Billion-Dollar AFL Stadium – Is The Price Too High?

At What Price? Tasmania’s AFL Dream and the Political Courage required to reach it

Tasmania wants an AFL team. On that, there’s little dispute. A home team would be a point of pride, honouring legends like Baldock, Hudson, Richardson and Riewoldt, and giving new generations a fortress to defend. But the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s recommendation not to proceed with Macquarie Point is a sober reminder that wanting a team and building a billion-dollar stadium are not the same thing.

There is a harder truth here – Tasmania is being asked to shoulder a burden no other AFL state has borne. No other club has been forced to build a billion-dollar stadium as a condition of entry.

Why should Tasmania be the first?

When a corporate body insists on terms it has never imposed elsewhere, the question is not about sport at all – it is about power and whether our leaders have the courage to stand up to it.

At over $50,000 per seat, Hobart’s proposed stadium would be among the most expensive in the world – more expensive than the revered Las Vegas Allegiant Stadium and almost double the cost of Perth’s Optus.

Except unlike Perth, Tasmania doesn’t have iron ore royalties or GST windfalls to cushion the blow. What we do have is debt and political leaders willing to gamble with it. A stadium at this price is not just a sporting venture; it is a multigenerational mortgage on our future. And this is not only an economic question – it is an ethical one.

It exposes a deeper imbalance in our politics – governments leaning to the will of business.

Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by a wealthy minority.

When leaders defer to corporate interests over independent planning advice, they erode public trust and the principles of representative government.

To equate an election win with community consent for a billion-dollar stadium is a false logic. Voters choose governments for many reasons – leadership, stability, or simply the least-worst option – but that does not mean they endorse every policy.

On Macquarie Point, polling shows around 60% of Tasmanians remain unconvinced or opposed.

Even the AFL’s own record suggests a smarter alternative – redevelopment. Adelaide Oval and Geelong’s GMHBA Stadium both became beloved and lauded fortresses after targeted redevelopments costing closer to $10,000 per seat. Why should Hobart be any different? Geelong, after all, is arguably the AFL’s most successful team in the past 20 years with comparable population size, rainfall and temperature to Hobart. Bellerive could be renewed, right-sized and brought into line with AFL standards at a fraction of the cost.

This doesn’t even require a lot of courage, just a government to perform the required due diligence and review to take the responsible decision.

Supporters argue the stadium will deliver “supercharged events.”

But these spectacles don’t materialise by virtue of bricks and mortar; they arrive with hefty price tags attached. States spend tens of millions to lure acts and events, and Hobart’s 23,000 seats simply won’t cut it. Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, or Ed Sheeran won’t reroute world tours for a half-capacity venue at the end of a flight path. And for the few mid-tier acts that might, how many Tasmanians could afford the ticket prices needed to make it viable?

Build it and they still won’t come.

And what about the jobs it promises? Yes, Tasmanians need them.

But large commercial projects in Hobart – from the Royal Hobart Hospital to the UTAS Forestry redevelopment – have repeatedly relied on interstate FIFO workers at double the cost of a local workforce. If history is any guide, many of the construction jobs won’t stay here, while housing pressures will only intensify.

There is little doubt that the presence of the Devils in Hobart is what everybody wants – the AFL, the media and Tasmanians who long for a home team. It would bring the community together, support the league’s 20-team vision and satisfy the media partners; a true Win-Win-Win scenario. But the question remains – at what price? And more importantly, why is Tasmania being forced to pay at so many levels when others have not?

The irony is that the AFL itself faces a fragile future.

Its reliance on escalating media rights is under threat, especially with the federal government poised to restrict sports betting advertising – a major source of broadcast revenue. The AFL needs Tasmania to also shore up a 20-team league to satisfy its “media masters” and lock in its financial lifeblood from media rights.

After all, without 10 games per week and ever increasing media rights, the AFL’s financial future is in peril, along with league jobs, player contract certainty and any future growth plans. This ill-considered strategic reliance on a powerful third party and the consequent pressure the AFL feels is the root of the bullying, and the reason the political courage required is not too much – it’s the AFL that is in the squeeze and the Government seems too scared to play the obvious game. Tasmania is not the supplicant—the AFL needs the island to shore up its deal with Channel Seven.

Instead of partnership, Tasmania is being strong-armed into a billion-dollar gamble.

The Tasmanian crossbench has sought to engage with the AFL in good faith, yet within the political framework, rather than the commercial leverage such negotiations demand.

The Liberal government clings to the dream; Labor has joined hands in bipartisan acquiescence.

Yet no one is seriously reckoning with the Planning Commission’s findings. How do you ignore a detailed report that lays bare the economic folly of the project? How do you press ahead when every warning light is flashing red? How do you not negotiate with zest, when every participant is painted into a corner and the worst hand is held by your oppressor? Ethical leadership requires courage to listen, not silence to avoid hard truths and never the narcissism or self-interest of ego above community.

Meanwhile, the AFL hierarchy sits comfortably in Melbourne, collecting multimillion-dollar salaries, while telling Tasmania to mortgage its future for the privilege of joining the league.

This is not partnership. It is leverage. Tasmania deserves its AFL team. But not at any price!

Ethics asks us to consider not just what we can do, but what we should do. Responsibility requires us to consider a redeveloped Bellerive as a pathway to a fortress we can afford, one that honours community pride without mortgaging the future. The only question that remains is whether Tasmania’s leaders will act with courage and care – or yield to the ego and self-interest of securing a “legacy project” whose true legacy is the debt we bestow upon future generations.

Will Tasmania’s leaders act with courage and care – or yield to the ego and self-interest of securing a “legacy project” whose true legacy is the debt we bestow upon future generations?

Dr Larelle Bossi is a philosopher and transdisciplinary applied ethicist specialising in place-based, values-led decision-making. Amongst other position she sits on the Executive of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.

Mr Lonnie Bossi is a C-Suite leader, CEO, consultant, Board Member, and Mentor with expertise in people management, strategy, finance, compliance, and organisational transformation. He develops and applies ethical decision-making frameworks that emphasise transparency, communication, courage, and respect, driving growth in complex, regulated environments across North America, Asia, Oceania, and Europe. 

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

 New initiatives on the way include … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.