Even one cent over the cap is cheating
By Ryan O'Connell, 12 Oct 2012 Ryan O'Connell is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- NRL, Rugby League, salary cap
Craig Bellamy wears a Gatorade shower following the NRL Grand Final between the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and Melbourne Storm at ANZ Stadium in Sydney on Sunday, Sept. 30, 2012.(AAP Image/Ben Zonner)
Related coverage
If any club in the NRL, AFL, A-League or any other competition is found to have breached their respective salary caps by any amount, no matter how small, that team should be ruled ineligible, stripped of any wins during that season, and consequently unable to win the competition it is competing in.
I fail to see how you can be over the predetermined salary cap but still deemed to be competing on even ground with your competitors who are under the cap, and then just merely fined for your indiscretion.
Honestly, if you’re a measly $1 over the cap, or a whopping $1 million over the cap, you’re still breaking the rules.
If you cheat, you’re a cheat. Simple. Rules are rules, and there should be no flexibility whatsoever.
Some people will argue that of course there should be flexibility. After all, there is big difference between being $1 over the cap, and being $1 million over the cap. Not to mention the need for elasticity due to how much third party deals, individual sponsorships and cap exemptions murky the water.
But where do you draw the line? The answer is that the line has been drawn, and it’s the line the cap sits at.
My point is this: if you rule that $1 over the cap is OK, then where does it end? Is $1000 over the cap acceptable? What if $100,000 over the cap is deemed too much? Is $99,999 OK?
You get my point.
There is no need to debate where the line in the sand is that indicates ‘that’s too far over the cap’. The salary cap is the line in the sand, and if you cross that, you’re cheating. It’s black and white. It shouldn’t matter how much you’re over that line.
Do cricket batsmen say they only slightly snicked a caught-behind decision? Do long jumpers protest their innocence if they’re only a little bit over the foul line? Do sprinters claim they’re hard done by if they jump the starting gun by a half a millisecond? Do weightlifters defend themselves by saying they only injected a few steroids?
Rules are rules, and if you break them, you’re a cheat. Once the rules have been outlined, they are the rules everyone must abide by. No exceptions.
For the 2010 NRL competition – the same year that the Melbourne Storm were unable to earn competition points because of their salary cap drama – the eventual premiers, the St George Illawarra Dragons, were found to be $15,694 over the cap.
The Wests Tigers, who were one point away from the grand final, exceeded the cap by a whopping $187,140, with fellow preliminary finalists Gold Coast Titans breaching it by $76,380. Meanwhile, semi-finalists, the Canberra Raiders, were $31,657 over the cap.
Yet those offending teams, unlike the Melbourne Storm, were merely punished with financial fines. If you were under the salary cap that year, and lost to any of these teams, surely you would feel hard done by?
So essentially it was deemed that the Storm cheated too much by being $1.04 million over the cap, but the five teams mentioned above only cheated a little, and that was acceptable.
Does that sit comfortably with you?
Okay, before I’m completely savaged by Roarers, it’s time to show my hand. I’ve purposely been a little sensationalist here. I freely admit to using hyperbole and utter silliness to make most of the points in this piece.
For example, most of the aforementioned 2010 NRL breaches were allegedly due to paperwork issues. And the Dragons breach was due to a payment to a Toyota Cup player. That’s a little bit different to buying Greg Inglis a boat.
Of course a team shouldn’t be stripped of a premiership for being $1 over the salary cap.
However, I believe it’s a topic worthy of discussion, because there is an almighty grey area that exists. Many people, quite fairly, struggle to understand how a ‘little’ bit of cheating is perfectly acceptable.
Is this a long-winded attempt to bring up the merit of salary caps? Guilty as charged, your honour. I find salary caps an intriguing topic, and I can definitely see the pros and cons of their implementation.
I tend to sway on either side of the fence when it comes to this topic. In fact, one of my very first articles on The Roar suggested that the NRL should abolish their salary cap.
Considering how much time, effort and money is put into policing salary caps, along with how easily they can be circumvented, are they a waste of time? Do they even work? Or does their intent and importance far outweigh the negatives?
What say you, Roarers?
Ryan is an ex-representative basketballer who shot too much, and a (very) medium pace bowler. He's been with The Roar as an expert since February 2011, has written for the Seven Network and NBA Down Under, and been a regular on ABC radio. Ryan tweets from @RyanOak.
![]()
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- NRL, Rugby League, salary cap


October 12th 2012 @ 5:28am
Nafe said | October 12th 2012 @ 5:28am | Report comment
Two points
1. There is a huge difference in just breaching the cap cause your accountant forgot to carry the 1, than the deliberate systematic Melbourne rorting.
