Origin bonuses should be outside the cap

By Nicholashugo / Roar Pro

The official NRL website states that the NRL Salary Cap ‘assists in “spreading the playing talent” so that a few better resourced clubs cannot simply out-bid not so well resourced teams for all of the best players’.

However, is this good for the future of the game?

Today, I am going to focus on the State of Origin bonus.

Due to the collective bargaining agreement struck in 2006, Origin payments are set at $12,500 per game. If a player plays the whole series, he is set to earn an extra $37,500.

However, this bonus does have some influence on the club salary cap. The NRL Salary Cap Auditor calculates any bonus contained in a player’s contract in his club’s salary cap based on the player’s performance from the prior year.

So if a player played State of Origin last year, he would be assumed to have been selected again this year. The bonus payments for this year would already be included in the club’s salary cap even though he may or may not play Origin this year.

You can see a potential issue with this line of thinking. What if the player is just a one hit wonder?

This will particularly disadvantage clubs who have groomed solid young players that were picked for a particular year but their inconsistencies led to them being omitted later on. Or, what about good role players who only got shuffled in due to injuries; take Josh Dugan, Anthony Minichello and Keith Galloway as examples.

These guys virtually had no chance of making the 2012 squad, but their club still had to deduct Origin payments off their 2012 salary quota.

How is this fair?

For clubs that produce multiple Origin players, this provision is particularly harsh. In 2011, five Brisbane players, excluding Darren Lockyer who retired after the season, were selected for the Queensland squad. This amounted to $175,000 being earned that year.

Under the provision, this would effectively go towards Brisbane’s 2012 cap. That amount can pay for three players on NRL minimum wage, or one maybe two fairly good players.

NRL formulates the provision in this manner to make it tough for clubs that have a number of Origin players to retain them when their contracts are up. This often forces them to let these players move on, thus ensuring Origin hopefuls are spread between clubs.

However, clubs should be awarded for producing in form players that get picked for Origin, not punished.

This is particularly disadvantageous for clubs that focus on developing young players who are on relatively cheap contracts. For example James Tamou is going to cost the Cowboys $37,000 next year, that might not seem a lot but when you take into account his contract status, but the sum would still have a certain impact on Cowboys’ negotiation approach.

As expected, Tamou would command a much larger salary than he was previously on before he made it big. When you coupled his inflated price tag with the bonus, the Cowboys may have to shed another player in order to fit below the cap.

With this system, is there an incentive for clubs to groom young stars if retaining them is just going to cost as much as pursuing established young stars from other clubs? Is this thinking beneficial to player development within the league?

This provision also gives rise to another trend. Clubs are now more willing to sign young players from New Zealand because of their ineligibility to Origin. Take the Sydney Roosters, in their 25 men squad at the start of the year, 10 of them are playing for other countries, with most of them under the age of 25.

The upside of having that many young foreign players is that even if they are playing well, the club doesn’t need to worry about them getting selected for Origin, thus putting unnecessary stress on the salary cap.

Clubs may not exactly be reluctant to sign players eligible for Origin, but you have to agree that the front offices are certainly aware of the situation.

Youth development is essential for the future of any sports. If foreign players are preferred over local youngsters, these local talents might choose to play another sport instead.

For a sport that is currently battling other codes in Sydney’s west, you can’t help but wonder if they are making the right move.

The Crowd Says:

2012-07-20T13:03:33+00:00

Patrick Angel

Roar Guru


Easy error to make mate. The way it's reported never really clarifies what they're talking about.

2012-07-20T04:43:03+00:00

mushi

Roar Guru


and they don't the bonuses are part of your contract with the club and seperate to the match payment from your state

2012-07-20T03:24:23+00:00

tonysalerno

Roar Guru


agreed mushy

2012-07-20T03:06:43+00:00

Ian Whitchurch

Guest


Absolutely agree - in fact, I'd go further. When you play rep football, your club should get a rebate against the salary cap for when you are unavailable due to rep commitments, or "broken time" recovering from injury when on rep duty.

AUTHOR

2012-07-20T02:45:36+00:00

Nicholashugo

Roar Pro


thanks for the clarification, bad misunderstanding on my part.

2012-07-20T01:21:57+00:00

Patrick Angel

Roar Guru


Hey mate, The Origin payments come from the respective state leagues rather than the clubs themselves, the bonuses you are talking about come from the clubs themselves, for example, Parra give Bill Bloggs a 10k bonus for each Origin appearance he makes, he would recieve 22.5k per appearance (with the state league payments), however only the 10k that Parramatta promised him would come out of their cap (not the money that the NSWRL or QRL pays him). Players can get paid money outside the cap generated from them being NRL players as long as this money does not entice them to play for a certain NRL club over another (within reason). You can represent Origin playing for any of the teams so it doesn't matter (you can even get called up playing NSW Cup :) ). Those Brisbane players payments would not have come out of Brisbane's cap for 2011, however the clubs bonuses for making Origin would have, which is to their discretion. Clubs provide bonuses to players playing Origin for a host of reasons, but chief among them is that it is a good way of measuring bonus payments. These payments make up a huge portion of player payments for a very good reason, if the player doesn't perform, then the club doesn't have to shell out the same amount of money for a player who is playing poorly.These payments usually make up a very hefty chunk of a players payment. Clubs cannot be charged for Origin payments as Origin alone could technically cause a club a $937, 500 overdraft in a single season (in a very unlikely scenario) if all 25 players in their team get selected to play Origin when you would assume they wouldn't.

AUTHOR

2012-07-20T00:50:18+00:00

Nicholashugo

Roar Pro


players don't get paid by clubs for origin appearances... it shouldn't affect how they are getting paid in the first place, besides if you are good enough for origin, chances are you would be getting more than the average players anyways

2012-07-20T00:01:01+00:00

Paul Arandale

Roar Pro


Rep payments should have nothing to do with the clubs salary cap. Another stuff up by the two parties that use to run the game. That is like your 1st employer paying part of your wage for a second casual job you work after hours.

2012-07-19T23:24:03+00:00

mushi

Roar Guru


you would have to have a flat bonus across the league

2012-07-19T23:08:52+00:00

Happy Hooker

Guest


So then for players certain to be selected for origin, clubs load contracts to pay big origin bonuses and lower base salary, to give them more room under the cap. Ripe for rorting. Not a good idea.

Read more at The Roar