as the comp it sits alongside.
What good independent coverage actually looks like
I don’t think the answer is just being negative for the sake of it either, and that’s where I’d push back a little on how this debate sometimes gets framed online. Being an independent voice doesn’t mean constantly dunking on the product. It means being willing to say the standard of some games has been patchy this round, or that a club’s list management has been questionable, or that a rule change hasn’t worked, right alongside genuinely celebrating the brilliant footy when it happens. Both things can be true in the same week.
What we can’t have is a media environment where the only voices with real knowledge of the game are structurally discouraged from being honest about it, and everyone else is left guessing from the outside. That’s bad for fans, bad for the competition’s credibility, and honestly bad for the players themselves, who deserve coverage with some actual teeth rather than endless puff pieces.
Where this needs to go next
Morris raised a fair point and the response to it shouldn’t be defensiveness from the league, it should be an honest look at how AFLW media access and development actually works right now. Queensland fans like me have watched this comp grow from basically nothing into something that fills grounds and builds genuine club rivalries. It deserves a media pack that’s grown just as deliberately alongside it, one that can ask the hard questions without worrying about who it might upset.
Independent voices aren’t the enemy of a healthy competition. They’re one of the clearest signs you’ve actually built one.
