NRL needs marquee player rule
Roar Rookie By Nik0, 18 Dec 2012 Nik0 is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Marquee Players, NRL, NRL salary cap, Rugby League
Why shouldn’t the NRL implement a marquee player rule that allows clubs to sign such players outside the salary cap, like in the A-League?
The salary cap was introduced to share talent across the competition and to ensure clubs don’t go under for overspending.
So why not let them overspend on a marquee player, at the least, to ensure our talent doesn’t leave the game for an extra couple of thousand in the AFL, rugby union or overseas?
Just think about it for a second, Greg Inglis, Johnathan Thurston, Billy Slater, Jarryd Hayne, Ben Barber and so on excluded from the current salary cap.
Firstly, you then wouldn’t need to increase the current cap. Secondly, by moving $500,000-plus off each club’s current cap, there will be more room in the cap, which would increase the minimum player wage. And thirdly, our stars can finally remain in the game they love and earn what they deserve.
Having seen the list of top 50 sports earners for 2012 with not one NRL star making the list, it just shows how undervalued the players are.
Crowds are at a record high, memberships at a record high, there’s a new media rights deal worth more than a billion dollars, and not one star on the top 50 earners for 2012!
A small change to the current setup would have seen the likes of Sonny Bill Williams stay at the Bulldogs, Folau stay in the NRL, Karmichael Hunt stay in the NRL, and so on….
Each club has a marquee player of some description, so let’s keep them in the game and let’s reward them for giving us the greatest game of all.
- Explore:
- Marquee Players, NRL, NRL salary cap, Rugby League
December 18th 2012 @ 7:15am
Johnno said | December 18th 2012 @ 7:15am | Report comment
I beleiive in a marquee rule too, but the marquee cap money can only be spent on that marquee, and it can be unlimited. So if the club can find $2 million or in 3rd party deals to pay a Cameron Smith or Thurston, so be it. Want to keep the players int he NRL , not to Japan or French rugby.
December 18th 2012 @ 7:46am
peeeko said | December 18th 2012 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Would K hunt or Folau been the marquee player for the broncos? i dont think either of them would. who would be the marquee player at the storm, Cronk, slater or smith? Ben Barba was lucky to be in the bulldogs at the start of the year now he is their best, do you change the marquee player because of this>
December 18th 2012 @ 8:05am
B.A Sports said | December 18th 2012 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Yep, the A-League is the benchmark for fiscal responsibility and sound financial decisions when it comes to sporting leagues around the world…
They play infront of average crowds of around 15,000 people, they get paid more than enough.
As for the clubs, they wouldn’t be able to afford these “marquee” signings. And what are we going to end up with? Union players jumping ship the year after a World Cup year, playing in the NRL, being incredibly underwhelming, then going back to Union.
How does this help the game?
December 18th 2012 @ 9:01am
Titus said | December 18th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
15 000 is also the average crowd for the NRL, funnily enough.
I seriously can’t believe you removed my comment.
December 18th 2012 @ 9:36am
B.A Sports said | December 18th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Titus, I meant the NRL players play infront of crowds of 15,000 and hence get paid enough.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:49am
Titus said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
That was my point B.A……in the a-league you can get a Del Piero or an Ono who have market rates that are much higher than the a-league. The marquee position is recognition that to some degree we need to compete with international wages.
Rugby League doesn’t need a marquee position, they could just raise the salary cap.
December 18th 2012 @ 8:11am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
They have lifted the Marquee player allowence to 550 thousand. That payment will probably rise over the next few years. They also held back cash from rep payments which will be scrapped, to keep players from leaving the game.
Apart from a few defectors, we did pretty well keeping our best players in the game under a tight budget, which is soon to be a big budget.
Unlike soccer who can use the Marquee player allowence very effectively because they have some rich talent out their to choice from. Look at the list so far, Beckham and DePello. That is worth getting excited about, now look at the marquee talent league might be able to pick up, besides keeping the players we have got now.
Sonny Bill Williams, who is back maybe for a year anyhow, plus he was already one of ours, and Folau, who either way we dont seem to care if we get him back or not.
So outside those 2 top prospects, tell me who would be worth a Marquee sum. ????