2. There are more variables such as injuries and the like forcing more players to play than anticipated etc,
I would agree with you on zero tolerance and strip points and premierships for $1 over if match payments were excluded from the cap,
Players sign contracts and it’s up to management that they are all under the cap, so without including match payments (ensuring an upper limit on the match payment and equal for all players) it should make the accounting at the beginning of the season much easier
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
October 12th 2012 @ 9:28am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Hey Nafe,
1. Totally agree. But just playing Devil’s Advocate for a second. Obviously intent to cheat is worse than an innocent mistake, but the benefit/result remains the same, doesn’t it? At the end of the day, you’re still gaining an unfair advantage over your competitors.
2. Again agree. But injuries test the depth of a club. If you’re allowed to pay more players because you had injuries, one could argue that your depth isn’t being tested.
October 12th 2012 @ 6:04am
steve b said | October 12th 2012 @ 6:04am | Report comment
Ryan i think this subject has been a talking point around the table since it’s introduction so i think it’s a great subject to touch on just before we see how things are going to be divided up in the off season . Like most you would have to agree it has been a mess since day dot , i for one don’t like the salary cap , i am of the belief if you can’t afford it don’t buy it . But then the argument goes ,but the richer club’s who can afford it end up with the top shelf , therefore a supposedly better team . That’s why i would like to see a top five introduced where these players are paid the top money but exactly the same , the rest of the first grade side paid a lesser amount but exactly the same for each player . i would like to see it reviewed at the end of each season and be based on performance incentive this would insure the top money guys have to give it everything to remain in the top five money earners or be dropped back and someone who is performing comes up . Because the way it is at the moment player’s contract’s are all over the place in regards to how much each is paid , We have guy’s on huge money under performing and their on mega buck’s yet the guy next to them is out tackling out running and out performing them and on way less . Something along these lines would even the dollars out and make player’s strive to be in or stay in the top five money earners . And then all club’s would be in the same boat when it comes down to how much they can spend on player’s no grey area’s and all equal . Of course this will never happen just my thought’s on the way i would like to see it run …
October 12th 2012 @ 9:35am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
The NBA has (or had) an interesting model. Essentially, teams could breach the salary cap, but they then paid a $1 for $1 tax. So, if you’re $1 million over, you have to also pay $1 million to the NBA.
But here’s the interesting part – all that ‘tax’ is pooled together, and the teams that were under the cap, all get given that money to spend the year after.
It’s obviously a bit more complex than that, but you get the drift. Rich clubs don’t get penalised for being financially strong. And teams that are under the cap get rewarded.
October 12th 2012 @ 1:20pm
Mals said | October 12th 2012 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Sounds a good idea for the NRL. Will keep Oikee happy too, the Broncos would be able to hold on to the “boom juniors” he’s fond of talking about.
October 12th 2012 @ 7:39am
Sarah said | October 12th 2012 @ 7:39am | Report comment
I agree with you. Manly so far this year were found were over also and they still got away with it because only a magazine printed it. I get the storm were way over but there a rules that need to be placed in. Even if these teams lose points it will teach the club not to do it again. The storm will never be over the cap because they lost so much but these other teams who are getting away with it will always do it because they got nothing. If you are over the Cap no matter how much you should lose points and fined. I think the storm are an amazing team and i feel them getting more money didnt change anything they are still a amazing team and will always be one they are hard workers.. But I agree so much and i feel something need to be done about it… Cheating and Cheating and rules are there to be played by…
October 12th 2012 @ 8:53am
Mals said | October 12th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Rubbish Sarah, substantiate your claims with facts!
Manly have never been fined for salary cap indiscretions.
October 12th 2012 @ 2:52pm
Andy said | October 12th 2012 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
“Manly so far this year were found were over” If Manly were over the salary cap for this year they would have been fined like the other clubs. But they were not fined so they were not breaking the rules.
October 12th 2012 @ 8:00am
eagleJack said | October 12th 2012 @ 8:00am | Report comment
I have to admit Ryan I spent the first half of this article shaking my head so I’m glad you qualified it all by stating you hade been using “utter silliness” to make your points. It ended up being a good article that touches on a great topic.
There is a huge difference between a club going over the cap due to having to use players outside their top 25 due to injuries, and one that systematically rorts it by paying its top players via 2 contracts. To supplement their meagre incomes clubs often use match payments when bringing up NYC or Tier 2 players, and if you are already pressed against the cap, you can breach it quite easily. Is it wrong? – yes. But deceitful and aimed to gain an advantage? -no.
