(Darren Boyd's background is in sports law but he is now working in the sports media.)

Following sacked Melbourne coach Dean Bailey's comments last week, The Age published an article headlined "Experts urge AFL inquiry on tanking". It quoted several sports law experts who claimed an "inquiry" was required, including one who argued that an inquiry was "overwhelmingly necessary".

The article left a few questions unanswered. Principally, why is a "tanking inquiry" "overwhelmingly necessary"? What would the Terms of Reference be? Do these experts believe the AFL is not doing enough to protect the competition's integrity?

What fails to come through in this article and others on the topic is that the AFL has undeniably invested significantly in protecting the integrity of its competition. The AFL made these investments based on a number of considerations, most significantly the rise of betting and the associated risk of corruption.

The AFL also has made a strategic decision that equalising the competition and creating a level playing field was the highest priority in the development of the game. To facilitate this, the AFL has a range of equalization measures, the most prominent being the salary cap and the draft. The AFL's decision made sense from an economic and sustainability perspective because in sport, unlike traditional economic markets, you need your direct competitors (ie the other clubs) to be successful over the long-term if you are all to survive.

Fans, observers and journalists cannot underestimate how significant these measures are. For example, a draft restrains trade and therefore is illegal unless the participants agree to it. There is no draft in the NRL competition because when the then organisers, NSW Rugby League, tried to institute one, the players took them to court and had the draft declared illegal. The AFL draft is legally valid only because the AFL negotiated with the AFL players and clubs who have agreed to allow it.

Most supporters and AFL experts accept that the draft has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on the competition. If you accept this, then you have to also live with the downside - namely that there is an incentive for poorly performed teams to win fewer games and that it is probable that the cycle of success will be cyclical. Every person who follows sports knows this.

I am not saying that clubs should be allowed to direct their players to play to lose. They should not. But if you accept the AFL's equalisation strategy, you have to defend the clubs' right to experiment with players and make decisions that prioritise their medium to long-term interests. This would clearly allow clubs to put players in different positions to develop them, or send players for surgery before the end of the season. Does this impact upon punters? Sure, but any gambling is a risky activity and it is very much "buyer beware". Every punter knows this.

A "tanking inquiry" is unnecessary. Further, if anything truly improper is going on, the AFL will name and shame - as salary cap cheats and gambling players have found out. Let's stop creating unnecessary controversy. Why don't we just trust the AFL to maintain the integrity of this great competition and enjoy the show?