Maybe Sam Tomkins , the point is i dont think you would have to pay him a Marquee payment, just give him a big contract offer.
Say 3 years contract, 3 million. Call it 3×3 deal. Worth every penny. Apart from him, maybe 1 or 2 others in super league, the rugby boys are running around getting rugby dollars, no need to go after them.
Other codes wont be able to swap over, so why bother with a marquee payment. The AFL boys are getting paid big dollars to kick a few balls , so they wont swap over for much the same cash only to get hammered.
All the effort needs to go into expanding Origin by adding 2 more teams say NZ and maybe exiles team to cover the rest, and making payments big bigger biggest in world sport. 200 thousand per game each player.
That is your marquee right there, when you can earn over half a million for 3 games, and be worth every penny, that is greatness, no need for anything else to be said.
December 18th 2012 @ 8:14am
Johnno said | December 18th 2012 @ 8:14am | Report comment
So Oikee is this $550,000 marquee player allowance can that only be spent on 1 player at each club.
December 18th 2012 @ 10:50am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Not sure how it works Johnno. I think you can spend it on up to 3 players.
oh well.
The Origin payments have only gone up to 30 thousand each.
So along way from my 200 thousand a game.
December 19th 2012 @ 8:08am
mushi said | December 19th 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Oikee at 200k a pop that is 10% of the TV Deal
December 18th 2012 @ 8:50am
Steve Merry said | December 18th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
This idea of having a marquee player outside the cap flies in the face of why the cap was introduced in the first place. It was introduced to stop the wealthier clubs from poaching all the best talent from other clubs that had developed then. There is no incentive for loyalty by either player or club.
Instead, I would like to see a scheme which allowed any number of marquee players to be outside of the cap providing
1) Their contracted salary is at least; 350k p.a.
2) They have played for their country on at least 5 occasions
3) They have continuously played for the same club with which they made their NRL debute
Points 1 and; 2 help establish what is a marquee player whilst 3 ensures that the key principle of the cap is maintained and that those clubs that invest in searching out and developing young players are rewarded. Loyalty would be rewarded for both the club and the player.
This means that someone like Folau would never be a marquee player which, given his history I feel is appropriate but a Billy Slater would be.
December 18th 2012 @ 10:56am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Thats not a bad idea Steve. I like this very much. Not long ago something was mentioned about loyalty payments, in other words the length of time you spent at a club, your cap salary cap payments decreased (dropping to alow for loyalty to that club and the game)..
Both have merits, and the other day i was very passionate about player loyalty. So more needs to be done in this area to keep clubs players and FANS, happy.
A happy fan is a healthy fan and healthy club.
I should become a marketer.
December 18th 2012 @ 9:30am
Tere mataroa said | December 18th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
It should be allowed so it can keep marquee players in the game and have bums in seats it ll be great for the game salaries increase interest increases game grows then league can compete with its other competitors ….help the be grow not diminish …..
December 18th 2012 @ 9:55am
ScottWoodward.me said | December 18th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I agree with Steve Merry’s first line.
Having a separate fee for a marguee player is just another form of rorting the cap. The cap is designed, even if illegal if challenged in court, to level the playing field.
There is ONLY one fair way to implement a workable strategy.
Have a learned group of people, maybe 3, who put a dollar value on every player and that figure is made public and the clubs are aware that they must recruit within the cap based on the assessed value.
The 3 members would have similar backgrounds like recruiting, player management and analyzing players to build markets for games etc. These guys would know the REAL value of players. The NRL recently valued Folau at 400k and the media were critical that it was not 200k. The fact is, IZZY is a 500k player and if the Eels could not legally fit him in their cap then he should have gone to a club like the Dragons etc who could.
That is leveling the field.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:03am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Yes Scott, i agreed with this method of yours once before. I think it is a great idea, only one problem. ?
Where on earth do we find 3 learned people in Australia, ?
We have a welsh banker running the game, a welshgirl running our country, we are running out of Welsh, maybe we should be looking at the Yanks for mussle, i see AFL wants basketball rejects to prop up their code.
