The AFL has never been afraid to evolve.

That’s one of its strengths. The game has grown because it’s been willing to try new things, adjust, and move with the times.

But every now and then, an idea comes along that sounds better in theory than it does in reality. The proposed wildcard round sits firmly in that category.

On the surface, it ticks a lot of boxes. More games, more interest late in the season, more teams staying alive. From a broadcast and entertainment point of view, it makes sense.

But the reaction from fans and past players, even Geelong coach Chris Scott, tells us something. Not aggressive, not over the top — just a quiet sense that something about it doesn’t sit right.

At the heart of it is the integrity of the season. Right now, the system is simple. You play 23 rounds, you earn your spot in the top eight, and you get your chance in September.

It’s clear, it’s tough, and it’s respected. There’s no grey area. You’re either good enough across the journey, or you’re not.

The wildcard concept shifts that line. Suddenly, finishing ninth or even 10th might not be the end. You now still find yourself in a sudden-death scenario, playing for a spot in the finals.

That might sound exciting, but it changes what the home-and-away season represents. It softens the consequence of just missing out and risks rewarding mediocrity.

Making things worse were reports this week that the AFL is looking to sell off hosting rights to the wildcard games as early as next season. That part doesn’t sit comfortably with me either.

Finals footy has always been earned, not sold. If you finish higher on the ladder, you deserve the right to play at home, in front of your fans, on your ground. That’s been a fundamental part of the competition for a long time.

Taking that away and shifting games to whichever State pays the most risks turning a competitive advantage into a commercial decision. It might make sense on a balance sheet, but it chips away at the fairness of the system. And once that line is crossed, it’s hard to walk it back.

It’s not about being stuck in the past or unwilling to embrace change. It’s about understanding what the current system asks of players and respecting it. If you open the door for teams that fall short, even slightly, you risk undervaluing what it takes to get there in the first place.

There’s also the question of what you’re rewarding. If a team finishes ninth or 10th, the reality is they’ve been inconsistent. They’ve had chances during the season and haven’t taken enough of them.

That’s part of sport. You don’t always get it right, and sometimes you miss out. That’s what gives the competition its edge.

A wildcard round gives those teams a lifeline. Some will argue that it keeps more clubs engaged for longer, and that’s true to a point. But engagement shouldn’t come at the cost of standards. Finals should be difficult to reach. That’s what makes them matter. And standards shouldn’t drop for what might benefit the AFL financially.

The AFL is increasingly aware of the commercial side of the game. There’s a push for more content, more games, more moments that can be packaged and sold. That’s part of modern sport. But there’s a line where people start to feel like something is being added for the wrong reasons.

The wildcard round sits close to that line. It feels manufactured, not something being done to genuinely grow the game.

That’s the key difference when you compare it to something like Gather Round. Gather Round has worked because it adds to the experience without changing the fundamentals of the competition.

It brings fans together, creates atmosphere, and celebrates the game. But it doesn’t alter who qualifies for finals or what it takes to win a premiership. The wildcard concept does.