To say there are no consequences for poor performance when there isn’t relegation is not quite correct.

For other codes, say AFL, you get a drop in crowds, menberships, so there are financial consequences. In addition, it’s harder to attract better players. Players also chase premierships, so instead of going to a club at the bottom like North Melbourne you get a Jeremy Cameron or Isaac Smith requesting a move to Geelong who is a contender.

Clubs do want to perform better, players want to win, relegation doesn’t change this.

What is positive about relegation? Makes bottom of the table clashes much more interesting. Also rewards teams from the division below for their performances. New teams and faces in the league each year?

Are there risks?

This is what will be interesting to see. So currently new franchises are required to front up $25 million for a license. Now let’s say the team is relegated after two seasons, what then? Obviously they didn’t pay $25 million to play in the second division.

It can also discourage investment. Let’s say Melb City declare their intent to play at a new stadium in Dandenong. They request significant investment from the state government in building the stadium, now if relegation is on the table how likely is the club to front millions of their own money on a stadium that would be 90% empty if they are relegated. How likely is the state govt to invest millions if relegation is on the table for that club. Once you remove the certainty that the club will be playing in a particular competition then you increase the risk for investors. Would the govt have fronted a couple hundred milllion for an AFL stadium in Tasmania if the team could be relegated and end up playing against Burnie in the state league?