(Les Zigomanis is a freelance writer and BPL Citizen Journalist)

While Australian Rules continues to be promoted as the greatest game on the planet - and will always be a fantastic spectacle to watch purely due to its mixture of competitiveness, skill, and aggression - every year administrative decisions are made which leave fans scratching their heads.

The AFL Commission does what it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. We complain - well, some of us do. How often do you hear the complaint, the AFL is ruining the game?  You hear it frequently on talkback.  Accompanied by veiled threats to stop following the game, to maybe take up another sport, although few people do.

We love the game and follow it devotedly, sometimes in spite of the decisions made at head office. This is one of the problems: the AFL always use our support as an endorsement of the way they shape their game. No. We follow the game because we love the game, regardless of the way they abuse it.

So here's my suggestion: since we elect governments to run the federation of Australia, since we elect governments to run our actual states, and since we elect boards to run our clubs, why can't the same occur with the AFL?  Why can't we elect the people who run this corporation?

This idea shouldn't be as outrageous as it might seem.

You have two parties and, on a four-yearly basis, they espouse to us their policies for the future of the competition. The parties can be representative of policies - e.g. progressive versus traditionalist - or simply comparative groups who think they can do a better job than the other.

They'll have platforms and promises just like normal political parties. And we vote on who we want. Okay, maybe you qualify who can vote, e.g. club members. But, effectively, we decide the direction of the competition on the policies that the parties' champion.

The best thing about this idea is that it makes the current administrators accountable.  No more arbitrary decisions completely oblivious to the desires of the footballers, or the public.  No more burying the head in the sand, as they did for years denying the surface of the Telstra Dome was atrocious when even the players were complaining.  No more, simply, arrogance - at least not without repercussions.

This is not a blanket condemnation of the current (or any preceding) administration, because there are areas in which they've done good work. They nationalised the competition, nurtured clubs which might've otherwise died, and are maniacal in promoting the game. But somewhere along the line, even the best intentions can come unstuck.  And you have to question any governing body that can act without fear of accountability, and which is neither answerable to a higher power, nor the investors or citizens whom they are meant to serve.

At least this method gives the people's game to the people.

And maybe this is what sports in general need: governing bodies elected by supporters to run the sports they invest so much of themselves in, intellectually, emotionally, and financially.