On the surface the Salary Cap is a fair and equitable means with which to maintain a healthy, well balanced, and competitive competition. A bright idea. Look a little deeper, though, and it gets dark. Very dark.
The brains behind the cap neglected to consider several things that have proven problematic: a player’s right to earn what he is worth, a club’s right to keep their investment, the fans emotional investment in players, other codes waiting to pounce and the one causing all the fuss – temptation.
The idea of a salary cap to keep the competition competitive seems to make perfect sense. The idea of a salary cap that punishes success and rewards mediocrity does not.
But a free trade system simply would not work, the weak would get weaker and, well, you know the rest. So an equity system of some description is required to ensure equal opportunity for all.
In its current format, the cap has assisted struggling clubs to compete on the field, and that’s a good thing. But in the meantime, the sports’ stocks have diminished.
Whilst ever a free trade component for “marquee” players and dispensation for local juniors remains absent, we will lose our best and brightest to competitors.
In other words, in an attempt to keep several clubs heads above water, the cap is drowning the game.
Mr. Gallop and News have taken a big corporate wand and waved it over a working mans’ game, and have stripped the emotive value in the pursuit of a good looking product.
Corporations think “product”, “brand” and “revenue”. To them, close games are good for ratings and keep the code competitive.
I know how competitive the code will be when there is no code, and there’ll be no code if “marquee “players desert the game or kids see no future in it.
So I implore you Mr. Gallop, give the game back its heart before it stops beating.
mushi
Roar Guru
Sorry my comments here were more about the code in general, rather than Melbourne specific. I’d suggest that wingers and centres aren’t the “prized cattle” of the comp. Slater as a marquee full back is a little different but even then I’d say he’s replaceable in that another player will simply be slotted into the position in our eyes if he vacates it. It isn’t so much optimism, rather an observation of what has already occurred in the past. Player A leaves > the code calls out the sky is falling > next year starts > new player steps into his representative shoes > media gushes over the new face (we always respond more to players that vary from expectation) > people go to the games. If our game is so open to key man risk that we can not lose a handful of players per year then it means we don’t have access to new players and cap or no cap the game will eventually be destroyed by a bad year for retirements. But I don’t believe this to be the case, at present rugby league still continues to produce enough quality young players in QLD and NSW to more the service the needs of the NRL.
polyglot
Roar Rookie
I agree again, in part, but perception plays a big role in public opinion, its not only about ratings in Melbourne. If the game is losing its prize cattle to other the codes the perception could be that the game is weak, and that could have a detrimental effect in fragile market. I envy your optimism, but even if your right growing support in one market won't save the game. But in saying that, i see your point about a stirred up Melbourne becoming infectious and being good for the game. You know what, stranger things have happened, especially in Melbourne.
mushi
Roar Guru
I’m more thinking that perhaps, if support and ratings continue to grow in a very competitive sports landscape, things aren’t as bad as we make them out to be with the player drain, officiating and administration.
polyglot
Roar Rookie
just in response to Mushi, we need to be careful not confuse close game or exciting play with standards, or we might become complacent. I mean, you can get thrilling games at all levels if the two teams equally skilled. I feel the intensity may drop off if we lose the better players, it may not be obvious on the score board or the reaction of the crowd, but a keen eye can see the difference between a Mark Gasnier and a Matt Prior in the centres. But your correct to a degree, the games standards have been pretty good despite the inadequacies of officials and administration and lose of a few players, but it cant go on forever like that. Somethings got to give.
soapit
Guest
yeah, didnt even read the article but wanted to nominate this for title of the year in all forms of journalism.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
See this is where it all falls down: "a player’s right to earn what he is worth" At the present time what a player is worth is waaaaaaaay below what the player/manager believe they are worth. The problem is, like all labour markets, the money available to pay employees is a function of what the market will pay for the product. The product that the NRL (as a collective of clubs) is producing has a cetain income. If the wages bill exceeds the a point where it diminishes stability then the collective will fail. I am sure that these players would all like to be paid more but the industry is capped, by a budgetary constraint. Just like in a real job, they have the right to take their labour elsewhere, or to be loyal. The salary cap is just a budgetary constraint, like any corporation would have. Without it, the income generating part of the NRL would also need to be changed, and sponsor and adverisers dollars are not as easy to find these days. So would want to lose coverage to Pay-TV to fund the players? Who wants to pay double or triple at the gate to see a game? Who wants to see the support for grass roots footy pulled, so the money can be diverted into the players pockets? (They could also reflect that they ARE well paid and that wage blow-outs have destroyed many companies over the years.)
JK
Guest
Love the Title
Paul J
Guest
Well written polyglot At the risk of sounding like a broken record, imho, there will be no increase in RL until the new tv deal in 2013, except for prehaps memberships and tv ratings. If the new TV deal is as good as they predict then the NRL can give all clubs yearly grants of around $6 million, which means the salary cap will be $6 million for all clubs, the rich and the poor. Until then RL will sit back and watch as some elite players leave for bigger bucks elsewhere.
mushi
Roar Guru
But has it drowned the game? We lost a series of outside backs and older players and whilst furore erupts around the talent drain we had on the field one of the best seasons last year? This is despite referees who are apparently incompetent, administrators who should all be fired and a playing pool which has been robbed of it’s best players So despite everyone being sub par the game improved….