How much does the national badge mean to you? Really, sit down and think about what lengths you would go to to protect and represent your badge or emblem.
There are countless fans around the world that live and die by their chosen crest, from football fans to AFL fans to racing fans. No matter what sport is examined there are fans that will have their team’s crest and colours burnt or tattooed across their chests.
Obviously, their badge means enough to them that they’ll die with it and defend it until their last breath.
I have my badges that I support and will until I die as I’m sure many others out there, but how much does the honour of representing a badge mean to the athletes?
There are some athletes that will sign lifetime contracts to a club and remain loyal to their last days. Some names include Ryan Giggs, Steven Gerrard in football and Alex Rodriguez of the NY Yankees in baseball.
Granted that these contracts were backed by huge financial windfalls and these sports don’t have restricted salary caps. It can be said that these athletes were ‘bought’ to defend the respective badges, but there are some athletes that don’t concern themselves with money. In these times though, a club is reluctant to sign a contract over two or three years, so lifetime loyalty is rare.
Athletes that don’t concern themselves with money are becoming a rare commodity. The professional arena now lures big names into different arenas and the athlete cashes in on their skills before they aren’t good enough to command the big dollars.
A badge is merely a psuedo-ATM that pays for fringe benefits and doesn’t command any loyalty. So the question that I propose is: do these athletes deserve to represent your national crest? The crest that you have tattooed on your skin, your heart or labeled on almost everything you own?
At club level, I can see why athletes would chase the bigger, better deal, but when it comes to national pride, is there room for mercenaries? To stand in front of 50,000 people and tearfully recite the national anthem, you must be committed.
I personally don’t think that these occasions have room for mercenaries and gold diggers.
The policy that New Zealand, England and Australia have at a rugby union level is not to select players based in international clubs. Whether this is the right move or not in a professional era is up for debate, but it’s the reality of things now. The countries do this to keep the top talent available and in the clubs to draw in crowds and create a market with residual financial effects.
It has worked to some degree with the All Blacks retaining a large majority of their talent and as Australia keeping most of theirs. But this only seems to work for a short period as the players remain in the country until they reach a milestone, such the Rugby World Cup.
If they achieve this, there is an exile of players looking for the big bucks.
Since the Southern Hemisphere clubs cannot compete on a financial level against the Northern Hemisphere, the only thing that keeps talent in the South is pride and the loss of a chance at national representation. Is this enough to keep talent around?
There are mercenaries of the sport and there always will be. If an athlete is good enough, then the athlete can ask for any amount of money. This is a fact of international, professional sportspeople. These type of stories make the headlines and bring the associated club into the press which otherwise wouldn’t be possible.
The Japanese clubs use a big carrot and stick to lure ex-players on long term contracts and employ current players on shorter, modified contracts. Many South Africans play or have played for a Japanese club on various contracts with some allowing for the player to return to their home club in the off-season. Since South Africa doesn’t share the same policy of excluding non-domestic players, a lot of clubs find it easier to ‘hire’ them to try and win the respective tournaments.
There is a lot of money on offer for the best players so it isn’t much of a surprise when the big names take up the offer. Toulon are famous for fielding a star studded team which has helped them to the Heineken Cup Championship twice. They are bound to sell jerseys with the heroes names on them, which adds to the coffers.
A certain player’s presence can be priceless both on the field and in the financial books.
There are players that will draw in the crowds and promote the club beyond the usual commercials. Sonny Bill Williams did a short, injury-affected season in Japan and the crowds turned up.
This raised attendance by a bankable difference and he isn’t the only one with that type of pull power. The French clubs have backed a number of recruits and have seen dividends from these investments, so it shouldn’t be anything new that they are making a play for some of the biggest names.
This has created the rugby mercenary. There have been some major fall outs due to money. The recent walk out from Frans Steyn from the Springbok squad is based on money as well as some other factors. Papers have quoted that he would have been wealthier in France and SARU couldn’t deliver on a financial agreement which seemingly prompted him to leave.
He is a mercenary that required some extra cash but it fell through and the crest didn’t matter. A similar problem affected Matt Giteau when he played for the Force. A badge is no more than a source of cash and these men honour no loyalty to said badge.
