THE subject of free agency has raised its ugly head this week. There is a push for a form of restricted and unrestricted free agency to allow greater movement of players from one club to another. The AFL Players Association wants to see it in some form from next year.

Why is it necessary and who is to benefit? Restricted free agency involves four- to five-year players going to the highest bidder unless the original club matches that bid. Unrestricted free agency is where a player with seven years' service can pick his own club at will with no return to the club.

The time limits for years played are unofficial, but are possible templates. Both have enormous ramifications.

Player development programs will be compromised. Why put time and effort into young players when you know that within four to five years of maturing under your system, you could lose them for an amount of money that you might not be able to match or afford?

Even in today's drafting system, recruiting from interstate has its risks when players become uncontracted. Under restricted free agency, it's a greater risk, and under unrestricted agency, it's uncontrollable. The greatest administrators couldn't tell you their salary cap commitments five years in advance.

There are plenty of examples of players who, at the end of 2007, qualify for restricted free trading if four or five years' service is the criterium. Consider this list: Adelaide — Nathan van Berlo, Brisbane Lions — Michael Rischitelli, Carlton — Jarrad Waite, Collingwood — Dane Swan, Essendon — Brent Stanton, Fremantle — Aaron Sandilands, Geelong — Gary Ablett, Hawthorn — Campbell Brown, Kangaroos — Daniel Wells, Melbourne — Brock McLean, Port Adelaide — Shaun Burgoyne, Richmond — Andrew Raines, St Kilda — Luke Ball, Sydney — Craig Bolton, West Coast — Daniel Kerr, Western Bulldogs — Adam Cooney.

All these and many more talented young players could be involved in a bidding war under this system. Can you imagine the supporter backlash if any of these players left their clubs so early in their careers? Does the word "mercenary" come to mind?

Logically, these players wouldn't want to move clubs but, more importantly, they shouldn't be given the opportunity or deserve the right to hold their club to ransom so early in their careers.

Under a seven-season free agency rule, Docker Matthew Pavlich and St Kilda's Nick Riewoldt, who are uncontracted at the end of the season, could both walk out with no return to their clubs at all. They have been great servants but, at 26 and 27 years of age this year, they are coming into their prime. To be able to leave without the club's development work coming to fruition is against the very spirit of recruiting.

If both wanted to leave, the system in place now allows them to do so. Which club in its right mind would not permit them to play at all and miss out on the chance of trading for their services? Both player and club win in this situation, which is more balanced than a totally player-orientated free trade.

To quote players' union chief Brendon Gale: "We think freeing up would be in the best interests of the competition (and) the clubs and would benefit players." Sorry, Brendon — the AFLPA is the players' union and its agenda is to get the best conditions for its constituents. I have no issue with that, but don't hide the real reasons for free agency, which is a quick cash grab.

Free agency has not had unqualified success overseas. At the height of collective bargaining agreements in the NFL and NHL in the 1990s, five teams from both codes changed cities because of financial pressures brought about by increasing player salaries and other issues.

In 2004-05, the NHL had a lockout through players not accepting a salary structure linked to league revenues. Baseball has had its issues and English soccer has had examples such as Leeds United, now in the third division, being investigated by the tax office and in the hands of receivers. The NBA's Vancouver moved to Memphis in 2001 and Charlotte to New Orleans in 2002.

Our game, if the AFL is right, is growing each year. Players agreed to the new TV rights-based pay rises and now seem to be reneging on their commitment and want more. The drafting system is doing exactly what it was implemented to do — even up the competition.

Free agency caters for the elite. If I were a mid-range or lower-rated player on any club list, I would be dirty on the fact that I wouldn't be involved in the bidding wars that the elite level would entertain.

If this was to be implemented following the American and international free agency trends, it won't be long before we are copying rugby league, with players being traded mid-season.

Just imagine if Pavlich announced at round 15, 2007, that he had signed with Adelaide for the 2008 season but would play out the rest of the year with the Dockers. I'd love to be in the outer at Subiaco Oval that day!

The players' union has intimated that legal action is a possibility. What it doesn't recognise is that in its blind greed and player-orientated mantra, the very fabric of our game will come under threat.

Loyalty at club level will further diminish, elitism will reign, mid- and lower-rated players will suffer. Supporters will need Velcro numbers on their duffle coats because the stars they love today might not be around long enough to make sewing on a number viable.

Tony Shaw's column appears every Friday.