The administration of third party agreements (TPAs) is the single most critical challenge currently facing rugby league in Australia.
The uncapped nature of these payments completely undermines the concept of a salary cap and cheapens the illusion of parity that Todd Greenberg and the NRL fight so hard to protect.
The allegations of cash payments and salary cap breaches aimed at the Manly Sea Eagles, irrespective of whether they contain even a shred of truth, has forced the issue of TPAs back into the spotlight. And it’s about time that rugby league had an open and honest discussion about this issue.
Now I’m not saying that third party payments are wrong. Most transfers of value aren’t packaged in brown paper bags and handled in dimly lit carparks. In the vast majority of cases, payments made by third party sponsors are completely legal and above board. So the payments themselves aren’t the problem.
The problem lies in the inequitable access to sponsors and funding. Reports have suggested that the gulf in total TPA payments between the highest and lowest spending clubs may be as high as $1 million per season.
This means that teams like the Roosters and Broncos are taking the field with around a million bucks worth of extra talent at their disposal when compared with the likes of Newcastle and the Wests Tigers. That’s just not fair.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
My proposal is simple: provide full transparency of player salaries within the salary cap. Players would still be entitled to receive TPA payments, and these payments would not be disclosed to the public, but each NRL club would be required to disclose all payments made to players which fall within the cap.
This concept doesn’t directly address the issue of TPAs. However, it does achieve two worthwhile objectives that target the underlying problem.
First, it would simplify the recruitment process. With existing player salaries public knowledge, clubs would have a better idea how much to offer, and players would have a better idea what they’re worth.
Think of it like the property market, where valuations are based on sales of equivalent properties in the area. You wouldn’t buy a house without having clear benchmarks as to what the property is worth, but that’s exactly what we’re asking of our players.
By fully disclosing player salaries within the salary cap, players and clubs could negotiate contractual terms based on real benchmarks, not Rothfield rumours and Webster whispers. This would limit (but not completely remove) the need for clubs to pay overs to recruit or retain certain players, which is the primary driver of salary cap misery.
Secondly, it would shed a bright public spotlight on the disparity between the haves and have nots. The knowledge of exactly how much each NRL player is making would go a long way to answering one of the game’s big questions – how can the rich clubs fit so much talent on their roster and still remain compliant?
Let me give you an example. Based on the position they play and their contribution to a team, a marquee halfback is valued at around $1 million per season. A club without the benefit of third party sponsors would be forced to count that entire amount towards their salary cap.
However, a team lucky enough to receive backing from third party sponsors could potentially pay that same player $700,000 per season, with the difference ($300,000) made up via corporate support. That saving of $300,000 could then be used to invest in other players.
Again, I want to stress that the players and clubs involved in these scenarios are doing nothing wrong. They are playing within the guidelines given to them by the NRL, and simply doing so better than their opposition.
But if these inequalities exist within our competition, fans deserve to know about them. So let’s drop the pretence of parity, and accept that, despite the existence of a salary cap, the NRL is not a level playing field. Just like the Premier League, wealthy clubs are at a competitive advantage.
The main objection that comes up any time salary transparency is discussed is the issue of privacy. And while I understand that a player may wish to keep their rugby league earnings private, they’re being a tad precious about this issue.
(AAP Image/David Mariuz)
It could play out something like this. Each NRL club would disclose how they spend their allocated salary cap, including player salaries, and this information would be published online and would be freely accessible. Fans would have the opportunity to scrutinise just how their club is spending their money and compare this spending with rival NRL clubs.
In the US, this is already happening. All of this information is a matter of public record. Things are no different in the UK, where the Premier League has been publishing players’ weekly salaries for years. Tennis players and golfers have their prize money disclosed after every tournament, and they don’t seem to care. So why are rugby league players any different?
They’re different because we allow them to be different, and it’s time for that to change. With the NRL and the RLPA currently engaged in negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement, the game’s administration has the perfect opportunity and vehicle to push for salary transparency.
As I mentioned earlier, the enforcement of transparency around player salaries won’t solve the issue of TPAs, but it does have the potential to highlight the magnitude of the problem. This may serve as a positive first step towards tackling one of the biggest problems facing rugby league.
5th Tackle Option
Here are five quick thoughts on the action from Round 20.
1. Was that rock bottom for Des and his Dogs? It certainly felt like it. Yet another insipid attacking display in which Canterbury played like a side devoid of ideas.
Some players were just going through the motions, which is a very troubling sign. But with Canterbury’s finals aspirations now officially over, I’m hoping Hasler opens the shoulders and lets it rip for the remainder of the season. Because if he thinks simply inserting Kieran Foran into this attacking structure will cure his point-scoring woes, he’s in for a rude shock.
(AAP Image/Paul Miller)
2. Not sure what you need to do to get sent off these days in a game of rugby league. Iosia Soliola hit Billy Slater high and late and without the ball, forcing Slater to be taken from the field in a medicab, and yet the Canberra second rower only found himself on report.
