Funnily enough, I thought the side-swat at player payments was an unnecessary diversion from the key issues of the article. If you want to have a ping at player payments, discuss it in a holistic manner and examine all the issues, cause and effects.
I would happily argue player payments go hand in hand with sports advertising/sponsorship - and ambitious clubs which seek revenue-earning advertising on ground hoardings need to invest a percentage of that income to ensure they have a product on the pitch people want to watch to make the advertising work... it is all part of the same dynamic.
So there are no ASBP franchises paying players with pokie money either directly or indirectly i.e. employing players as "coaches" on condition that they play for that franchise?
I've always said I have no problem with franchises spending money that they generate themselves through gate-takings, advertising and genuine commercial sponsorships (not pokie grants) on anything they want. However, it's obvious in many cases that is not what is happening.