For years the salary cap has been seen as the main way to equalise talent between the clubs in the NRL. But now, 25 years after it was first introduced, is there any point in continuing the charade?
The concept that making all the clubs keep their payments to players under a certain level will spread the playing talent and therefore equalise the teams is fine in theory.
However, the cap has had a rocky history at best. The New South Wales rugby league introduced the cap in 1990 and it was just a year later that the Canberra Raiders were found to have breached the cap by more than 25 per cent.
In 2002 the all conquering Bulldogs were found to have breached the cap and were docked all of their points for the season. In 2006 The Warriors were stripped of four competition points and fined $430,000 for a $1 million cap breach.
The biggie came in 2010 when the Storm were stripped of two premierships, three minor premierships, docked all points for that season, fined $500,000 and ordered to return $1.1 million in prize money.
These examples are just the big ones. There have been multitudes of minor infractions all the way along. Further, these are just the ones that have been detected. Allegations of salary cap cheating constantly swirl around.
However, player defections to rugby union set a cat among the pigeons. Mark Gasnier and Sonny Bill Williams went to French rugby in 2008. While Gasnier was out of contract with the Dragons, Sonny Bill Williams turned all NRL contracts to confetti when he walked out on his deal with the Bulldogs. In reality there was little that could be done to stop him.
To try to stop the drain of top players leaving the NRL to chase the filthy lucre, the marquee player allowance was brought in. When that didn’t prove enough they brought in “third party agreements” which allowed players to receive any amount of payment from third parties who wished to sponsor them – as long as the club didn’t organise it, the sponsors weren’t associated with the club and there was no use of club logos, jerseys or emblems.
Lastly, the NRL has a discretionary fund in its back pocket that they can break out if they see a need. They got it out to try and stop Jarryd Hayne leaving but it seems they didn’t have enough in there.
Roarer Scott Woodward’s excellent recent article points out how some clubs are benefiting from these arrangements while others are languishing.
The thing that really brought home to me just how messed up all of this is was when the investigation into irregularities at the Broncos was dropped. It appears that pursuing the matters involving Andrew Gee, the Broncos Leagues Club and an amount of $300,000 was all too hard. The NRL general manager of integrity, Nick Weeks, said they had found no evidence of a salary cap breach.
“The investigation was impeded because it was not possible to obtain information from the Broncos Leagues Club and others from the Broncos who have left the game,” he said.
Basically, Gee wouldn’t talk and, as he had left the club, he couldn’t be made to and no one else would talk either. So the NRL dropped the matter. Weeks did, however, make a threat that was about as worrying as being attacked with soggy celery.
“Given the evidence currently before us, there are former officials from both clubs who are unlikely to be registered to be involved in the NRL in the future,” he said.
The upshot of this is that the NRL really has no power to investigate clubs at all. How can you possibly expect to have the rules you set followed if you have no real power to enforce them? In this reality you’ve really got to question the point of continuing the salary cap charade.
Let’s have a look at the reasons the NRL says we need a salary cap, outlined on their official website.
“1. It assists in “spreading the playing talent” so that a few better resourced clubs cannot simply out-bid other clubs for all of the best players. If a few clubs are able to spend unlimited funds it will reduce the attraction of games to fans, sponsors and media partners due to an uneven competition. Allowing clubs to spend an unlimited amount on players would drive some clubs out of the competition as they would struggle to match the prices wealthy clubs could afford to pay.
2. It ensures clubs are not put into a position where they are forced to spend more money than they can afford, in terms of player payments, just to be competitive.”
In regards to their first point, I’ll let you decide how well the playing talent is presently getting spread. And what are third party agreements if not unlimited funds? These agreements solidly favour the big sides that reside in easy reach of big business.
Newcastle, the Cowboys, Sharks and Raiders don’t fall into this category. While the Raiders have the money within their club to possibly be in the bidding against the third party agreements offered to players, as the money comes from within their club they can’t do it.
Their second point looks at the situation from the wrong angle completely. The salary cap amount may now not be enough to assemble and maintain a roster that is competitive when up against sides with massive third party agreements at their disposal as well. If you aren’t competitive on the field then your crowds will drop, then your sponsorship will erode and before you know it you are playing in a country comp in front of 100 fans, sponsored by the local IGA.
The NRL’s FAQ sheet makes this stellar point:
“The reality is the majority of clubs spend the Salary Cap but not all are successful on the field. Someone has to come last and someone has to win, regardless of what they spend. Some clubs will attract players on the basis of what the club can offer a player’s career rather than just money. Other clubs may need to spend more money to attract the same level of player.”
That is more than a little reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm quote “Some animals are more equal than others”.
