LIKE it or not, the next era of AFL football will take the game to a new level of professionalism. Not in an on-field or preparatory sense but in its purest form. The dollars that dictate the decisions of all the major stakeholders will influence the career decisions of the footballers themselves more than ever before. And the game of football will then become the business it has been threatening to be for some time.

Generally, financial aspects of the sport are kept for discussions of administration and boardrooms but when high-profile players approach the end of a contract period, six-figure numbers get splashed all over the place as if it was the be-all and end-all. In some cases, it may well be.

I know from personal experience the pressures brought to bear when a contract negotiation gets played out in public. I was "mercenary" when I left the Brisbane Bears at the end of 1993 and nothing had changed three years later when I had failed to re-sign for Collingwood towards the end of the 1996 season. In one of my least favourite football memories, I was roundly booed by the Magpie faithful because they assumed I was going to head back to the new Port Adelaide franchise the following year. Money, or sometimes just the perception of it, can turn people nasty.

Invariably, player contract issues hit the public arena only when it involves a big name. Already this season, we have discussed and dissected the contract status and motives of Brendan Fevola, Jonathan Brown and Daniel Kerr and just last year saw Chris Judd go through the same process. Perhaps it was Carlton's ability to woo Judd that has every fan in the country having wild imaginings about the make-up of their club's next premiership team.

Wouldn't "Fev" look great at full-forward for Sydney, or "Brownie" in the Pies' forward half. One or two of those players might move on and that would be their right to do so, but inertia, and the rules of the competition, suggest they are likely to remain where they are.

Now I did say exactly that about Judd last year and got it wrong. He, too, chose to leave negotiations until the end of the year and cited his focus on his footy as the reason. I've no doubt that was a valid concern for him but it also bought him time to make his decision.

When a premiership captain and a club's champion player can move on without a hint of bitterness, you know the face of the game has changed. It tells every player that they are entitled to navigate their own path through a career; and they are. The big stick clubs have wielded for so long could soon be in players' hands and they are starting to dictate terms.

Just last month, information filtered out about Adam Selwood's demands for a clause to be triggered if the Eagles were to have a repeat of their latest shame. It is a sign of the times.

Players as a whole (and managers who represent them) have become more savvy about their worth and the finite time they enjoy in the game. They are prepared to play hard ball now more than ever.

While the status of star players is unconfirmed, it can't help but have a negative effect on the team and all within it, especially when salvos are fired through the press. Both Fevola and Carlton have suffered from the fact some of it has been played out in the public forum.

The results of these situations are often unsavoury; the focus goes on all the wrong things. For the club, it goes off the team and onto the individual; off the field and into the boardroom. For a player, it goes away from their football and onto their "demands". The facts can be lost and perception takes over.

The better administrators ensure that these issues are dealt with in a confidential manner. If they haven't locked their stars away with overlapping contracts, they are happy to stonewall the press until a negotiation is complete. Clubs try to avoid required players coming out of contract at all.

The big issue for clubs is the growing trend of managers leaking information to put on pressure to meet their terms. Link a name to a big club and suddenly the asking price can skyrocket. It's all about increasing demand or at least the perception of it. Collingwood has fulfilled this role more times than I can remember.

Players need to take some responsibility for the effect this has on the team and club as militant managers do whatever it takes to achieve the best financial result for their client — no matter the associated costs. Clubs with a good solid culture can buffer these inflationary issues by maintaining a clear understanding of what is rewarded and what isn't. Any time a player's view of himself is at odds with his coach's, it's a recipe for disaster, whether there is a contract to sign or not.

Thankfully, the worst AFL contract debacle is no match for the National Rugby League system. It defies belief that a player in any team sport can have a contract with a different club while playing the year out at another. The only AFL circumstance that even goes close to that was at Fremantle this year when Cameron Schwab continued in his role after resigning from the chief executive's post at the beginning of the year. And they say stranger things have happened?

Ultimately, the final decision and responsibility on player contracts rests with the club. It decides who it signs, for how long and for how much. The clubs are the ones that have to balance every individual's worth against the restrictions of the salary cap and the knowledge that no one player has ever won a club a flag; it is a team game, after all. These considerations and more go into the final number that everyone seems so caught up in.

There is one thing that will never change, though. The players who worry least about the numbers are the ones who demand the highest ones.