The AFL investigated the Sayers pic but not the Melbourne meeting. Why?

Sachi Dade’s lawsuit against the Melbourne Football Club and two of its senior staff raises several questions, but one looms larger than the rest.

Dade, the partner of retired premiership defender Steven May, is suing the Demons, coach Steven King and football boss Alan Richardson for allegedly breaching her privacy.

She says in court documents she raised her concerns about the now-infamous Microsoft Teams meeting of Melbourne players’ partners with “MFC the AFL Players Association and the AFL (including the AFL Integrity Unit). The responses by the MFC and the AFL were slow and the concerns and complaints were not resolved”.

The Demons have apologised for the February meeting at which private information relating to May and Dade was allegedly shared.

Yet despite the club acknowledging mistakes were made, the AFL Integrity Unit did not launch a formal investigation.

A senior source familiar with the case, speaking anonymously because the matter is now before the court, suggested to this masthead that Dade didn’t demand league intervention, but was adamant she wanted the AFL to facilitate a meeting between her and Melbourne to address her concerns.That meeting ultimately never happened.

In an era where the AFL investigates everything from betting breaches to social media conduct, the decision not to launch an investigation stands out as peculiar.

At its core, the question speaks to the evolving boundaries between governance, privacy and institutional responsibility in professional sport. It is not merely a procedural query, but one that invites scrutiny of how the AFL defines its own jurisdiction in matters that straddle personal welfare and organisational conduct.

Upon receiving a formal complaint, AFLPA boss James Gallagher rang the AFL.

The integrity department routinely examines allegations involving players, coaches, officials and club staff. But when it came to Melbourne’s disclosure of sensitive personal information, the AFL elected to leave the matter with the club.

Was it because the AFL viewed the incident as an internal governance matter rather than an integrity breach?

Was it because no individual complaint was made directly to league headquarters?

Or was the AFL wary of stepping into another private controversy after its handling of the Luke Sayers lewd photograph scandal generated criticism and a damaging court drama of its own?

Whatever the explanation, the decision has become more difficult to ignore now that the matter is before the Federal Court.

Because if the allegations are serious enough to underpin legal action allegin