In the Game of Thrones series, there is a special act of explicit contortion known as the Meereenese Knot. Describing it is not suitable fodder for these family friendly pages, however, the phrase was rehashed by author George RR Martin to explain the difficulty he had in writing the fourth book of the series.
The complexity of many characters and many happenings over many countries became so entangled that Martin was left with the difficult but liberating choice to cut the book in two. The fourth and fifth instalments in the series actually run in a chronological parallel to allow the time to cater to the complexities and deliver a riveting read.
Martin took his inspiration from Alexander the Great and the fabled Gordian Knot, which the conqueror sliced in two with a sword, rather than untie it. And so as we stare deeply into the complexities of rugby league, we too should take inspiration in how we deal with the Sydney Knot – a concoction of history, apathy, monetary dependency – and take the bold decision to slice the NRL in two, and bring in an era of promotion and relegation.
Why? What’s the problem?
I will list out some of the key internal problems in the NRL and rugby league in general. The below is not exhaustive, nor is it data verified, but I’m not getting paid for this so bear with me.
The Sydney Knot
Sydney and rugby league is an enigma. The city is like an overbearing mother who keeps her child alive by never letting him leave the house. We in Sydney seem to simultaneously fund rugby league with our TV population, and strangle it with the sheer amount of teams. There are too many teams in Sydney, we cannot sustain it.
But if you kill one of them, then just look at Norths. If you merge them, then look at the Tigers. If you relocate? Maybe. But I have a better idea.
Expansion
There are many places crying out for a chance at NRL. But how can we fit a new team in? Having more teams in the NRL will dilute the product, and stretch people’s interest thin. Look at the take up on Titans’ away crowds. Do we want that for Adelaide and Perth? And reducing a Sydney team to make way will drive out as many fans as it brings in.
Expansion itself is also a risky, expensive game. The NRL can’t burn money like the AFL to engineer success. How can the NRL be confident on expanding when the last expansion is still teetering on failure?
Homogeny
In the early naughties, the NRL was trumpeting the success of a competition so even that a different team won each year. This engineered salary cap comp was making everything more exciting. Right? Or was it making everything more homogenous?
Every team now costs the same, plays the same, talks the same, acts the same, looks the same, and horrendous things like percentage plays and conservative margins (not to mention wrestling) become the edge. Is this what we want?
There is no character to the players or the teams and very little creativity in the coaching.
Unsustainable success
Worse still, the salary cap guarantees that success will be duly punished; excellence will be promptly rubbed out. Basketcase clubs will pay overs for talent and inevitably ruin their career.
The better you are at managing your recruitment and getting results and building a premiership team, the more likely you are going to suddenly lose half your team and drop out of the eight.
The loser is the club that gained short term fan growth from winning but can’t sustain a product and those fans disengage.
(AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
Other call outs
Quality of games, player loyalty and contracts, grassroots support, player welfare, cannibalistic rep seasons, interest in the bottom of the table, and officiating (I won’t be addressing officiating).
The solution
We can see something has to be done. Most of us already knew that. But what could we do to tangibly mitigate most of the above problems? Here is where promotion and relegation comes in.
The below can be flexed to make more sense with reality. But I’ve captured the elements which I think will save rugby league. A two tiered structure is detailed below:
| Area | Premier Rugby League | National Rugby League |
| Tier | 1 | 2 |
| Teams | 12 | 12 |
| Cap (indicative) | $15M | $7.5M |
| Grant | $10M | $7.5M + extraordinary travel expenses |
| Prize Money | $1M for premiers $1M for minor premiers |
N/A |
| Promotion | Premiers and highest placed club on regular season table to World Club Challenge | Minor premier promoted; Teams 2-5 play knock outs for final position. |
| Relegation | Bottom two teams on regular season table | N/A |
| Expansion | Remain 12 teams for foreseeable future | All expansion clubs enter the NRL where safety nets protect low performing clubs. |
| Philosophy | To be the pinnacle rugby competition in the world, by rewarding excellence and success. | To expand and develop the professional rugby league landscape in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. |
The mindset
The key dynamic shift here is captured in the philosophy of each competition.
