David Gallop doesn’t get it, Sonny Bill is gone
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 3 Aug 2008 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- 1980s, Bulldogs, David Gallop, Melbourne, Storm
Why would the IRB intervene on the side of the NRL in the Sonny Bill Williams affair? The fact David Gallop, the chief executive of the NRL, has made a second plea for help, after being quickly dismissed on the first occasion, indicates once again that he just doesn’t get what is happening.
Gallop softens stance on Williams
The president of the IRB is a Frenchman, Bernard Lapasset, whose power base is the French rugby union.
Is he going to stop a cashed-up French club presenting a charismatic player to help out the NRL?
And there is the disgraceful treatment of the rugby league code in France, epitomised by the infamous Vichy Government ordinance 5285 signed by Marshall Petain himself on 19 December 1941, which dissolved the French rugby league and allowed its assets to be transferred to the French rugby union.
Gallop should have listened to the Tom Brock Lecture delivered at the South Sydney Leagues Club by Tom Keneally in September 2004 where he made a detailed analysis of the French rugby union’s hostility to rugby league.
Tom Brock was a rugby league historian and left a legacy for an annual lecture. I’ve attended a number of these lectures and I’ve never seen rugby league administrators at them.
Ignore history at your peril, however.
And this is what Gallop has done with his ignorance of the history of rugby in France.
In my book, Watching The Rugby World Cup (2007, Awa Press), I provide a detailed chapter of the origins and culture of French rugby.
One of the points made in the chapter is that French rugby is very much centered on the rugby towns of the south-west. These towns, some of them quite small, have traditionally invested the wealth of their community into their rugby side.
In the case of Toulon, where Sonny Bill Williams is going to play, the wealth of a comic book multi-millionaire is being poured into making the port city a force in French rugby.
Getting back to David Gallop, he also seems to be ignorant of the fact that the free-to-air broadcaster of rugby league, Channel 9, tried (with typical Kerry Packer bluster) to take international rugby away from the IRB during the Super League days and set up a rebel Rugby Circus.
It’s most unlikely that the IRB has forgotten this brazen takeover bid.
Why would Gallop think that an organisation that has faced the threat of losing its game to the broadcaster of rugby league in Australia would go out of its way to punish one of its own clubs and help the opposition?
And opposition moreover that has been making raids on rugby union for over a 100 years.
The Sydney Morning Herald published an interesting article on Thursday by Andrew Stevenson on how the average salary of rugby league players has diminished by 27 per cent since 1999, while the average salary of rugby union players has increased by 81 per cent, AFL players by 68 per cent, and football players by 127 per cent.
These figures were produced by Braham Dabscheck, a Melbourne University academic.
Some years ago, Dabscheck taught a course on the industry of sport in the now (sadly) abolished Sports History department at the University of NSW. He is an expert on salary caps and transfer systems and all the other industrial relations aspects involved in professional sports.
He makes the very damaging (for the NRL) point that, unlike the other major sports in Australia, the NRL’s salary cap is not linked to revenue. It is all about cost minimisation.
NRL clubs spend 25 percent of their revenue on player salaries. Back in the 1980s the figure was about 75 percent.
It is clear that without such an artificial cap, or with the sort of cap that applies in the other football codes, players like Williams would make much more money than they do now playing rugby league.
In these statistics you have the bones of a strong case that the NRL’s salary cap is a restraint of trade that is unfair to the star players.
The NRL can argue, and will argue probably if they are foolish enough to allow this matter to go to court, that the game will become bankrupt without a salary cap.
There is a legal principle involving natural justice that works against this argument: fiat justicia, ruit caelum (let justice be done, although the sky falls in).
Moveover, the millionaire developer Max Delmege, who has invested $12 million in the Manly Sea Eagles (and still counting) insists that the NRL should go for growth rather than restrictive salary cap policies.
Little bits and pieces are emerging in the Sonny Bill Williams saga that indicate this was a well-planned sting, rather than the ratbag walkout that Gallop and others thought it was.
Williams was careful to get a Samoan passport some months ago, to allow him to be eligible to play for Toulon on an under-developed country visa. He cleaned out his Australian bank account before he left Australia. The French authorities in London have gone out of their way to get his visa approved quickly, and to prevent lawyers and media getting to him.
Gallop’s plaintive call to the IRB suggests that he still hasn’t really twigged to the reality that Sonny Bill Williams is not coming back to the Bulldogs. He needs to accept this reality to save something for rugby league from the mess.
This is what he needs to do: re-direct the efforts of the NRL to get Williams and/or his Toulon rugby club to pay compensation for the un-played four years on his contract left with the Bulldogs.
Then sweeten the pill by saying, as they have done on other occasions with players, that the contract provisions will be made null and void, allowing Williams to play rugby union in France or anywhere else, if the payment is made.
This leaves open the chance for Williams to come back to rugby league. There is always the possibility that Williams might not be the rugby union superstar he is in rugby league.
Then Gallop should start looking after the financial interests of Israel Falou and Greg Innes to such an extent that even French millionaires or the ARU can’t tempt them to make a switch of codes.
But all this is predicated on the understanding that for the time being Sonny Bill Williams is gone from the rugby league code.
Has David Gallop got this understanding? I doubt it.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
- Explore:
- 1980s, Bulldogs, David Gallop, Melbourne, Storm
August 3rd 2008 @ 1:35pm
chas said | August 3rd 2008 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Spiro:
The IRB could have helped to solve the MSB problem by showing integrity.
August 3rd 2008 @ 7:43pm
sheek said | August 3rd 2008 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
Chas,
Sorry, the IRB doesn’t & shouldn’t need to get involved here. The IRB are spineless for a lot of things, but they’re in competition with league, why do they need to help them???