Having said that I don’t have a major issue with what the Storm did. Similarly to Manly all of their top players debuted for the club. They didn’t go out and spend big to attract stars. They were a victim of their own success, and the incredible structures they have in place to develop talent.
The cap is a fantastic leveller and it is what makes the NRL one of the fiercest and closest comps in the world. It must be kept. But it does have its flaws which can benefit some clubs over others. The issue of garnering 3rd party payments is much easier for a club such as the Broncos, a one town team in a league mad city, over the Storm who are also a one town team, but obviously league is barely a blip on Melbournes radar. Without the aid of these 3rd party payments the Storm had to look at other avenues in order to keep their stars. And unfortunately Waldron chose the deceitful path and the club paid a very hefty price.
October 12th 2012 @ 8:20am
Brett McKay said | October 12th 2012 @ 8:20am | Report comment
EagleJack, I did exactly the same thing, I was all prepared to start the comment with “Are you freakin’ serious?!?”
The old suck ‘em in and slap ‘em down trick, Ryano, very clever…
October 12th 2012 @ 9:30am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
There are plenty of people who would have left it at ‘utter silliness’. . .
October 12th 2012 @ 9:31am
Brett McKay said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
surely you’re not suggesting……
October 12th 2012 @ 9:54am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Agree, the cap is a great leveler.
Though I would like to see some modifications made to it that reward: players being loyal to clubs, clubs developing their own juniors, clubs that have long-serving players, and taking into consideration that some players are more marketable that others.
October 12th 2012 @ 4:14pm
Brett McKay said | October 12th 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
I’ve long thought there should be a bigger discount on offer for long serving and locally-developed players staying with clubs. Anything to avoid situations like Matthew Johns having to leave Newcastle back in the day, Beau Ryan and Chris Heighnington having to leave Wests Tigers more recently..
October 12th 2012 @ 4:35pm
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Totally agree.
I’m also not sure why Beau Ryan should be punished for being more engaging, attractive, charismatic, etc, than, say, Robert Lui. If sponsors want to pay him a lot more than other players, why should his earning potential be capped?
October 12th 2012 @ 8:23am
Crosscoder said | October 12th 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
On that basis,and I get the message,the Sharks should receive Premierships in absentia.They have been under the salary Cap for ages,mainly due to poverty,starvation,global warming,and a swinging door of coaches,some of whom would have extreme difficulty coaxing a cat out of a cupboard with a saucer of milk.
To use a well worn phrase ” You know it makes sense.”
October 12th 2012 @ 10:20am
JohnB said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:20am | Report comment
If you’re looking for a real cleanskin, has to be between North Sydney and Newtown.
More seriously, do win bonuses come into the cap? So do you assume at the start of the year you’ll win a number of games, come within the cap on that assumption, then go outside it if you do better than you thought (or if you have to call up more players as others have pointed out)? What other variable amounts, which the club can’t completely control, come within the cap?
Any financial forecast, including a forecast that your expenditure will be within a set cap, is going to be made on the basis of a set of assumptions. Breaching the cap, even by a significant figure, shouldn’t be an offence if that is because those assumptions prove to be inaccurate, provided the assumptions were reasonable when they were made. As with accounting standards, there should be a set of standards against which you can measure the reasonableness of assumptions.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:35am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Hey John,
This is from theNRL’s Salary Cap explanation
Win bonuses and appearance fees
Payments for appearing in or winning a game are calculated based on the number of NRL games the player played in the prior year multiplied by any applicable bonuses. For win bonuses, the calculation is capped at 13 wins.
Example: A player appeared in 10 NRL games in 2010 and now has a 2011 Contract for $50,000 contract fee plus $1,000 per game. His Salary Cap Value would be $50,000 plus 10 times $1000 = $60,000.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:46am
JohnB said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
So they limit the amount of such bonuses which go towards the cap? Offering big win bonuses seems an obvious way to expand your cap then?
October 12th 2012 @ 3:34pm
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
There must be more to it than that, John. Otherwise clubs would just ‘underestimate” their wins for the year. You could ‘cook the books’ by saying you think you’ll only win 8 games for the year, and the bonus is $50k per game. When you ‘miraculously’ win above 13 games, the salaries jump considerably.
October 12th 2012 @ 9:00am
jamesb said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:00am | Report comment
yep, like a few here I was shaking my head reading Ryan’s first half of the article. But I can see where he is coming from by the conclusion of it.