The Premier Rugby League (I’m not precious about the name) will only produce high quality, high entertainment games. A concentration of talent at the league level, and an exceptional level of quality in the top half of the table. Watching top of the table clashes approaches representative standard football.
To play in this league, to succeed in this league, is something that appeals to more than just our current community. There is a global following here, and players from rugby union codes look to the PRL as the next challenge.
Brands like Melbourne Storm, Brisbane Broncos, South Sydney become synonymous with sustained success, because they are well run, have big fan-bases and the competition rewards them for this.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
The salary cap is significantly higher than the grant money. This is crucial. The cap is purposefully high as it rewards a club which generates profit. Idealistically, this league should aim to not have a salary cap once the clubs within can be trusted to run themselves successfully under a well-governed administration.
The National Rugby League (maintaining the current NRL brand to indicate it is still a high standard league) will focus on cultivating clubs which are re-building, clubs which are maturing and expansion clubs entering the big leagues.
There is a romance in this league. Some traditional clubs could return. New clubs could make a run.
The key focus here is similar to the current NRL – providing a safety net of funding which means clubs can subsist on the NRL grant and use their investment capacity to develop players, staff and facilities in such a way that they can challenge for promotion and potentially survive the PRL.
Is it a problem solver?
If you look back at the selective and anecdotal list of problems, this system will address all of them to varying degrees. Suddenly the basket case Sydney clubs can persist, but not at the expense of the future.
People will say they won’t support their team in a reserve grade, but I bet they would watch the final match of the NRL season if their club was playing off for promotion. We can bring back the Bears, maybe even de-merge the current mergers and provide an avenue for Perth, Brisbane 2, and Papua New Guinea.
Expansion becomes a less risky endeavour. We don’t need Perth or Adelaide entering the competition and just hoping beyond hope they succeed long enough to survive. The safety net of the NRL lets them struggle for a while, and then, once established, they should be able to grow and challenge for promotion.
Twenty-two rounds will improve player welfare and allow a representative window in the mid-season that does not impact the season. It is also a perfect home-and-away season for 12 teams.
(AAP Image/Glenn Hunt)
The football style should evolve too. Having top clubs with high quality rosters will see new heights reached. Developing clubs will adapt to manage this. Desperate clubs facing relegation will break their moulds. And the NRL, less polished, will potentially have a free flowing style like the English Super League.
Success in the PRL is not an accident, and sustaining it leads to dynasties. How many people loved the Dragons, who dominated for 11 years, or the Souths teams that challenged them and cracked the 70s? How many ironed on fans do Canterbury and Parramatta still have from the 80s?
A club synonymous with success and a club synonymous with being an underdog generates its own fans and narratives and rivalries. Manufactured salary caps cannot enable this.
The enablers
TV deal
None of this is possible if the TV deal isn’t negotiated successfully. Suddenly there are only six top flight matches per week and fewer rounds per year. But the sell is on the quality of these games. There are no dud matches.
Even 11th versus 12th has significance because of the threat of relegation. The prize for the minor premier makes the top spot on the table crucial. The finals spots (top four or top six) keeps mid table matches in the spotlight.
The players are also a higher concentration of quality. The cap allows teams to form that are much stronger than today’s teams.
The NRL would be part of the TV deal. Here is where we realise that we actually have 12 games a week to sell, and each game has traditional or emerging brands. The top half of the NRL table will be constant focus on who will get promoted, the romance of the Bears making it back to the top league, or Perth proving that it is now one of the big teams.
These games have meaning. They will fill timeslots and attract eyeballs.
The key is that the governing body pools the funding from the TV deal across the representative season, PRL and NRL and distributes in such a way that the NRL is sustained. But the most important thing – the most important – is the insistence that every NRL game is televised to ensure the teams get the required exposure to grow.
Player development and transfer market
Here is the final puzzle piece. It is so simple. We copy the European football model of player contracts and transfer markets. If you develop a great player and know that a richer PRL club will come knocking, then sign them to a five-year deal. If the player wants to move halfway through, then a transfer fee is negotiated.
Canberra will suddenly be rolling in cash from all the players they develop and pass on – or alternatively they have the money to hold onto them and challenge for the top.
(AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
An extension here is a mandated coverage of grassroots areas for each club. Penrith will be responsible for servicing its junior leagues. Where clubs like the Roosters lack a juniors base, they are given coverage and feeder rights over a country zone.
There should be minimum investment requirements and the reward is first dibs on the emerging talent.
The risks
Player Base
This model will stretch the player base significantly. There may not be enough to keep the quality at the lower end of the NRL. This would need time to develop but could have negative impacts and perception in the early stages that is hard to return from.
Not in our culture
Australia struggles with promotion and relegation. Nobody likes it. This article is probably going to get ten comments – eight of them in disapproval and two of them off topic and talking about conference systems.
To sell this model will be extremely difficult. But ultimately it is the problem which will be the solution – Sydney clubs. Big brand Sydney clubs toiling away in the NRL will always attract attention. Imagine a fall from grace Roosters or St George in the NRL. People will still be interested, even in apathy.
Dominant teams
This model and philosophy encourages something like European football leagues. Places where Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea are the only ones with a chance. That is very likely, but I don’t think it is a bad thing. People psychologically prefer consistency. But conceptually I believe most people will disagree with me.
Cost
It is unlikely the 24 teams can be funded with current money. The TV deal would have to increase, but potentially the approach is to have a smaller NRL in the first instance. Eight teams to begin with while expansion clubs prepare to join at each new TV deal.
The NRL loses the battle
The pivotal piece to all this is keeping the NRL relevant. If it is lost, then this model will actually accelerate a decline of rugby league.
Wrap Up
There is a chance to tackle some of the biggest issues in the game and set rugby league on a whole new growth trajectory all in one swift stroke.
The Sydney Knot is starting to strangle the game, but by severing it we will mature in our biggest market and enable the game to properly realise its potential around Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific.
Foxtrotting
Guest
I can’t understand the negativity surrounding promo-rel. Competition is the driving force behind success. If your club is fighting to get into the PRL do you not think the fans will be getting right behind them? If you’re club is fighting to stay up, fans will be getting right behind them. The problem with the current system is that finals footy is the only exciting time of year when we only ever see crowds. If a club has had a few lean seasons and then lose the first few games of the season then the entire workings of the club are saving their legs for next year. If instead of going through the motions they are in a fight to stay out of the drop zone. Why would fans bother paying to get to the game? Why would they be televised? Say for example a team like Ipswich has a stellar year in the second tier league and are in contention for a playoff against say St. George to get into the Premier tier. The entire South East of Queensland will be getting to that game. The current system is boring and doing nothing to grow the game.
mushi
Guest
You should see how brutual real life cash flows are to the naive
Mr Spock
Guest
The Article lacked any logical reasoning on how a 1st tier or 2nd tier comp would work based on the points you have made and many many many others- Illogically it would end up with 4 or so clubs playing in his Premier league if this idea was ever implemented. Clubs demoted would disappear and those promoted wouldn't last more than a season before they too were relegated and disappeared. Logically No one would back a second tier team or even support them. Illogical idea
Mr Spock
Guest
Illogical article which has more holes in it than a block of Swiss Cheese
Mr Spock
Guest
NFL have 32 teams because there are 350 million or so people in the US for starters - no one would back second tier teams meaning players would not be paid much and any decent players would be signed by top tier clubs. It's illogical to think a promotion and relegation system in Australia would ever work based on the population and revenue streams available and the array of major sports played here - US(Population of 350 mill) have NFL/Baseball/basketball/Ice Hockey as their main sports mainly - Australian (population of 24 million or so) have - NRL/AFL/Cricket/Football/Union/Hockey/Netball/Baseball etc as major sports- many more major sports than most countries with higher populations have for instance.