This problem isn’t new and it won’t end. Players will chase the bigger deal and another controversial signing is brewing with talk of one of Australia’s greatest assets ready to sign for Toulon after 2015. Israel Folau has made some immeasurable differences to the reputation of the Waratahs and the Wallabies. It’s difficult to put a financial amount on what he brings to the game.
His skill is sublime and he is able to draw and avoid defenders and leads the try scoring list for this year’s Super Rugby competition. I couldn’t take a guess on what his influence is on the ticket sales but I am sure that his presence has a positive contribution.
I’m sure that any club in the world will pay a handsome amount for his name to be on the roster, but this argument isn’t about the money that some can earn, rather about the badge or crest that they play for.
Will Folau leave Australian shores to cash in on a big payday? Maybe, but he’ll give up the chance to represent Australia as long he is based overseas. The ARU are trying to convince him to stay and compete in the Olympics in 2016.
I don’t know how much of a pull the Olympics will have over the amount of money that Toulon are prepared to offer.
For players in his position, money trumps pride. It’s a simple equation. Some players want the pride and others want the cash. There are policies that deter players from leaving but some do leave.
This brings the question again: How much does the crest mean to you? To them? It’s valuable and sacred but money is more fluid and is sacred in all parts of the world. I may be cynical in this assessment but the facts are there.
The gifted players have a chance to play for a larger paycheque than they are playing for now and will take what’s on offer – some stay loyal and build the supporters’ faith in the brand but others jump codes and clubs and never have the true faith of the entrenched supporter.
Loyalty is priceless but in the end, anything can be bought in the professional era.
bryan
Guest
Almost lost me with the Alex Rodriguez reference, with him jumping ship for the biggest contract everytime he becomes a free agent. Messi, Kobe, Nathan Hindmarsh, there are many other options better than A-Rod, from any sport you can pick. Loyalty swings both ways, and I do believe clubs are being forced more and more to discard players doing to budget, lack of opportunities or whatever. ie, clubs are allowed to be disloyal to their journeymen if required, yet the superstars need to be loyal to the club, despite someone else offering more money? If your career was only 10 years long, and someone else offered you double the money elsewhere, I think anyone would jump. Country loyalty might have a different argument, but for union, that means taking a massive pay cut. Also, the bosman, and more specifically, the kolpak ruling in Europe has basically meant anyone can play there, and the clubs can't be limited by law on who they can hire, legal actions brought by players. So we get a situation where France wants to play more french players, the rest of the world wants less players in France, but the clubs are not limited because of the freedom to work across ACP countries. And if the clubs do a secret deal under the table to limit it, they will get hammered under anti-trust laws. So unfortunately, I think both cricket and union are heading the way of football where the clubs have the most power. Might take a little while to get there, but I don't think there is much you can do to stop it. Capitalism and liberal work laws sometimes result in situations that are not great for the general public, but really good for individuals.
sheek
Roar Guru
The amateurists used to argue that once money became involved, people lost their sense of propriety. Which is basically true. So, the whole point of amateur sport was to appear to the noble spirit in us all. Of course, human nature doesn't work like that. Besides, it was easy for the well-heeled & landed gentry to pontificate about playing sport for its own sake, when they didn't have to worry about where their next meal was coming from. I actually think amateur sport could have worked quite well. The only thing is that once you start playing rep sport, you should be compensated for time off work via remuneration. And of course, having your medical/injury risk covered by insurance. That player remuneration would perhaps be based on the average wage at the time, perhaps a little more generous. Highly skilled people like doctors, dentists & engineers might be receiving less than they would otherwise earn, while uni students & labourers might benefit more. But at the end of the day, no-one would be out of pocket for rep duty interstate or overseas. it's interesting that when league broke away from union, both in England in 1895 & Australia 1908, 'pay for play' wasn't top of the agenda. That was merely a by-product. What players wanted above all else was remuneration for rep duty interstate or overseas & medical insurance against injury. Pretty simple & fair requests actually. But of course, the whole thing got out of hand eventually. I'm not a fan of today's sport, which has become highly corporatised. Anyone who thinks that sport today is for the fans is highly deluded. The fans are the suckers at the end of the line. But we get what we deserve. It seems most people don't care that sport is being manipulated away from them. As long as they get their 'fix' on a nearby TV screen, that seems to be all that matters.
