As reported by the Australian’s Wayne Smith, the issue of ARU and Super contracts for Australian players raised its head at the recent summit between the ARU and State unions
It raises an interesting question – is the system broke, and does it need to be fixed?
A working party has been established to examine contracting models, with Lewis intriguingly proposing that Australia throw off its centralised tripartite system and instead emulate the often-criticised UK system.
Under the British model, players are contracted not by the national body but by the various clubs which then release players for Test duty during the designated international windows.
But Lewis stipulated that safeguards would have to be built into the process to ensure Australia did not strike the sort of problems that now have led to the Welsh clubs suing their own national body after it arranged an extra, unscheduled Test against the All Blacks.
“Some provision would have to be made to ensure that players are always released when required for Test duty,” Lewis said.
Such a contracting model would give the Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies and Western Force greater autonomy in contract negotiations and specifically would avoid the situation of them having to go cap in hand to the ARU seeking top-ups for veteran players who no longer are of interest to the Wallabies selectors but who still can perform valuable service for their provinces.
The meeting also decided to forget any thoughts of banning controversial third-party payments.
“Banning them would just be ridiculous because that would only drive them underground,” Zemancheff said.
“Third-party money is de facto private equity, so let’s get some rules and regulations in place that we’re all prepared to work with.”
Third party agreements are a bane on the NRL, so clearly there needs to be clear rules on them.
They need to be regulated rather than banned or capped (or as little as possible). When players are going to Europe and Japan for the almighty dollar, if third parties are willing to pay to help keep them here, then all power to them.
The issue will be the smaller unions feeling disadvantaged when the bigger (i.e. NSW) arguably have a bigger corporate market to source them from.
However, I haven’t seen the NSWRU exactly kicking the doors in for the corporate dollar in Sydney.
The suggestion we move away from the centrally administered contracts that have served us so well does give me cause for concern.
Although the SANZAR and European seasons are structured completely differently, and there is less prospect for clashes with southern hemisphere Tests, this suggests private equity is coming.
After all, given the unions get their cash mostly from the ARU to pay their wages, why would they be begging to be given the purse strings?
Where is the cash going to come from, if not the ARU, to allow this nex flexible direct contracting to be done?
It will be interesting to see how private equity is brought into the game, if at all, and how it is handled.
The northern hemisphere has given many lessons in what to be wary of, but has the ARU learnt those lessons?
Plus, the real question, what is the problem with the current system that requires fixing? And are any problems that have occurred down to the system, or those operating in it?
Could the unions be doing a better job in the system they have?
sheek
Guest
This is pretty well outside my sphere of knowledge. I like the NZ system, it seems to work reasonably well for them. Private equity is a whole new ball game, & I myself am interested to see how this would be implemented. I realise its importance in value, but I'm not sure its such a good thing.
AndyS
Guest
But it is also notable that those same wealthy men also demand autonomy. The idea that the unions can take over all contracting but that it won't fall into the same (or any other unidentified) traps as the NH system reeks of the ARU wanting to have its cake and eat it - make the states responsible, but give them no actual authority that can't be overridden when it suits. I do wish they would give some insight as to the PE models they are examining, but recognise that it is unlikely. Huge scope for them to completely brain-spike the code if they get it wrong though...if they think there is financial risk in a Tuqiri court action, get into a litigious argument with someone that can afford to buy a rugby club! Funny though, isn't it? They used to be so terrified of third-party money and its ability to skew the contracting environment. Maybe the Brumbies recruiting this year has given them the confidence to throw the doors open on outside money.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Great article Pablo, thanks. Whatever happens, we need to remember that no system will be perfect. The Wallabies generate the majority of money in Australian rugby, so one can argue that there is a basis to having central contracting. Certainly NZ's system seems to work very well for it, with the way it guarantees some spreading of the talent, and the resulting development of talent (as opposed to what happens where franchises can "hoard" players). JON seems to have changed his tune on private equity. A year ago I heard an interview with him in which he said that European rugby is based on private money that can be turned off at whim, which is very dangerous. What has changed since then? Perhaps he's seen that if even a global recession does not cause these taps to be turned off, then perhaps private funding is more secure than he realized. After all, the desire of wealthy men to have status-imparting toys (e.g. rugby clubs) seems to be an everlasting human trait.