If a club has serious long term injuries, such as a key playmaker been lost so early in the season, eg Terry Campese, should there be a compensation mechanism in place, or is it just simply “tough luck”.
I agree with what Eaglejack said
“There is a huge difference between a club going over the cap due to having to use players outside their top 25 due to injuries, and one that systematically rorts it by paying its top players via 2 contracts.”
I just think that we need to help clubs out with the salary cap, if a club has a long injury list
October 12th 2012 @ 9:48am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
There is a huge difference, I agree.
The injuries point is an interesting one, because what injuries do is test the depth of a club. If you have poor depth, and it becomes an issue because of injuries, should you then be allowed to breach the cap? Is that fair to other clubs that have managed their roster and payroll better?
I don’t know the answer, but you can see why it’s an interesting debate.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:32am
Ken said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:32am | Report comment
I think managing depth is an important issue and yet I don’t want to see teams taking the field with 16 players because there’s too many injuries. State of Origin is also a factor here – and not only for additional injuries. If a team doesn’t correctly predict how many players they will have in Origin, they may get a nasty salary cap bill with bonuses.
Maybe you should be able to bring in 2-3 (of their own) Toyota Cup players to the NRL squad for free each year during the season. Still tests depth of the NRL team since they can’t bring in seasoned guys (for free at least), promotes young talent and gives a reward to the club for developing talent.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:39am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Origin is a good point to bring up, because the other factor is that you lose your best players for a chunk of the season, and can’t really replace them (with equal ability anyway).
October 12th 2012 @ 4:17pm
Brett McKay said | October 12th 2012 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
I wonder if something like the AFL’s rookie list might work for U20s players? So that at any point in time, you’re allowed to elevate and drop X number of U20s players into the NRL squad to cover injuries, etc??
October 12th 2012 @ 4:36pm
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
Logic, Brett. Take it elsewhere please.
October 12th 2012 @ 9:31am
basketballguru said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Interesting fact :
In 2002 , The Bulldogs were caught cheating the cap . Two years later , in 2004 , they won the NRL Grand Final.
In 2010 , The Melbourne Storm were caught cheating the cap . In 2012 , they won the NRL Grand Final.
The moral to the story ? It doesn’t really matter if you cheat the cap , because you’ll win the comp any way . Unless you are the Wests Tigers .
October 12th 2012 @ 9:55am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
To be fair, the Dogs won with exactly the same team that was over the cap – they just all took paycuts. That’s a bit dodgy.
The Storm guttered their team, got back under the cap, and then won again anyway. That’s much more impressive, in my opinion.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:34am
Ken said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Exactly, I have no time for apologists for the Storm’s cheating but they were forced to become mortal again – it was pretty obvious when Slater was injured that they paid for their stars with a lack of depth, which is a strategic choice that other teams could also make – and they deserve that victory.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:44am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Exactly right, Ken.
To bring up an NBA analogy, the Miami Heat forked out big cash for three great players, and surrounded them with stiffs, and hoped that was enough to win. It’s a strategy. Just like the opposite tactic of spreading the money evenly and having plenty of depth. Or going in completely the other direction and using sabermetrics (ie: Moneyball). They’re all tactics to manage your salary cap.
But going over it is an illegal tactic.
October 12th 2012 @ 11:10am
Gareth said | October 12th 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I’m not sure I’d say they gutted their team. They kept their spine intact and have since welcomed back a few of the players who were forced out. Their only significant loss was Greg Inglis, but that’s only on the assumption that his lackadaisical 2009-2010 form would have turned around without a change of club, coach and position. Of the rest, Turner, Tolman, White and Johnson are honest toilers, Finch was a ring-in, Blair, Lima and Tandy are grubs and idiots.
Really, they were just forced by the NRL to do what they should have been doing all along – trimming the fat, and replacing them with young up and comers like O’Neill, Bromwich, Widdop, etc and cheap, reliable journeymen like Norrie, Lowrie and Lowe. Take a look at any other team from 2009 and compare them to their 2012 lineup. For an extreme example, look at the Eels for a team that was gutted.
There’s no real punishment for what the Storm did. On the surface, the fines seemed harsh, but they were already paying that sort of money in overpayments each year. The players still feel like their illegitimate premierships are for real, the players that left seemed to all score inflated contracts well beyond their worth, and so from my perspective, what should have been a massive punishment for prolonged and systematic cheating of the entire game has just been a minor inconvenience. A speedbump of half a season or so. The only lesson the Storm might have learned is “Don’t pay overs for muppets like Adam Blair”.
