Jarryd Hayne’s ideas about image rights have nothing to do with cleaning up rugby league and everything to do with superstars making more money.
On Monday, Michael Chammas published an article in the Sydney Morning Herald detailing some of Jarryd Hayne’s ideas on image rights, player sponsorship and personal brand.
Hayne suggested that players should have full control over their image rights and be able to take whatever sponsorship they choose.
His argument is based on the idea that this would make players more accountable, because anti-social behaviour would limit their ability to “sell their brand” and make money. Hayne pointed to the NFL as the benchmark for this approach.
From a purely economic perspective, there’s a huge difference in operations between the NFL and the NRL regarding financial capabilities of individual clubs. The NFL is as close to socialism as an American industry is likely to get, with all kinds of revenue sharing deals in place related to broadcasting, licensing, merchandise and ticketing to ensure every single NFL franchise makes a profit.
This is significantly different to the NRL, where a number of clubs are struggling to stay afloat while the glamour clubs continue to turn a profit year upon year. On Wednesday, Steve Mascord wrote a great column detailing some of the issues Hayne’s ideas would create in relation to big-market versus small-market teams.
The ability for smaller market teams to recruit players is already an issue – just look at Canberra’s past few months of failure. Enacting a policy where players own their image rights would simply add another impediment to small-market teams and entrench an English Premier League-style ‘top four’ of rich, big-market clubs that smaller organisations would find impossible to break.
I’ve got nothing against Hayne. He’s a great rugby league player, talented, high profile and extremely marketable. As a superstar who could surely make more money than he does at the moment, I can understand how he might feel hamstrung by the current agreement regarding his image rights.
Some of his points have merit and he’s entitled to want to make money, but let’s not pretend that the agenda he’s pushing has anything to do with improving player behaviour. That’s just a straw man argument to forward his goal and improve his bank.
The 2014 NFL season hasn’t started yet and there are already ten players suspended for violating the league’s substance abuse policy. Two of the ten have previously been to the Pro Bowl. The list doesn’t include Josh Gordon, who led the league in receiving yards last year and is a star player by anyone’s standard, who’s facing a year out of the game for substance abuse issues.
And that’s just this year. It won’t be a regular season in the NFL if at least two athletes aren’t charged with a gun-related crime at some point.
Somewhere in Massachusetts, former star NFL player Aaron Hernandez is sitting in a cell, charged with three murders allegedly committed in 2012. In 2007, Michael Vick, at the time one of the NFL’s most high profile athletes, served 21 months in prison for his role in an illegal dog-fighting syndicate.
The NFL has a long list of athletes, all completely in control of their own image rights, committing acts that hurt themselves and their sport.
So let’s be clear. The idea that a player having control over their own ‘brand’ has any correlation to those individuals making better life decisions outside the game is a fallacy.
There will always be dumb athletes who do dumb things and smart athletes who make mistakes. Players having ownership of their own image has nothing to do with that.
If Jarryd Hayne wants to explore different ways for players to be able to make more money, great. Let’s have that conversation because it’s the athletes who make the game and deserve the most rewards from it.
But before we laud him for being so well spoken and articulating such a wonderful idea, let’s be clear what we’re really talking about.
It’s not player behaviour. It’s cold hard cash.
Kevin Dustby
Roar Rookie
turbo, eagle is very correct, the NFL players make the NRL look like saints
Pmar91
Guest
Hayne makes a very intelligent point. If Todd carney had the Nike marketing team and spin doctors behind him he would of been put into rehab in the off season. To the author of this article, what is wrong with Hayne wanting more $$ if that's what he was wanting?? He's a superstar and along with SBW probably the only other current nrl star to have a powerful marketing brand. Everybody knows who the Hayne plane is as everybody knows who SBW is. He deserves to own that brand and sell it as he wishes
Football United
Guest
Please, i've been to NFL london and the majority of people there were yanks.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
I think Hayne is half-right. Players would like to take control of their brands because: a) they can make more money through sponsorships etc. b) they will be more likely to watch their image to ensure they don't lose those sponsorship dollars But what he doesn't mention is that, currently, NRL players can't do that without help from the NRL. Help that currently isn't getting provided. The problem is that all the talent in the world won't get you a sponsorship contract when you can barely string two words together and when you treat journalists like rubbish. Look at a guy like Federer. Yes, he's the most talented tennis player ever, but he earns so much money from sponsors because he always is approachable, interviews well and gives sponsors confidence their investment is safe. Boyd is one of the highest try scores in Origin history, but who would pay him the big bucks to be a spokesman for their brand? The NRL needs to provide their players with proper media training and brand awareness training if they are going to come close to making a killing from their "personal brands." This will ultimately help transform the ailing image of League too.
up in the north
Guest
Good on Hayne for voicing this. Why shouldn't he take his "brand" to market and see what he can get. But any comparisons between the NRL & NFL are fatuous.