Mr Spock
Guest
Your Article is Illogical from start to finish - teams playing or relegated to your second tier comp would have a major struggle of staying in the top tier if ever promoted(most would just disappear) as any decent players they may have would be playing in the top tier for starters - No one would sponsor these second tier teams and who would pay to show these games on FTA/Pay TV let alone many people turning up to watch these games at the ground or having suitable grounds to even have the capacity to hold many people.- Who would really fund these second tier teams as surely they could never be fulltime professional teams for instance. Illogically you don't seem to realise that the population of Australia is 24 or so million - people may support a variety of football codes(NRL/AFL/Union/Football) and other sports or none at all - 4 TV channels only - ABC Tax payer funded-could never show any games- Channel 7 - AFL channel/Olympics etc/ Channel 9 - NRL/Cricket- Channel 10- Currently in Administration and Pay TV-Fox- The revenue pie is only so big including corporate sponsorship and private backers for a whole range of sports which require this funding- No way known that there would any money from these sources available for any second tier RL Comp as you have suggested. Was this a Uni assignment outline of yours?? as well you need to do much much better and more thorough research than your have for your outline - sorry to say but as an assignment suggestion I would have to give you 1 out of 10 - no basis for your ideas/assumptions based on any credible research you have undertaken and or any references to these as well. Back to the drawing board I would say.
The Barry
Roar Guru
In response to your last question. I just don't think it can ever happen in this country. Certainly not remotely as things stand at the moment. We already have a second tier and there's limited appetite to watch it and broadcast it. I get that with promotion there's more meaning and more reason to watch but I think that only really applies to the top couple of games. Who is really going to watch 11th placed Adelaide versus 12th placed Rockhampton in the second division? It's just not going to generate the revenue necessary to build and support those clubs. Maybe that's sad, but it's the reality. The challenges around the cap and how promoted clubs go from second tier to a competitive NRL team between October and February border on insurmountable. Where do they get their players from? What happens when clubs get relegated? If the top tier cap is double the second, a team has to automatically get rid of half their squad to be under the cap. But then they've only got half a squad. So even axing half their squad won't work. Imagine being a fan, your team gets relegated and then they get rid of 80% of their squad. How is that good for the game? How does all this fit in with player contracts. Sign a superstar for five years, have an injury crisis, get relegated and then have to sell him. But who to? What if no one has super star money left in their cap? In the EPL there's no caps and dozens of other viable comps so players and clubs don't get stranded. We don't have that. Where does the revenue come from to restructure the comp? How do the new teams generate revenue? I get it's not nice to bring everything in sport back to money but that's the reality. People hear $1.8B TV deal and assume the NRL are rolling around in a big pile of money like Scrooge McDuck but it's not the case. The NRLs revenue is tenuous and anything that threatens it can't be considered. Proposals have to be rock solid and pretty much guarantee increased revenue. The NRL doesn't have the money to speculate on feel good ideas. There may be a solution but it will take much smarter people than me to sort it out.
Cam
Guest
To help untie the Sydney knot, start playing games that would be in Sydney.....not in Sydney. With the force gone, get 5 games over to Perth next season. Games in Adelaide, Darwin, Hobart, Wellington, Hamilton, Dunedin, Christchurch, Country NSW and Qld. Dragons to up their home games in Wollongong to 5 from 4. 2 games next season in Gosford. That is at least a start.
Bee bee
Guest
I like it Elvis. But the accountants are brutal on here.
Mushi
Guest
Can you do it without the buy in of the clubs you're marginalising? No
Bee bee
Guest
Ha ha. Yes I came out hard. As I said earlier, thanks for your time. It's a subject I feel passionate about and I am glad to be a little more educated on the subject. Your points are sound and well thought out. All the best to you and your party poodles (may they get back to being bull dogs soon.)
Bee bee
Guest
I will ask you one last question. Honest question. Can you see the benefits of making the second tier relevant? Not just a development League. Look beyond a fantasy Illawarra derby. Get your head in the clouds TB. Think big.
