Patrick Dangerfield has put forward yet another unnecessary fix for a problem that doesn’t exist: shortening AFL quarters. Because apparently, four 20-minute terms are just too much for the modern player.
His reasoning? Less game time means more demand. He cites the NFL, a league that plays fewer games but rakes in billions, as the model the AFL should follow. A nice comparison—except for the fact that the NFL isn’t cutting game time, nor is it worried about players running out of puff in the fourth quarter.
This is just the latest chapter in the AFL’s slow march towards sanitisation. The game has already been stripped of physicality, bogged down by rule changes, and softened at every opportunity. And now, one of the competition’s most decorated players is suggesting we play less of it? What’s next—rotating rest weeks and a mercy rule?
Let’s not forget that the AFL already tinkered with shortening games during COVID, and the result was underwhelming. The best teams thrive in the long grind, breaking opponents down over four brutal quarters. Endurance is part of the spectacle. It’s what makes final-quarter comebacks thrilling and premierships legendary.
Fans aren’t crying out for footy to be over quicker. If anything, they want more of it. This obsession with modifying the game to make it more “digestible” reeks of corporate meddling and player-driven convenience.
Dangerfield has been a champion of the game, but this idea sucks.