Here’s a tip for you NRL HQ, players want to be shown the money and they want to win. Every player has their price and every player craves success. If a club can offer both then that unfashionable club with no money, little-to-no success and off-field dramas is going to have little chance at all at luring them.
Make the club somewhere cold like Canberra or miles away from anywhere like Townsville and they’ll really be up against it. And if by some miracle those struggling clubs do develop a star player well you just have to use a third party agreement to buy him.
We live in a capitalist system that has proven time and again that money wins out over all else. The obvious answer is to scrap the salary cap altogether and let the market forces decide exactly what the future shape of the NRL will be.
Let’s stop getting in the way of the Broncos buying players anyway they see fit. Let’s stop preventing Penrith or Canberra from using their leagues club funds to support their teams anyway they like. Let’s stop preventing rich fans from spending as much of their money as they want to try and get their clubs to glory.
There is little point in the NRL on one hand trying to engineer any sort of level playing field when on their other hand they have other rules in place. Rules that do anything but create equality.
Sure, a fair few clubs will go under and leave their diehard fans distraught. However, in the end we will get a competition that is sustainable. Keeping the salary cap will consign those doomed clubs to a slow and agonising death rather than a quick one. The NRL has long since stopped being a suburban club competition and we should do away with any pretence that it still is in any way, shape or form.
Let’s just get rid of the salary cap for good if for no other reason than that I am sick of arguing for a lost cause and I bet lots of you are too.
The RiffMarn
Guest
I hate the idea of the NRL having a rainy day fund to entice / keep its best players - bump up the marquee allowance or make it unlimited if you have to & cap restrict the other components. The other issue is the second tier cap - while the cap has increased yeh much, the second tier cap has failed to move proportionally with it widening the gap between the haves & have not players & still making it difficult for clubs to counteract seasons of high injury tolls.
The RiffMarn
Guest
Tim - the 1990 Raiders rorted a premiership off the Panthers ;)
da plane
Guest
i don't believe if there was no salary cap that there would only be 4 or 5 clubs playing in the nrl- would one club sign the best 2 players in each position and have half of them playing reserve grade - no - and no player would be signing to play reserve grade- basically the cap isn't about spreading the talent it's about stopping clubs from going into administration because of debts incurred.
Matthew Edwards
Guest
I have lived in Australia in areas hundreds of miles from the nearest team. So what.
gaga
Guest
HAHAHA. You are kidding yourself. Your wold is very small...
Storm Boy
Guest
A player draft is for spreading talent amongst the clubs. A cap is to stop clubs over spending on players. The NRL is a failure as it tries to use a cap to do what a draft is for. It's all nonsense as a club can go broke overspending a dozen other ways. Look how many are now spending up big on overseas trainig trips and sports science. Would they do that if there was no salary cap? Nope. Are they going broke? Nope. The money would instead go to the players where it belongs. The RLPA should wake up and get the cap killed off as a restraint of trade.
CNS
Guest
Yeah i suppose. but under the current cap who have the roosters lost since winning a premiership? SBW, Minichiello and Luke O'donnal (dont know if that is spelt right). two of them retired and SBW was always going to leave at some point. The Roosters wont even lose any for next year either. They add ferguson if allowed and martin kennedy. Their team only got better. This is due to great cap management. They have been able to sustain this group of players for three years now and under a rating cap they would have had them for one year. Its good to think that the points system would work but there is no reason why the consistently bad teams cant copy what happened at the Roosters. The cap should stay.
Matthew Edwards
Guest
Of course they do MJB... They turn profit so that is irrelivent.
Matthew Edwards
Guest
Soccer is bigger than American Football. By far. But the NFL is the most valuable domestic sporting competition in the world, and exceeds the EPL in every such metric. Bigger crowds, bigger TV deals, better tv ratings. It is also probably the most unpredictable sporting competition in the world, almost any team can win or lose each game. And at the start of the season you can usually make a case for half the teams to win the Super Bowl. Dropping the salary cap would only be a negative for the NRL in the long term, I think this and I am a Roosters supporter, a team who in all likelihood would end up one of the more powerful teams in a no salary cap competition.
Ken
Guest
Who did the Dogs let go? it's a while ago now but my memory is that the players mostly took pay cuts and more or less kept the team together for a few years until after 2004. Thurston was playing first grade in 2002, but still couldn't get a regular run-on gig in 2004 because Sherwin and Anasta (who was odds to go back to Souths in 2002 but miraculously changed his mind) were still there. A forward pack with Mason, Price, O'Meley and Ryan, all origin reps at the time - the last 2 being purchased as established rep players just before the cap scandal. Vagana (bought a couple of years earlier) and Utai were Kiwi rep players, they both stayed. El Masri stayed on the wing. Patten had been bought from Saints a couple of years earlier, he didn't go anywhere. In 2004 I think it's easy to say they were still living on the proceeds of their crime.
