The idea that the AFL is in an insanely strong position is laughable. They have strengths, but they're also deceptively fragile. This is obvious in the tenor of the expansion discussions of the two codes. The AFL have an extremely strong base, but are desperately in need of more surface area. This is why you have their fans claiming that burning money for the chance at getting some new territory is a good move strategically. Even if we assume that checks out, that belies a terrible position, in which getting past 16 teams requires a monstrous, decades long investment at a mere chance of success.
The NRL's position appears weaker. We have less money (though far from cash strapped) and a marginally weaker hold on our core urban areas (though it's far stronger than our detractors claim), however we have mammoth amounts of opportunity. Too much, if truth be told. We have the option of expanding into lucrative Australian markets (both Perth and Adelaide are large enough to support a team), go for one of the numerous player rich areas that has theoretical latent support ready to be unlocked (NZ 2/3, Pacific Islands, PNG, country NSW/QLD) or even heal one of the wounds of the past (Bears). Long term the question is how you structure a coherent league out of so many teams/regions. You might argue we don't have the playing stock to do so and while that's true now, several of the expansion areas would bring their own development pathways, while a number of the existing heartland areas have enormous room to improve (ie, Tigers, Knights).
A fair bit of work needs to be done, but the potential vastly outstrips the AFL, who are throwing the cream of their riches for a chance at chicken feed.