Regardless of the exact wording of the rule book, such an offence was an obvious send-off. The Raiders deserved immediate punishment for forcing a Melbourne player from the field for the remainder of the contest due to foul play. Just not good enough.
3. Nathan Cleary is a better player without Matt Moylan on the field. I’m not sure why, but he is. The young halfback seems to relish the responsibility of directing the Panthers around the park. Over the last fortnight, Cleary has produced two career-best performances. In each instance, Moylan has either been out injured or severely limited while on the field.
4. North Queensland is a top eight side, even without Johnathan Thurston on the field. That means Paul Green and his staff have assembled a roster that can withstand losing the best player in the world, and one who accounts for a massive proportion of their salary cap.
As a Newcastle fan, I would watch Joey succumb to injury, and I would immediately know that our season was over. That’s not the case in North Queensland.
5. As expected, the attacking juggernaut which is the St George Illawarra Dragons casually put 50 points on the hapless Sea Eagles. Wait, what?
Aem
Guest
Privacy laws do not prevent this. When discussing something you don't actually know, perhaps don't present it as fact? Just a thought. Grammatical modalities can be useful. (This is coming from a - former - lawyer).
Aem
Guest
Is my employment: a) In an industry based around public entertainment (hint - it's not)? b) Subject to a salary cap in order to ensure a reasonable level of evenness in competition? If not (and it's not), then that's a horrible, horrible example... comparing oranges to apples. But why not? I don't care... it's not like it costs me anything to share.. I currently make a touch over $65k. That will jump a little under $71k next year.
Ed
Guest
Hunt isn't on 1 mil now so your argument is not valid. Add Corey Oates & they've just upgraded a bunch of their starting side plus Kodi. Thaiday may be "washed up" but he's still contracted until end next year on top $. That's 10 players who have played origin or Aust/NZ test in last year. Compare that to the rosters in the bottom half of the table. Besides you haven't answered my TPA question. The Broncs are happy to talk about their Thoroughbreds assistance but how does this work within the rules of the cap? It's all just a game where we all pretend the cap works fine. If we want this money in the game then make the rules allow it...for everyone...not just those who can squirrel it through their "friends". As I said the same 5-6 teams who have this significant "TPA assistance" make the finals virtually every year. It doesn't matter that the Broncs or Roosters don't win it regularly but they clearly have a massive advantage over the likes of a Newcastle, Titans or Tigers.
mushi
Guest
Strangely enough my primary employment contract binds me to confidentiality on my salary and bonus except where required by law, for legal and/or finacial advice, or for reasonable purposes to assess my credit worthiness.
bearfax
Guest
I worked in the Public Service Hugh. And I assure you unless I grabbed opportunities as they came I could be sent anywhere, and in fact was sent To Tamworth on one occasion without choice.. Welcome to the real world of employment.
Matth
Guest
They have money for Bird because they are losing Hunt. Last year lost Wallace, Parker and Hodges and haven't replaced them with any big names (milf replaced Barba). Also birds deal may be backended s bit, which means they will also have money fro thaiday.
elvis
Guest
But do they? From this week's team. A far cry from the Broncos of old who were stacked with current internationals. Even Boyd and Gillette aren't certainties for the Australian team. Boyd - Australia Kahu - NZ test, do you even pay more for them? Milford - fringe origin Hunt - fringe origin Blair - Nz test Alex Glenn - Nz test Gillette - Australia Maguire - Origin Sam - washed up cheap Benji - washed up cheap
elvis
Guest
Sorry but your reasoning doesn't match reality. I'm a Broncos supporter and we haven't won for 11 years and we are supposed to be the ones with the biggest advantages. The salary cap works. And I think you are reading a lot more into my post than I meant, which seems to be a common thread here at the Roar, people read what they want to see, not what was actually written. The only things I made comment on were 1. I don't think salaries should be disclosed for the sake of the gossiping curious. 2. The idea they need to be disclosed to help players know what to ask for is just silly, for obvious reasons. 3. On a purely statistical basis the cap seems to work, if you had to design a cap today and measure your success in 16 years time, you would be chuffed with the result of the last 16 years. You seem to be stating the obvious with your post and I agree with you, TPAs make a difference, if you can offer more money you get better players. But that is the advantage of having a better run club or being in an exclusive area, that's just life.
Big Daddy
Guest
3 hats. I told you to get on. Ran 3rd at 20/1.
Ed
Guest
Hugh of course no punter has "proof" but any look at the roster of either of those clubs & compare it to say NRL owned Knights can tell you they are operating off a significantly different budget. Explain under what circumstances does all that extra TPA money get arranged within the rules? Take for instance the broncos. So despite a host of origin & test players they sign up Bird for reportedly $1m (which sounds about right as he was reportedly offered that by the sharks and given no apparent beef with the club would be more inclined to stay on at least same money - yes I know supposedly "Wayne will improve my game"). Clearly the Broncs don't have a spare mil in their cap so obviously TPA's are involved. How does this happen? The club can't organise it. How does one of the thoroughbreds get involved? Why would one of them pay Bird say $3-400k per year and what does he get in return? The joy of watching him play? C'mon. It's a rort that all the rich clubs run well, the NRL knows it happens but are powerless to do anything or don't want to because it's so extensive. Every player manager is involved and I daresay most clubs. It's only ever blown up when whistle blowers have gone to the media. Not once have the NRL audits uncovered anything on their own.