The Barry
Roar Guru
We've just established that the NSW cup, the Qld cup and NRL teams lower grades system would all need re-structuring. That comes with a financial cost. Of course it does. Setting up new clubs comes at a financial cost. Even just getting a second tier club that wins promotion ready for the NRL will come at a financial cost. Of course rugby league will change but I guarantee you that this sort of wishful "wouldn't it be nice to have a club in such and such" will not take place in the foreseeable future. Expansion, relegation, re-structuring will only occur in instances where the NRL can guarantee the change will add value to the TV deal and be relatively self sufficient. The NRL quite literally can't do any more than that. It's in the news at the moment that they're trying to borrow $30M to pay clubs. They don't have mountains of cash lying around to set up and add new clubs on a whim. It really is that simple. You don't need an economics degree, as long as you can balance your family budget you should be able to comprehend it. The author wrote a nice article about how he thinks the NRL should be set up. But he based it on numbers that are just completely made up and that the game has no capacity to pay. The very nature of this model jeopardises the NRL's main income stream. It may be nice to dream about but it would bankrupt the NRL within five years. It more than doubles the NRL's main expense - player salaries - without offering any guarantee on increased revenue. That cripples the concept there and then before we talk about set up costs and logistical costs of running a true national / international competition. You can't run a corner store like that let alone a multi-million dollar sport. Even the author has conceded that his numbers don't work. But it's all about the numbers, not the quality of the idea. All of this takes money that the game doesn't have to spend up front without any guarantee of revenue. Please don't get butt hurt about being called names. I'm sorry if you are. But you came out of the gates hard at me for no reason - I just responded. You chose the tone of our correspondence. I haven't taken it personally and am happy to leave it behind if you are.
Bee bee
Guest
1. I am serious 2. The structure is there. Hence, no financial cost. 3. Rugby League has frequently restructured over its history. And you know it will again. Change is inevitable. 4. The author of the article proposed a simple alternative to the current symbiotic relationship between NRL and second tier teams. Although a Raiders fan might see the current system as more parasitic than symbiotic. Anyway.... Back to my Economics assignment and Bieber album. Life is tough for a 15 yr old girl these days.
mushi
Guest
Well if most clubs act like this then the NRL has an insurmountable problem with regards to the administration of its clubs and the players have an issue with the innumerate nature of their representatives. Because first there isn’t any financial incentive. If the option is to play with team A and get paid 1.5m or play with team B and I get paid 1.5m when they win the premiership there is no financial incentive to join your team. All it does is pay me what other teams were will to offer to begin with and potentially less if I don’t help win the premiership every year. The consequence of this is that you probably won’t even field what is a theoretical 11-12m team. Because you only have 80% of the resources you are more likely to lose, which means players are less likely to get bonuses which means their agents should reduce the value of those options. This should spiral to the point that the most likely outcome is relegation. So by using a limited resource to over insure your risk you just ensured the thing you were worried might happen. Even better, if you do embark on this strategy it reduces the risk to all the other teams with the kicker that, if the NRLPA get the revenue sharing they are asking for and the cap is used as a wage constraining tool, you’ll still have to hand over funds to ensure the minimum salary is met. That’s why the way I think it works in super league is mutual right to break the contract upon relegation.
mushi
Guest
It balances out the Naive Nancies
mushi
Guest
Yep the homogenisation malarky is BS. Looking at EPL is ridiculous it is comparing a game with unstructured positioning and routinely contested possession to a game with controlled possession and structured positioning. Expecting the same variance in playing styles is like expecting the earth to have the same gravitational pull as the sun.
mushi
Guest
What you are suggesting is a low risk attempt to organically grow tier 2 support. Which is night and day with the above article and half of the comments you’ve “agreed” to. The only commonality is you think eventually promotion relegation would be good. The strategy you’ve outlined is highly unlikely to make inroads into redefining how Australian’s watch their top sports leagues (there isn’t any real catalyst for change) but it also low risk. That’s the type of “why not try” that I Yes the NRL are risk averse all sports leagues are because the cost of failure is more than that of typical company that is an equity investment. In a business you are stewarding a bunch of investors’ money and can make risk reward decisions appropriately. In sports a century plus of history and organic development that you can’t just throw money at to rebuild if you torch it to the ground. Just look at how super league is remembered in some of the comments you agreed to – if that was a business where some of the management walked out started their own shop and then were bought back do you think 20 years later that a many customers would be venting about it?
mushi
Guest
Um high risks are actually reasons why it can’t work. That’s a pretty fundamental part of the word’s meaning
The Barry
Roar Guru
Why can't Newcastle have two? Are you serious? Because the teams are the first grade and NSW cup teams of the same club. What you're effectively saying is that if the Bulldogs win NSW cup that they get promoted to NRL and we have two Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs sides in the NRL. That's exactly what you've suggested with two Newcastle sides.