One of the issues is that the article isn't clear over what is at the heart of the dispute. 'Football' wants "football’s share of the stadium economy". I'm not sure what that means, but my best guess is that the stadium would have revenue streams that aren't directly tied to discrete events. For example, the new massive microbrewery pays rent, but that isn't necessarily tied to an event. 'Football's share' of that rent over the next two decades is unknowable, because that rent will be renegotiated many times, and much that venue's revenue (and thus rent) will be driven by what other events the stadium hosts.
Risk in a contract should sit with the party best able to manage it. The AFL can't manage how much 'economy' the stadium will generate in years 11-20, the leases it signs, the deals it makes; but having an anchor tenant play at least 22 games a year makes those deals viable. 'Football' is entitled to a share of that benefit and is entitled to know the floor of that amount. If the Government doesn't hit that floor, it needs to cough up the money from somewhere else.
Herein lies the issue with leaking snippets of complex negotiations to the media - it can only muddy the waters. Even if you were inclined to believe that the AFL was deliberately and brazenly seeking to take money out of the pockets of other sports, you can't demonstrate it one way or the other from the story published.
It's poor form.