Mushi
Guest
The cap scandals are result of the penalties. You get the a lasting advantage for a potential (if caught) short term penalty and some additional benefits as it sure seemed like the NRL gave the rub of the green to Parramatta on subjective issues to make the "scandal" go away. The issue isn't the cap (that other sports seem to have no problem with) it's the lack of basic understanding of the cost benefit equation that the league has created.
Mushi
Guest
What era was that my folks were raised that it was the height of rudeness to ask about money. So unless you are talking 19th century I'm not sure you could say it is an era thing. I've never had anyone tell me their whole income, and outside of a finance application or tax declaration, I can't recall doing it either. Under the privacy act the NRL could collect this type of info (with consent), but it would almost certainly conditional on not just giving it to the whole world. Restraint of trade. Yes employers can restrain (a judge quipped a contract is by its nature a restraint) but their are legal tests. You would then need to show that it is reasonable/required. I believe TPAs currently are currently declared and vetted, the issue is where teams enter into fraudulent schemes. So banning it would need to be arguing that it's reasonable to assume that all parties are fraudulent. The issue is the NRL have a punishment methodology that is completely ineffective and nonsensical. It's worth noting that banning them all together would have the NRL as an outlier amongst capped competitions, which makes the reasonable / required test tough.
Ed
Guest
Elvis you've been consuming too much of Todd's "if I close my eyes it doesn't existence" rubbish. The simple facts are that the same certain 5 or 6 teams make the finals virtually every single year and those teams just happen to be the ones with deep pockets, rich benefactors or loads of rich "associates". If some teams magically happen to have 8-10 (or in some cases more) current origin or test (tri-nation) players where some clubs have none it's a significant imbalance. No amount of running a club well, "players sign for less because they want to be here", "they love the coach" makes up the difference of a roster between say the top 2 teams on the ladder and say a club with NRL directors on board. It's pretty obvious which clubs are actually going by the TPA rules and it's costing them on the ladder big time. It's not the ability to hang on to that 1 mil player, it's the ability to have a few as well as magically re-sign the entire premiership team (after the players tested their market value) as well as somehow keeping their up & coming star NYC players without losing a single one. This is where the clubs down the bottom cannot compete if they don't have the magic TPA drawer to keep that extra depth that makes a regular finals team.
Mushi
Guest
Not really. Hence it was defeated as an unnecessary restraint of trade decades ago. Unless you have agreed to it (ie armed forces) your employer can't just move you to another location and another role.
Roostermark
Guest
"I have been advocating this stance for years and it’s something that really isnt that foreign to Australia. Cricket Australia posts its top 20 contracts (that is of course, when there is a MOU that is place). Why can’t it happen in the NRL?" Yes Cricket Australia does this as far as players contracts are concerned but...This figure is just that and doesn't include money that the players obtain through personal sponsorship. So not much different.
Paul Chapman
Guest
Tom the problem with the share of TPA's around the Clubs is brought about by too many Clubs in Sydney. The "Corporate Dollar" just wont stretch around 9 "Greater Sydney Clubs", end of story. Lots of times Club CEO's are not professional enough either.
bearfax
Guest
Hugh I am fully aware of that situation. Lived through it. I appreciate you reminding us of the fact for context, but the draft situation works well for other codes if all parties are prepared to comply with it. But James' suggestion isnt restraint of trade and could be the one viable option worth pursuing. The problem with the present system is that like the capitalist system in general, unless it is successfully controlled, it loses its effectiveness and becomes monopolisation. When you have a tight system with clear equitable guidelines, you may achieve a workable arrangement. But when you open the door with the ambiguity of TPAs, you are inviting inequity and potential monopolisation by the few wealthy clubs that then just become wealthier because of the benefits of success. Competition within a closed system depends upon maintaining its effective equitable competitiveness otherwise it stagnates. The game depends upon a workable competition, not a system where some are more equal than others. The question is do you want a game that expands and grows for the benefit of the majority, or do you want a game where your favourite team and a few others win consistently, but the overall interest wanes because only the minority of supporters are benefiting.
Lovey
Guest
Hugh Isn't this common in all employment? It is in the Public Service.
Lovey
Guest
Mushi I meant in a social way, and concerning paid employment, not outside income. I come from an era when everyone knew what everyone else was on, and were OK with that. If Privacy Law is the issue, is this being breached by the NRL itself? If they can get the full picture, why not the supporters? As for restraint of trade, I am sure that employers can legally restrain employees from certain activities. I have no problem with genuine sponsorships, such as eg Nike with a star player. Or a local company with a local player, so long as there are plausible benefits. But it seems like a lot of these third party deals are ways around the salary cap, and the onus is on them to prove otherwise.
Mushi
Guest
Um income has always been a private affair.