Albatross
Guest
Hayne would no doubt land a hefty sponsorship with Kleenex!
Bearfax
Roar Guru
Actually I think Hayne has a good point. Image is important to the League and to the individual and such a proposal I suspect would benefit the game. But most importantly, vested interests are very effective tools in encouraging sensible thinking and behaviour. If you have an image to uphold and the money you are earning is affected by that, you are less likely to do something to tarnish that image. Having worked in an area relating to criminal behaviour, it was consistently brought to my attention that a person was much less likely to commit a property or violent offence, if they have significant vested interests such as a stable, job, family, possession etc. They had something to lose and this significantly tempered their behaviour.
fiver
Guest
Yes, the NFL is a global brand but I don't think that has anything to do with it's clean and tidy image. Are you saying that if the NRL cleaned up its imagine it could then go sellout games in New York?
turbodewd
Guest
eagleJ, the NFL brand is held in high regard in its market. The NFL brand is 2 notches below it within its own market. You and I both know this, sad but true. The NFL played 3 sellout games in London last year. Sellouts mate. Now tell me the good people of London have an issue with the NFL brand.
eagleJack
Guest
That's the point. The NFL have murderers, r*pists, high level drug importers and dealers. We have guys sitting on a roof drinking breezers. Our misdemeanours, on the whole, are harmless pranks that only got the light of day due to social media. The NFL have hardened criminals. There is a very seedy underbelly to American sports. We wouldn't know if an NFL performed the bubbler, the guy who took the photo would be paid a handsome sum to not post it. You have incredibly poor people suddenly with more money that they know what to do with it. And an organisation and team worth billions happy to protect their brand at whatever cost. Our players are saints in comparison.
Johnno
Guest
Gee im sure coca-cola is gonna really want to sponsor the NRL, is greedy selfish marquee players can have the pepsi logo on there mouth guards. Or Uncle tobys, im sure is gonna be really keen on sponsoring the NRL, if Kellogs can put there logo on marquee players. All not. Im the middle-class rugby league players on the miniumum wage or medium salary are gonna be really happt at a few selfish greedy marquees, if they cash in while the NRL lose sponsors, not keen to sponsor as they lose exclusive sponsorship rights, so guys like Hayne-train or SBW can go off and be brands and a business, not footy players.
turbodewd
Guest
Our cultures are different. I am not aware of an NFL player being filmed bubbling or having secks with a dog. Youve got Michael Vick over there who was involved in dog-fighting which is nasty. But as a whole if you got a market research firm to do some work you'd find the NFL brand in the states is held in high esteem while the NRL brand here is now akin to bubbling; gambling and heavy drinking. And neck tatts LOL
eagleJack
Guest
I guess we will never know. But I think it would have.
eagleJack
Guest
What our players get up to wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in the US. But then again we don't have metal detectors in schools or protective blankets in kids lockers in case of shootings.
turbodewd
Guest
Far worse eh?! The USA is 13 times bigger than Australia. Id say our players punch well above their weight in the bad behaviour stakes. Todd Carney is a one-man brand-tarnishing machine.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
"Do you think he would have tempered his love of the drink a little?" Actually, I don't think he would have. Clearly, he and his managers/minders aren't bright enough to think that far ahead...
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
"Do you think he would have tempered his love of the drink a little?" No
eagleJack
Guest
Of course the main aim is for the exceptional players to get more $$. But I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't have an impact on player behaviour. You point out that NFL player behaviour is worse. True, but that is American society as a whole. I think with added responsibility our players would mature earlier, realising that stepping out of line would affect their earning potential. Would there be exceptions? Yes, there always are. But a guy like Carney knew that whichever club he went to he would earn $600k. And he was content with that. But what if he had dreams of earning $2m per year, with sponsorship chipping in the additional $1.4m? Do you think he would have tempered his love of the drink a little? In any case I don't think it is best for the game with regards to keeping the NRL competition fair and equitable. But it is certainly something worth exploring.
jim
Guest
The NFL player behavior problems are actually far worse than those of the NRL. Hayne just wants the $.
pat malone
Guest
the leagues are similar in the way revenue from TV is shared