December 18th 2012 @ 12:38pm
Dogs Of War said | December 18th 2012 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
And what if the player is valued so high cause he has previously been successful. A good example would probably be Lote Tuquiri who is on the back end of his career. But you could force him out of the game by valuing him too high. Or even worse it could happen to a young guy who is just coming through, and the valuers put a high price on his potential, thus forcing him elsewhere, or even worse to Rugby Union.
December 18th 2012 @ 1:35pm
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Rugby league is fast becoming a young mans game. So your being forced out at a young age wont happen.
I can see already that young players are being locked in, lined up at a early age. Gee whiz, AFL is spouting they have 1000 locked into AFL in Queenlsand and NSW.
Rugby league has under 16′s under 18′s, we are getting a nines going and have Tag as well as the under 20′s.
Here is a site if you need to keep up to date, Mate we have school kids touring England France Wales and NZ regulary. Buit dont tell AFL.
They think being number 1 in Nauru is huge.
http://www.ourfootyteam.com/assrl.php
December 18th 2012 @ 1:58pm
Nik0 said | December 18th 2012 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Oikee I think you’re looking at it wrong… Take Matt King for example… He played SOO and for Australia and at the age of 27 moved to the UK for $600k a season as the Storm had no room for him whatsoever… Same with Tuquiri, Wendell Sailor, Gasnier and Mat Rogers…. They all left the game in their mid 20′s, only to return at the backend of their careers… Let’s do everything we can to keep our stars in the game and not make the NRL an under 20 comp.
December 19th 2012 @ 1:08pm
ScottWoodward.me said | December 19th 2012 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
oikee, Dogs
There are good people around. People who combine video analysis with analytics have the perfect back ground, but guys in player recruitment also would be great.
Each player who change in value each year. E.g. Dogs point about Lote is a good one. he has never been a spine player although at his best he would have been around 300k, but he would be about 100k now that he turns like the Queen Mary.
Just because a guy may have been in recruitment, that does not automatically give him a pass mark as we have seen some shocking purchases in recent years, especially at the Eels.
December 21st 2012 @ 10:27am
mushi said | December 21st 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
But then doesn’t their value change based on where the coach chooses to play them?
If you think that the salary cap is illegal (you can make a case both ways as many lawyers on this very site have) this would be outright laughed into oblivion.
December 19th 2012 @ 10:13am
mushi said | December 19th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
So you are saying three people should regulate what each club can pay each and every individual player?
December 18th 2012 @ 10:51am
Nik0 said | December 18th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Rorting the cap??? Come on guys, towards the end of Darren Lockyer’s career, he was on $1 Million a season, however only $250k was counted towards the Bronco’s cap…. Third party sponsors and the marquee allowance ($300k, I think) were set to cover the rest of his salary… To me this is more open to cap rorting. With a marquee allowance not counting towards the cap, team’s will be less likely to have to find third party sponsors to cover the cost of these players. If we did have a group of specialists assessing the value of players, the Bulldogs last season would have been a few million dollars over the salary cap. Inu on a $50k salary is outrageous…. In the end I want and I’m sure you all want, the Rugby League stars in our game… If every club was allowed one marquee player (not included in any cap with no restrictions on salary) the talent will again be shared around, cause all teams will have the same trump card to use.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:11am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Your a long way ouit, Lockyer was getting 1.2 million a season. Now dont question this, it was in the courier mail for everyone to see the players salaries, Our club has nothing to hide.
Anyhow, his salary was 700 thousand on the cap, and 500 thousand for marquee and sponsers.
Dont forget, he was Bronco Captain, Queensland captain and Australian captain.
Anyhow the last year of his contract he took a 200 thousand hit to the salary cap, so he lowered his pay so the Broncos could secure all their youth. He only dropped 200 thousand for his last year.
That is the honest truth. Well documented and you could easily find out by simply asking the NRL.
As i said, it was in the papers.
As Scott has mentioned above, if we could get someone to do a list of what every player is worth, and also write exactly what they get signed for, most of the worry about caps and salaries will dissapear. Now, where do we find 3 scholars.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:18am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Just to finish off, we still lost maybe 2 of the best young prospects ever at our club. Beale and Teo.
