Whilst not supportive of the alleged conduct that saw St Kilda forward Lance Collard slammed with a monster seven-week ban and Port Adelaide midfielder Zak Butters fined $1500, the AFLPA appeared to question the legitimacy of sanctioning footballers for verbal infringements where concrete evidence was lacking.
Collard maintained his innocence throughout the entire proceedings, albeit having admitted he was guilty of the same offence in 2024.
With no audio evidence available of the alleged slur, the testimony of the victim, Frankston's Darby Hipwell, and that of his teammate Bailey Lambert was taken against Collard's by the special tribunal hearing.
The AFL had argued for a ten-week ban for Collard, whilst St Kilda are considering an appeal after believing that a four-week ban (two of them suspended) was more appropriate.
"The industry remains aligned in wanting to rid the game of homophobia, but this process again highlights the need for a more effective and united approach," the AFLPA commented on the Collard case.
“Lance has maintained his innocence, and this has been consistent throughout. We're disappointed the Tribunal did not accept that evidence. We’ll continue to fully support him and the club through this process including exploring any options to appeal.
"A holistic solution that doesn’t focus solely on punitive measures can only be realised through meaningful engagement with LGBTIQA+ community leaders, education that reflects diverse backgrounds and experiences of players, alongside a disciplinary process that is fit for purpose, minimises and remedies the harms caused and shifts behaviour."
A similar 'he said/he said' case made headlines on Tuesday night when Port Adelaide's Zak Butters was fined $1500 for “abusive and insulting language towards an umpire”, having alleged asked umpire Nick Foot "how much are they paying you?" in response to an on-field decision.
Butters could not recall the exact words he had spoken to Foot, only insisting that it was closer "how are you paying that (free kick)?", whilst teammate Ollie Wines was also unable to clarify Butters' words despite his strong assurances that Butters' story was truthful.
“I categorically deny that’s what he said. I did not hear that at all or anything remotely close," Wines said at Tuesday's hearing.
The AFL tribunal effectively declared Butters and Wines to be less credible witnesses than umpire Foot, siding with his version of events.
Port Adelaide are reportedly ropable with the AFL's decision to sanction Butters and bring his integrity and honesty into question by disbelieving his innocence, particularly in the absence of clear audio evidence on an umpire microphone.
The AFLPA hinted on Wednesday morning that players are losing confidence in the AFL's disciplinary system.
“We are deeply disappointed by last night’s Tribunal outcome for Port Adelaide’s Zak Butters," the AFLPA stated.
“A misunderstanding about what was said on field should have been resolved in the aftermath of the match, not referred to the Tribunal.
“The Tribunal determining not to accept all of the evidence consistent with Zak’s version of events, including testimony of Zak’s teammate Ollie Wines, nor have sufficient doubt when upholding a charge is deeply concerning.
“In the off-season, we made it clear to the AFL that we would closely monitor the Tribunal’s decisions during 2026 given concerns raised by players in recent seasons. It is important that all participants in the game, but most importantly the players, have confidence in the disciplinary system to which they’re subjected.
“We’ve offered our full support to Zak and Port Adelaide in exploring their options to appeal.”
Port Adelaide will make a formal response once the AFL have explained the reasons for their decision, which were delayed following its handing down.