Imagine if Hansie Cronje had simply been fined a fraction of the money he’d pocketed from crooked bookmakers and allowed to play on after sitting out a single summer, or if the Waterhouses were back on the track in ’85 after a token slap on the wrist. Or if Lance Armstrong had one of his titles taken away but got to keep the other six. Or if Carlton hand’t been stripped of draft picks in 2002-2003.
I shouldn’t be surprised given that soft punishments run across the board in the NRL, whether it’s a token one year ban for a guy repeatedly beating his pregnant partner, a token week or two for a brutal shoulder charge against a helpless opponent – it’s just a bit disheartening.
October 12th 2012 @ 3:40pm
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Maybe so Gareth, but you can’t argue with the fact that Bellamy gets the most out of players. Many of the Storm stalwarts of the years were either cast offs from other clubs, or made their debut with Melbourne.
And this may be an unpopular opinion, but the most talented team doesn’t always win. Sport is littered with examples of the ‘favourites’ not winning. Yet Bellamy has gotten the most out of the talent at his disposal.
(I’m not sure why I turned this into a defence of Bellamy’s talents, as that wasn’t your point! So I apologise! I think I was trying to say that I don’t diminish what Melbourhe achieved too much, even though they cheated.)
October 12th 2012 @ 9:32am
B.A Sports said | October 12th 2012 @ 9:32am | Report comment
I agree with others, there is a difference between being over the cap and cheating when you factor in player bonuses being triggered as a result of representative honours, or making first grade etc..
I don’t understand why we need all the rules around 3rd party payments, it just seems to muddy the waters.
I think we need a salary cap because in this country people won’t go to games if their team are not competitive so there needs to be something in place to keep parity.
Perhaps the NRL could use some of their new money to increase resources around salary cap monitoring. If you have a bigger team overseeing the salary cap, then you can make it a little more complicated. But the problem seems to be we have very complicated rules being monitored by very few people and at club level being managed by people who may not be clever enough to manage it without going over.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:01am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I’d agree with most of that, B.A. – especially your last point.
Just one third party payments, this is where it gets really, really tricky, and I would imagine very hard to police. The whole Melbourne Storm fiasco actually started when Cam Smiths paid job with Fox Sports came under review. Because News Limited owns both Fox Sports and the Melbourne Storm, it was thought that may be a breach of the third party arrangement laws. Of course, that led to a bigger investigation that we now all know the outcome of.
But, Braith Anasta, Brett Kimmorley, Mark Gasnier and a few others were all on the exact same type of deal with Fox Sports. So whats the difference? It’s still a third party deal, right?
October 12th 2012 @ 10:19am
Gareth said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
If you’re going to introduce a harsh “zero tolerance” type system into salary cap punishments, this is the wrong place to do it. Mistakes will happen (though $187,140 seems like a pretty big mistake) and I highly doubt that withdrawing the right to compete will address that issue.
If the ARLC wants to get to the heart of the matter, they need to punish the players. They need to be able to say “I don’t care if you’re the future captain of Australia and Queensland, or that you’re destined to be considered one of the all time greats – you cheated. You were complicit in a degree of cheating far more significant than the fixing of a single match and so you’re out.”
If the player legitimately knew nothing about what was going on, then they can take their club and their manager to the cleaners and have their lifetime ban reviewed and potentially overturned. But you can bet clubs and players would sit up and take notice if all of a sudden the Australian spine was no longer eligible to play.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:46am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
I know what you’re saying, and it does put the onus back on the players. However, I know a lot of people say the players know about the cheating that goes on, but I’m not so sure. Most athletes completely leave this stuff up to their managers.
October 12th 2012 @ 10:42am
Renegade said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Good article Ryan.
I will say however that the Salary cap has to stay…it’s the reason why the NRL is arguably the most evenly contested sporting competition in the world.
Fans of every club go into each year with optimism.
Can you imagine being a fan of an EPL club outside of the big 5?? Going into each year with next to no hope of achieving anything….
October 12th 2012 @ 10:48am
Ryan O'Connell said | October 12th 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
I think the EPL is a different kettle of fish. If you look at the number of fans that turn up to watch their team play, even when they’re no chance of winning the title, that’s pretty impressive. The NRL would kill for those crowd numbers, so I don’t think its an apple for apples comparison, but I get your point. Here in Australia, the premiership is what matters.
In any case, there salary cap has plenty of positives, I agree with you. But I would like to see some tinkering with it that makes it more transparent, and rewards loyalty, developing juniors, marketable players, etc.