Plus we never won a tital since 2006. That was when we lost most of our team. So with Lockyer guiding us, we still could not win a tital. That is how hard it has become. ]
We need to keep a eye on the storm, no more shonky deals, i see they have Wellington to themselves.
I am watching you storm.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:20am
Nik0 said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Oikee is was also documented that Lockyer only took up $250k of the Broncos cap in the last year…. In your scenario, the 3 valuers as they would be called, wouldn’t allow Lockyer to drop $200k, nor would they allow Gasnier to have a back ended contract and sign for $200k less… Whilst it’s a great idea to determine the value of the players, it shouldn’t govern the cap.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:12am
B.A Sports said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:12am | Report comment
No it won’t make anything more equal.
Take Melbourne for example. All you are doing is taking Billy Slater’s salary out of the cap and using it to top up Smith, Cronk and one or two others. They won’t be going any where else. Its not like a Marquee player will attract double that of non-marquee players, there isn’t the money available in the game to do this.
There is too much focus on these hand ful of elite guys and what they are getting paid. While it is not quanitifable, I would bet there are many more over paid players in the NRL than there are under paid players.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:21am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Spot on, the marquee player allowence is fine. We dont need to do much different. I think we are lucky to find ourselves in this position. It could get messy for other codes.
At any given time, there are only 1-2 maybe 3 marquee players in any of the top teams worldwide in any code.
So rugby league with 550 thousand for the use to keep 1-2 or 3 marquee players is about near perfect.
Inglis at Souths a perfect example. He might be getting 400 thousand of that marquee payment, Burgess might get 100 thousand top up.
That is pretty about right. They still get sponsers and there salary, so it all stays pretty even across the board.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:26am
Nik0 said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
With the Storm… If the Broncos come in and say, we want to make Smith our marquee player and throw a few million at him… Do you honestly think the Storm would be able to keep their big 3? Opening up the marquee player market, will increase the value of these players…. How can a player like Cronk (one of the best halfbacks in the world if not the best) be on a salary of less than $600k (if I’m not mistaken)??? The marquee player option will allow these players to earn what they deserve.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:30am
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Yeah, well that would never happen and Bronco fans would walk away if we lost the young Macullock.
Smith would never leave the Storm anyhow. He is a Melbourne legend, like Lockyer was a Brisbane legend. rem,ember what i said about loyalty. That is your future. Forget these 1 year deals, no good will ever come out of that, long team commitment, like a marriage is what fans want.
We diss us, you diss the whole family.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:43am
Nik0 said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Yeahhh McCullough’s a top player… He’ll have a big future in the game… But why not let our tops players earn what they deserve, instead of letting them go to either the UK or other codes?
December 18th 2012 @ 2:39pm
B.A Sports said | December 18th 2012 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
NikO
Where are they getting this “Few million” from? What I am saying is if the elite guys now are getting paid $500-$600k per season, nobody is about to get paid double! Clubs are flat out getting a sponsors combined to pay $1million a year so where are they getting another million for a single player outside the cap they already struggle to fund?
These guys play infront of crowds of 15,000 people 24 times a year. On $500,000 that $20,000 per match – if they play every game. Or if you go by the philosphy of “you pay them to train and Sundays are free”, they still don’t actually do a 40 hour week. This isn’t the USA with 300,000,000 people, it is Australia, and more specifically the eastern sea board of Australia. The people they are entertaining is a dot in the ocean They get paid PLENTY already.
December 18th 2012 @ 3:15pm
Doghouse said | December 18th 2012 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
Quite right
The Storm had an unofficial marquee rule
December 18th 2012 @ 3:41pm
Nik0 said | December 18th 2012 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
BA- Inglis just signed a 1 million per season contract… I’m talking about the big stars of our game… these boys put their bodies on the line for their team week in week out and you feel that they get paid plenty already?? You must be an AFL fan or a cricket fan cause these boys deserve more… And why shouldn’t we splash the cash on a Folau or a SBW to keep them in our game and not lose them to union? The more stars in our game the better the quality of the game!
December 18th 2012 @ 4:37pm
B.A Sports said | December 18th 2012 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
A million a season – really? Do you have a source on that?
I know what the players do, I watch every game every week. But it is still a small market.