Ken
Guest
I get it Ronald and conceptually I like it - in the end though money is a tangible measurement while these ratings, however well intentioned and formulated, will always toss up incongruous equating of players.
mushi
Guest
Also the last thing you would want is rep outside backs and grinder forwards that are there to absorb tackles and be a third or fourth hit up option. Those guys the effectiveness gap isn't as great between replacement value and rep level but you';d get hit. Perversely I would be willing to pay a competent junior outside back more than a recent rep player as his production to points would be higher.
Ronald M
Guest
They are picked apart now. If a team of unknowns suddenly performed as you suggest, there would be money offers flying at them like no tomorrow. That team would not stay together, try asking Melbourne or the Rabbits about that. 3 years of stats would help to smooth out an exceptional season but there is no magical formula that would ever stop poaching of winning teams but then again, isn't that what the cap is supposed to do - even teams up ? Trying to manipulate the stats would be a very dangerous game and coaches who wanted to win would self regulate. A team in say 6th position with no chance of a top 8 or wooden spoon could risk playing such games.
peeeko
Roar Guru
ask a fan of one of the clubs that will never challenge except for one of 3 teams
Glenn Innes
Guest
Well lets just look at the test tube of the real world and examine what really happens with no cap..In American Football they have a salary cap and a pretty good spread when it comes to the teams that win Superbowls European Football has no cap (although it does have transfer fees) and we all know that the big European Leagues are dominated by the same two or three clubs year in year out. So there is no doubt what happens in the NRL if you scrap the cap, you get European football results as opposed to NFL outcomes.The problem is it will be even worse than European Soccer. Because of the low scoring nature of soccer, most of the games are still competitive and upsets happen. The rich clubs grind to the top over the course of a long season but plenty of games that are in the balance for most of the match.In our game you will get boring thrashings when the two or three teams that become the financial elite play everybody else and long term it will be a disaster for the game.The only hope supporters of most clubs will have is that some billionaire buys their club and acts as it's private patron. Soccer in Europe can get away with this because there is so little competition from other sports, Rugby League can't for the same reason American sports can't,,,the market place is too competitive.Scrapping the cap is the road to ruin for the NRL.The issue of third party agreements can be dealt with by giving cap concessions to teams that are clearly disadvantaged by them.
CNS
Guest
So if a team (I will use the 2013 Roosters squad as an example) were to have a bunch of unknown players or non-rep players at the beginning of the season then end the season with a Premiership, 17 international players, four NSW representatives, 2 Australian representatives, 6 New Zealand representatives, equal top try scorer honours, top point scorer and multiple positional awards would they not be picked apart instantly because of an inflation in player ratings? or does, as you stated, 3 years of consistency determine the rating? Because a system like this does not really promote the coaching and managing side of building a team. Why should a team be picked apart due to great coaching resulting in success?
Matt
Guest
Let's put it this way: I support the Broncos, and never in a million years would I own shares in any sporting organisation. In fact I would be surprised if there was *any* club not involved in some form of breach. Though if the Bronc's were cheating, fat lot of good it's been doing them. Those peptides obviously weren't too hot, the Sharks finished 13th that year? If you're going to cheat at least get some results like the Storm :D
Muzz
Guest
Case closed for now.I guess if ASIC uncover anything relevant the NRL may consider re-opening the investigation. The share holders will want some answers at some point.
Matt
Guest
Doubt it, how did Carl Williams and co get away with it for years. On top of all the crime, has all this money/houses/cars etc yet no real valid income and so forth. Similar to the drug scandal unless someone blabs I think it's pretty tight. For example I pay my catering company friend $50k for catering, he keeps $5k and pays $45k to player for 3rd party deal. Makes it hard to crack when you layer it up, and I'm sure anyone who is big would have off-shore companies too so keep that in mind... there's many ways of layering it. The more layers the harder to get the bottom. Add to that people not talking and well, I can see why it would be very difficult to uncover. Furthermore, how much does the NRL spend enforcing all this? I doubt experienced auditing companies come cheap, 16 NRL clubs with attached leagues clubs with what - hundreds of thousands of individual transactions a year? That's a lot to audit. I'm no lawyer, pretty sure even caught with a gun in hand you can quite readily say nothing. You're under no pressure to confirm or deny anything. Edit: Also keep in mind ASIC would be a hell of a lot less interested if your numbers add up. If you made 10 million and spent 5 million, whether or not $500,000 of that was actually spent on "secret player payments in a totally made up imaginary system in the NRL which has no legal enforcement" it'd be pretty irrelevant to them. They exist to get the tax dollars companies should be paying, not to enforce salary caps or anything else.
Muzz
Guest
With ASIC that is.