As for the kettle calling the pot black, many of the league CEOs, clubs & Player managers aren’t angels themselves. Many of them are probably cranky there’s no cut in it for them!!!
August 4th 2008 @ 5:55am
Andy Howard said | August 4th 2008 @ 5:55am | Report comment
Brilliant article as always Spiro, very well said. Great to have your insight on this.
August 4th 2008 @ 7:10am
Benjamin said | August 4th 2008 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Spiro, I notice that Tana Umage manages to escape your attention.
“And there is the disgraceful treatment of the rugby league code in France, epitomised by the infamous Vichy Government ordinance 5285 signed by Marshall Petain himself on 19 December 1941, which dissolved the French rugby league and allowed its assets to be transferred to the French rugby union.”
I don’t see how this relates to the SBW incident. Frankly I doubt that rugby league figures on the mind of Bernard Lappaset, thus it is hard to see that there is a current anti-league conspiracy in France. Furthermore I would imagine that the IRB European administrators would not see the NRL as the enemy. Spiro, you have not only ignored Umaga’s role in the SBW switch but you have also ignored Serge Blanco’s response. Given the current problems within French domestic rugby why would Lapasset, Blanco and Lievremont have any interest in the signings of Gasnier and SBW – it is abundantly clear that they are vehemently opposed to these transfers. It is in the best interests of French rugby to oppose these transfers so I think you are off the mark there.
August 4th 2008 @ 2:05pm
Millster said | August 4th 2008 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Spiro, while this article overall is at your usual high standard and enjoyable to read, like Benjamin I also noticed the reference to the Vichy era history and your use of it a pointer towards an “anti-League” conspiracy in France.
You may recall that last week I came out very strongly against a fellow blogger, John Ryan, and his attempt to weave this sad piece of history into the current SBW issue. I did so on two grounds. The first was that I could not stand by philosophically and allow him an ill-targeted bigoted stereotyped attack of this nature, that was unrelated to the topic at hand. The second that, being half-French (enough so that I am packing in my case for Beijing later this week a tricolor as well as a boxing kangaroo) this history raises a strong emotive response of hurt and shame, and the raising of it is therefore never an unimportant matter.
From my point of view, it is threfore unfortunate that you have again raised this. Every nation has dark and disgraceful periods in its past – ones from which actions and motivations should not be extrapolated. While it is true that the Petain Government persecuted Rugby League (although in relative terms, what they did to RL was really quite benign compared to what they did to various other people and organisations), the Vichy collaborators are not linked to any aspect of contemporary French life or administration. I’m sure you would not use Nazi history to contextualise an administrative decision of a modern German organisation after all.
I hope you understand that I am writing this with respect, but at the same time wanting to explain my objection. Particularly as the otherwise good article you have written would have flowed and read just as well without those three lines.
August 4th 2008 @ 2:15pm
Rous said | August 4th 2008 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
The Bulldogs are not the only team that will miss SBW !!!!!!
How about the Kiwis in the World Cup ?????
August 4th 2008 @ 7:03pm
Steffy said | August 4th 2008 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
“I don’t see how this relates to the SBW incident” – it does indirectly because the FFR profited hugely from their willingness to collaborate with the Vichy regime and they continue to reap the benefits. After the war when rugby league was once again allowed to be played in France the French Rugby League sought to be officially recognised by the french government – of course (it seems to be within the nature of union in France) the FFR vehemently opposed that but were only just outvoted however they did succeed in forcing French Rugby League to drop the word “Rugby” – it had to call itself Jeu a treize (an action only overturned in the 90s) – and what do we hear the owner of the Toulon club say? “in France we say jeux a trieze (game of 13). I don’t know how you say in England” – if the Toulon owner wishes to revel in the very nasty way rugby union has acted in the past towards rugby league then mentioning Vichy and FFR profiteering during that sad period shouldn’t really be questioned. In fact it should be applauded because some union journalists rather tend to gloss over it – Stephen Jones in the Sunday Times in England referred to it once as “hoary old bile” because a rugby league journalist in the Times had mentioned it in passing.
August 4th 2008 @ 8:09pm
Jameswm said | August 4th 2008 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
Spiro – you forgot to mention the part where the use of the word “rugby” was banned in France when referring to League. It was, possibly still is, officially referred to as the “jeu a treize”, the game of 13. Not even “rugby a treize”. OK, I see Steffy has beaten me to the punch.
But you are right in pointing out the absurdity and complete hypocrisy of Gallop asking the IRB to help League. That move has backfired, with many now questioning Gallop’s wisdom and leadership. He seems to be flailing round while league drowns, at the moment.
August 4th 2008 @ 11:20pm
Benjamin said | August 4th 2008 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
Steffy, the FFR does not benefit from SBW in any shape or form. I dont see how Boudjellal is revelling in anything. I imagine he only used that description of league because it was a national description and thus a very common term. Frankly I doubt that rugby league even crosses his mind. It was Umaga who met SBW in the SH. How does he escape any ire? I really don’t know what your point is.
August 5th 2008 @ 1:25am
Steffy said | August 5th 2008 @ 1:25am | Report comment
“I imagine he only used that description of [rugby] league because it was a national description and thus a very common term”
It’s the term forced upon rugby league in France by an unrepentant FFR after the war – it’s only relatively recently that french rugby league has been allowed to use the word “rugby” again. You might believe this Toulon chap is unaware of that but given the history of union in France and its appalling lack of sportsmanship when it comes to a rival sport I would be very surprised if he didn’t know exactly what he was saying.