NRL needs marquee player rule

Nik0 Roar Rookie

By Nik0, Nik0 is a Roar Rookie

Tagged:
 , , ,

46 Have your say

    Related coverage

    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.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (46)

    • December 18th 2012 @ 7:15am
      Johnno said | December 18th 2012 @ 7:15am | ! Report

      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.

    • Roar Guru

      December 18th 2012 @ 7:46am
      peeeko said | December 18th 2012 @ 7:46am | ! Report

      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

      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

        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

          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

          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

      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

        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

          Not sure how it works Johnno. I think you can spend it on up to 3 players.
          The Origin payments have only gone up to 30 thousand each.
          So along way from my 200 thousand a game. 🙁 oh well.

          • December 19th 2012 @ 8:08am
            mushi said | December 19th 2012 @ 8:08am | ! Report

            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

      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

        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

      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 …..

    Explore:
    , , ,