They used money to keep me out of the way
In the high-stakes world of Australian Rules Football, where rivalries run deep and every fixture can shape a season’s destiny, Adelaide Crows star Izak Rankine has unleashed a bombshell accusation that has rocked the AFL. The explosive claim centers on suspicions that the Brisbane Lions, leveraging their financial muscle and influential connections, manipulated the 2026 fixture schedule to sideline Rankine from a high-profile matchup against Collingwood.
In response, the league handed down what many are calling an unprecedentedly harsh penalty on the talented forward for discriminatory remarks, prompting Rankine to fire back with a pointed allegation: “They used money to keep me out of the way.”
The controversy erupted following the release of the 2026 AFL draw, a document that traditionally sparks debate over travel burdens, prime-time slots, and competitive balance. This year, however, the schedule ignited far more than routine grumbling. Rankine, who served a four-match suspension late in the 2025 season for directing a homophobic slur at a Collingwood opponent during a tense Adelaide Oval clash, found himself at the center of fresh scrutiny. His ban, which carried over into the early rounds of 2026, meant he would miss key games upon his return.
Critics quickly pointed to one particular fixture: Adelaide’s Round 1 encounter with Collingwood at the MCG, a blockbuster that would have drawn massive crowds and intense media attention had Rankine been available.
According to sources close to the situation, Rankine voiced private suspicions that the Lions—reigning back-to-back premiers with significant commercial clout—had influenced AFL schedulers to engineer this timing. The idea, he suggested, was to avoid a potentially ugly on-field confrontation involving the Indigenous forward while protecting the integrity of high-value matches. Brisbane, already navigating a schedule that some pundits labeled as disrespectful to the premiers with fewer prime-time Thursday and Friday night slots in the opening rounds, reportedly benefited from favorable recovery periods and matchups.
Meanwhile, Adelaide faced a grueling early-season gauntlet, including a Thursday night trip to Geelong’s Cattery followed by a swift turnaround for a Good Friday clash against Fremantle.
Rankine’s remarks, delivered in a candid interview that quickly spread across social media and sports outlets, painted a picture of behind-the-scenes power plays. “It wasn’t just bad luck with the draw,” he reportedly told confidants. “They used money and power to manipulate things, pushing Adelaide into this controversial spot with Collingwood right when I’m coming back from suspension. They wanted me out of the way.” The forward stopped short of providing concrete evidence in public statements but insisted his comments stemmed from frustrations shared by teammates and club officials who felt the fixture lacked transparency.
The AFL’s response was swift and severe. League executives, including scheduling boss Josh Bowler, dismissed manipulation claims as baseless, emphasizing that the fixture is built on a complex algorithm incorporating factors like travel equity, broadcast demands, player welfare, and historical rivalries. Bowler noted that Brisbane’s schedule, while featuring attractive home games against Collingwood in Round 4 at the Gabba, actually placed the Lions “off Broadway” for much of the early season, with limited marquee slots compared to teams like Hawthorn, Adelaide, and Geelong.
Adelaide Crows chairman John Olsen publicly denied any club request to shield Rankine from Collingwood crowds, stating the draw followed standard metrics.
Yet the penalty imposed on Rankine for his discriminatory language—widely reported as extending or reinforcing the original four-game ban with additional scrutiny—struck many observers as disproportionately harsh. In recent years, the AFL has cracked down on homophobic and other discriminatory slurs, with Rankine becoming one of several players sanctioned in a short period. Supporters of the league argue the punishment upholds inclusivity standards and protects mental health in the game. Critics, however, see it as selective enforcement designed to silence uncomfortable questions about fixture integrity and commercial influences.
This isn’t the first time fixture controversies have dogged the AFL. The league’s scheduling process has long been accused of favoring bigger markets and powerhouse clubs with stronger broadcasting appeal. Collingwood, with its massive supporter base, and Brisbane, riding high on premiership success, naturally command attention. In 2026, the draw saw unusual early byes for several top teams, including Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, and Geelong after just two games, leading to complaints of uneven preparation and recovery times.
Former players like Kane Cornes and Dale Thomas publicly slammed aspects of the schedule, with Thomas declaring he had “an absolute gutful” of perceived inequities, particularly around Brisbane’s travel and rest advantages before facing Collingwood.
Rankine’s case adds a personal and explosive layer. The 25-year-old, known for his electrifying pace and goal-kicking prowess, has been a standout for Adelaide since his move from Gold Coast. His 2025 suspension came in the dying stages of the home-and-away season, derailing potential finals heroics for the Crows, who were minor premiers but suffered an early exit. Returning in 2026, Rankine expressed eagerness to put the past behind him and focus on football. Instead, the fixture timing thrust him back into the spotlight—not for his on-field brilliance, but for off-field accusations of league favoritism toward well-resourced clubs.
The broader implications are significant. If powerful clubs can indeed sway scheduling through financial or political leverage, it undermines the AFL’s claim of competitive fairness. Broadcast rights, sponsorship deals, and crowd attendance figures heavily influence decisions, with Thursday night and Friday night games generating substantial revenue. Brisbane’s dual premiership status and growing Queensland market make them a commercial asset, but critics argue this should not translate into preferential treatment at the expense of smaller or interstate clubs like Adelaide.
AFL CEO Andrew Dillon has reiterated the league’s commitment to transparency, promising a review of scheduling processes amid growing fan discontent. Independent analysts have called for clearer public disclosure of the metrics used in fixture creation, including any weighting given to club influence or financial contributions. In the meantime, Rankine’s comments have fueled online debates, with supporters divided between those defending the league’s stance on discrimination and those rallying behind the player’s right to question perceived injustices.
For Adelaide fans, the controversy adds fuel to long-standing grievances about interstate travel and tough draws. The Crows’ early 2026 slate includes demanding away games and short turnarounds, potentially testing squad depth even without Rankine’s initial absence. Collingwood, conversely, benefits from a high-profile MCG opener that avoids the added narrative of facing a suspended star.
As the 2026 season unfolds, with Brisbane hosting Collingwood in a Thursday night clash in Round 4 and other intriguing matchups dotted throughout the draw, the shadow of Rankine’s accusations lingers. The forward has since focused on training and team preparations, issuing a statement reaffirming his love for the game while standing by his concerns about fairness. “I just want a level playing field,” he said. “If money and power are keeping players out of the way, the fans deserve to know.”
The AFL finds itself at a crossroads. Balancing commercial realities with sporting integrity has never been easy, but cases like this test the league’s credibility. Whether Rankine’s suspicions prove founded or amount to frustrated speculation, they have spotlighted uncomfortable questions about influence in one of Australia’s most watched sports. As teams prepare for another grueling campaign, the conversation around power, penalties, and fair play is unlikely to fade quietly.