Bakkies
Guest
Getting treated like crap was why Pienaar and Steyn left in the first place. Weren't they booed by their own supporters? Pienaar hadn't gone back and puts his body on the line for his current side. He was in tears when he came off against Saracens with a bung shoulder as he was giving his all for his team who were one man down.
AdamS
Roar Guru
I'm all for maintaining the ban on o/s players not being selected, but not for any misguided notions of loyalty. It's just better for the domestic sports' growth. I have nothing against a player going to France for the money even if he is a Wallaby, I just would no longer select him. It's the professional era, players are putting their bodies and their futures on the table ever time they run out, they may exhibit loyalty in their career, but at the end of the day they have to provide for the very long years they have after footy. And of course one aspect of this argument is rarely touched on, how much loyalty do clubs and national selectors show players who have been loyal? One or two matches of poor form maybe, or until a better player comes along?
Chopper1
Guest
Exactly Mielie. But it's even stronger than that. Basically SARU, in enticing Frans back to the boks last year, undertook to pay some guy in France who owns all or part of the Frans Steyn brand. Obviously this is something one can do - sell a share of your brand? But that needed to continue being paid, to avoid the player being placed in breach. Saru committed to paying that commitment, as part of the deal to move back. Then reneged and made it his problem. I would also have told them to hamba.
Mielie
Guest
Daughter's private school fees? In the past when young men marched off with trumpets blowing for King and Country, or now when professional soldiers get sent abroad to do battle, they knew, and they know that if they are injured, the country will look after them and their families. Consider a hypothetical situation with a South African player. He represents his country for 20 international test matches. In a world Cup Final he irreparably damages his knee that disallows him to play ever again. Are the SARB going to look after this man and his family for ever and a day? Are the ANC Government going to look after this guy and his family for ever and a day? I stand more chance of falling pregnant. What insurance covers do these players have? Do the various national Rugby Boards cover their players. Do the ARB? It would be interesting to find out, and by how much are they insured. It's a personal achievement. To pull the national jersey over your head is a major personal accomplishment. Been there, done that. Now what? Now its time to look after number one and if some one is prepared to pay you well for something that you really enjoy doing, you'd be silly not to accept the offer and you can even send your daughter to a private school, amongst other things. It is a direct result of professionalism. All of a sudden, we join the ranks of the oldest profession in the world
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Who wants Steyn anyway? He has a permanent Knee injury (read the online articles) and is 10-15kg overweight. I would not be picking him in my Springbok team. That knee injury could be the reason he has retired from internationals. It's the reason a lot of soccer players retire from Internationals and concentrate on club football, because they can focus on the weekly rhythm and recovery and the intensity is not as high.
Chopper1
Guest
100%.
Chopper1
Guest
Or let him go from SR, play offshore, and then also for country? That's what the SA system is now. Seems to be working okay for now... But it does open the flood gates. Once one player can, all can. Then you have the exodus we have. Which in SA seems to have given us some depth, as new players are getting SR and CC exposure. I guess the question is, is one player worth testing the depth in Aus, given the number of NZ and SA players already playing for Aus SR franchises...
Chopper1
Guest
What they have to do with the topic is that IMHO the public wants to believe the worst when it comes to decisions by players, regardless of whether that's a career move (Rathbone) or a health issue (Trott) or in this case a principle issue (Steyn). I'm pretty sure he was referred to as a mercenary in the article. But that would only be true if his decision to stand down from the boks was designed to allow him to earn more cash. But in fact, because the boks allow players to ply their trade overseas, the maths goes: Overseas cash + bok cash (before) > Just overseas cash (after). He will earn LESS as a result of this decision, not more. So using him as an example is flawed. Of course the logic applies to SBW, Folau. But it doesn't in SA.
Johnno
Guest
Tell me one thing not up there the players don't want. Would you prefer to have money to pay your daughter's private school fees or wear the national badge, or a big house or a crap house to wear the national badge. What has any of those players got to do with this topic by the way?