Was the game worse without SBW and Folau? No, but now you think a game where Nine clubs live in one city are going to be able to find $9million each and every year in Sydney alone when they haven’t been able to find this money before? Why are they going to do that, to watch Greg Inglis? They can do that when he plays 18 of his 24 games in Sydney anyway (if he plays 24 games)
Not going to happen.
December 18th 2012 @ 9:30pm
oikee said | December 18th 2012 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
There will only ever be 1 or 2 marquee players. They dont grow on trees.
Inglis is probably the top marquee.
Who is the Broncos marquee player. ???
Lockyer is gone , now we dont have one.
Storm have 3, but no other star players, they do well with picking up fringe players.
The Bulldogs might have 2, Barba and the number 6 will probably be a marquee player soon.
Gallen, Thurston, ?? we dont have a lot that you could call marquee. They are rare, Sonny Bill could have been, not now, he is only back for 1 season.
December 19th 2012 @ 4:53pm
mushi said | December 19th 2012 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Deserve? Utter tosh and nonsesne.
You could haphazardly mount a case for worth to the NRL– which is quickly torn apart first by lack of alternative offers in this ridiculous range for the players, and second the inability to attribute enough revenue specific to that player to justify the disproportionate payment.
But you cannot mount a case for deserve.
December 18th 2012 @ 11:02pm
Bazzio said | December 18th 2012 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
“Marquee players” have more often than not been the cause of a clubs demise. Take Chris Sandow for example, earning more than some lifetime players at Parra who’ve been there since Sandow was in nappies. So when the ball goes to Sandow, the Parra players say “you’re so good, win the game”. I’ve seen it happen before in other teams at other times ~ give the ball to the big dollar Hot-Shot & let him earn his money like everyone else.
Unless a player has played his career at the one club, where everyone at that club respects that player’s contribution & talent, he will likely cause more problems than solve them.
Manly, Roosters, Parramatta, have all tried to buy premierships by buying big name players, and have failed. They each succeeded only when their players were local players.
Marquees are for sitting in while you’re having a few
December 19th 2012 @ 12:47am
kellett_1992 said | December 19th 2012 @ 12:47am | Report comment
In business it is called a ‘marquee asset.’
A marquee asset in business has extremely similar relevance to a marquee in sport.
The definition – A company’s (NRL club) most prized asset (player), one that is a highly visible symbol (influence) of its success and often the biggest contributor to its bottom line. A company with a coveted marquee asset (marquee player) may become a target for a bigger rival (Broncos/Bulldoga vying for JT’s services), or one with deep pockets (Most money available to pay) even if the other assets in its portfolio do not amount to much (not superstars/marquee material).
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marqueeasset.asp#ixzz2FPUnNViG
Therefore, considering a marquee status would derive from what a business/club are willing to pay, means a players marketability or worth would be affected by the results they produce on-field and off.
The NRL is the premier rugby league competition in the world. These players although having some affect would not generate the type of on-field and off-field results that a marquee in the A-league would produce.
Example in chief – ADP vs Billy Slater.
Adp = mass exposure world wide
Slater = domestically
Adp = increase in memberships/ticketsales/exposure/interest.
Slater = slight increase in memberships (as noticed when GI went to Rabbits) and that would generally be it!
Australians can watch Slater every week, see him every year for 10-15 years, support the club as it takes more than one person in rugby league in particular to create such an impact/influence.
Ultimately opinions shall vary but the ‘marquee asset’ in rugby league would not fill this definition/criteria.
December 19th 2012 @ 8:48am
oikee said | December 19th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Very good summing up. Is why golfers tennis players and even cricket players who have a large audience receive alot more.
Thuis is why we have to keep growing our international TV deals. Origin is the best platform at the moment for that growth, along with the NRL riding the horses back so to speak. We need to make sure our players are talked about during the game.
Promotion Promotion Promotion. Even PNG know all our players off by heart, we need to make sure India know, China know, America know. Even Brazil.
Origin has to become and be promoted as Worlds Best Rivalry. Nothing comes close. Once we do that we can grow sponsers and worldgrowth.
December 19th 2012 @ 10:14am
mushi said | December 19th 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Nothing comes close? Um sure