AFL 2026: The league investigated the Luke Sayers photo, but not the meeting involving the Melbourne Demons and players’ partners
Sachi Dade’s case against the Melbourne Football Club and two of its senior employees raises many questions, but one looms larger than the others.
Why didn’t the AFL investigate?
Retired premiership defender Steven May’s partner Dade is suing the Demons, coach Steven King and football boss Alan Richardson for allegedly invading his privacy.
Court documents say the Melbourne players’ partners “expressed concerns regarding the now-infamous Microsoft Teams meeting with the MFC, the AFL Players Association and the AFL (including the AFL Integrity Unit). Responses from the MFC and AFL were slow and concerns and complaints were not resolved”.
The Devils apologized for a February meeting in which private information about May and Dade was allegedly shared.
Although the club acknowledged mistakes had been made, the AFL Integrity Unit did not launch a formal investigation.
A senior source familiar with the case, speaking anonymously as the matter is currently before the court, was adamant on this masthead that Dade had not requested the league’s intervention but wanted the AFL to convene a meeting between itself and Melbourne to address its concerns.
Ultimately, this meeting never took place.
At a time when the AFL is investigating everything from betting breaches to social media behaviour, the decision not to launch an investigation seems rather odd.
At the heart of the issue is the evolving boundaries between governance, privacy and corporate responsibility in professional sport. This is not just a procedural question, but one that invites scrutiny of how the AFL defines its own jurisdiction in matters that fall between personal welfare and corporate conduct.
AFLPA boss James Gallagher called the AFL after receiving a formal complaint.
The integrity department regularly investigates allegations against players, coaches, officials and club staff. But when it came time to disclose Melbourne’s sensitive personal information, the AFL chose to leave the matter to the club.
The obvious question is: why?
Was this because the AFL viewed the incident as an internal governance issue rather than a breach of integrity?
Because individual complaints are not made directly to league headquarters?
Or was the AFL wary of stepping into another private row after its handling of the Luke Sayers salacious photo scandal sparked criticism and damaging court drama?
Whatever the explanation, the decision has become even harder to ignore now that the matter is before the Federal Court.
Because if the allegations are serious enough to warrant legal action alleging emotional distress, humiliation and psychiatric harm, critics will inevitably ask whether they are serious enough to warrant review by the game’s integrity watchdog.
This tension reveals wider uncertainty about how the AFL defines its role. Over time, the league has expanded its scope far beyond on-field matters and positioned itself as a regulator of behavior, culture and welfare across the competition. He often intervened in cases involving racism, gambling, illegal drugs and workplace conduct, citing his responsibility to protect the integrity and reputation of the game.
This case seems to sit in a gray area. This includes allegations of breaches of privacy and duty of care, but these breaches took place in a club environment rather than clear misconduct that directly threatened the integrity of the competition. This distinction may have influenced the AFL’s decision to step back, but it also raises questions about consistency.
The comparison with Sayers’ chapter is instructive. In this case, the circulation of a private photograph featuring the then Carlton chairman on his social media account quickly became a league-wide issue, drawing the attention of the AFL amid concerns about privacy, reputational damage and governance.
This demonstrated how quickly personal issues can turn into corporate consequences when they intersect with the public profile of the game.
He also highlighted the sensitivities the AFL faces when dealing with private information. The investigation into Sayers, which cleared Sayers of wrongdoing and is now the subject of a defamation lawsuit filed by Luke’s estranged wife, Cate, has reinforced the risks involved in intervening in matters that intersect with issues of personal privacy.
Perhaps the league could say it intervened in the Sayers case because the post was public. Maybe league officials were hoping Dade’s allegations would go away quietly.
They didn’t.
Sayers’ post on X included a club sponsor, a club president, and his marriage. The Melbourne meeting was attended by a player, his partner and the partners of about a dozen teammates. So why did the AFL examine one but not the other?
If the AFL is willing to investigate off-field behavior that risks damaging the brand, why not examine a case in which a club admitted to mishandling sensitive personal information? And if the league is approaching clubs on such matters, what safeguards are in place to ensure accountability beyond internal apologies?
There is also a precedent issue. By choosing not to investigate, the AFL may have signaled that certain categories of conduct fall outside its remit, even when it intersects with the welfare and privacy of the player. This could have implications for how future events are handled, especially at a time when clubs are increasingly navigating complex issues such as mental health, personal relationships and confidential information.
For Melbourne, the matter is now in the hands of the courts. But for the AFL, the review is unlikely to end.
Ultimately, it is not just a question of whether the AFL should have investigated, but what its decision reveals about the limits of its authority and the expectations placed on it.
In an environment where public trust depends on perceptions of transparency and accountability, the AFL may find that choosing not to act can be as important as any investigation it undertakes.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Sam McClure is an award-winning AFL journalist and broadcaster.Connect with: X or email.