Chopper1
Guest
Of the former rather than the latter. But I don't think one can make the leap to Frans having flippantly made that trade off. I think (no, know...) that he would have left regardless of any financial considerations. In fact, his was not a trade off at all because his overseas commitments are not changing as a result of this national decision. He was going to do both because as we know, rightly or wrongly, in SA players do not have to choose. They just do both. The trade off argument is only relevant for those nations that force players to make a choice. SA doesn't...So Frans' decision is one of principle, pure and simple, and one I would have made based on the same fact set.
PeterK
Guest
After the RWC Folau should be allowed to play in Japan for the money AND be available for the Wallabies and Waratahs. This is outside the box thinking. He would still play some super rugby, and miss minimal intl games, and earn mega bucks. Also Folau would get to experience a completely different culture. Far better than going to France which would mean no super rugby availability, and be available for less less intl games.
Dandaman
Roar Rookie
I have seen this arguement made quite a number of times lately. IMO facts do not back up this point of view. The reason I say this is that it is akin to anyone working to reach the pinnacle of their profession and when you look at what makes people happy in their work money is down on the list. More important are factors such as do I like my boss/coach, what future opportunities are there for me, being satisfied with their current situation, being part of a successful set up, feel like they are making a useful contribution, etc. I think marquee players who have been around in a few different set ups know this even more as they have been exposed to the pro's and con's of changing clubs (or even codes!).
Warren Adamson
Roar Pro
After a number of reports that have come out, there isn't a clear story of what is happening with Frans Steyn so I will reserve judgement for now and retract what I can from the article. But my point remains - the national crest vs. money. Which is more valuable on a monetary and "spiritual" level?
Warren Adamson
Roar Pro
Moreton - those are the questions that I pose. I have no answer and I fully understand that an athlete's career or in your case, a modeling career is short and needs to be exploited. A mercenary sells their talent to the highest bidder, so I understand if you want more money.
Chopper1
Guest
Utter kak. The SA rugby public wants villains. Remember Clyde Rathbone? Jislaaik but we treated that oke and his family like trash, just because he made a career move and dropped a couple of poorly worded comments. Turns out clyde suffers from something I know all too well. The same thing that makes a guy like Johnno Trott drop out mid tour. You think Frans doesn't have some of that going on? Grow up. If he talks about his decision SARU can sue him. They have all the PR cards. And the guy has been treated badly, and is a sporting genius. Weight gain, a couple of back and forth decisions, you do the math. Just grow a brain and think rather than digest the liquidised baby food information the media feeds you.
Johnno
Guest
It's all about the money.The trophy wife, the daughters private school fees, buying the wife a Louis Vuitton Bag,the big house, the BMW's,the ski trips to Europe. The national badge don't have high value to the money.
Chopper1
Guest
Sorry mate but you're wrong. I know frans and unfortunately the players are gagged when it comes to publicly explaining their actions when it comes to this kind of thing. Jake provided a view and that's the right one. Monetary value aside, if promises are flippantly broken it shows a lack of respect and trust breaks down. Bear in mind SA players can't strike like Aus players do. So this is the only option when your wellbeing is treated with disdain. If there was a proper contracting system steyn would be rested to hive his knee injury time to heal. Instead he is played every week and called up to the boks, with short term interests trumping the long term well being of the player. If his knee wears itself beyond repair then what? No, the media report what Saru wants them to. You are missing the other side of the story.
Moreton Bait
Roar Pro
Nice article Warren. I am a very loyal person. But if a company across the harbour offered me double my salary for the same work, I'd say yes. I'd not break my employment contract, but I would look at what exit clauses were available and exploit them. My work and performance is valued more across the harbour and I have kids and a mortgage to pay off and I'd like to save as much as possible for myself and my family's future. Plus I am a very professional but extremely "hot" swimsuit model and I must earn as much as possible within the next 10 years before cellulite sets in and I become an extremely "cold" swimsuit model. I have a lot of fans and I love my country. I have done a bit of international modelling representing my country (Green and Gold top with Red speedos below).If my international reputation grows I might even be able to earn more in New York. I know many of my supporters take pride in my success but my career is short and there will always be a new generation of models coming along, I hope I can pass on my experience to them. Am I a bad person? Am I disloyal? Should I be called a mercenary?