2017 was a tumultuous year for rugby union in Australia, but 2018 has started off on a positive foot with Rugby Australia announcing a pay increase for Super Rugby players on Wednesday morning in their new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Under the new CBA, players will continue to earn a 29 per cent share of the professional game’s total revenue under a continuing revenue sharing model.
The deal, which comes into effect immediately, will see the four remaining Super Rugby teams – the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies and Rebels – have their squad sizes increased by five and an overall pay increase of around ten per cent.
The pay increase means contracts will average out at $225,000 in 2018, which is a big win for rugby players in Australia after the previous average sat at under $200,000.
It means the Super Rugby salary cap increases to $5.5 million, with a 15 per cent discount built in to reward long-serving players.
Teams will be permitted to sign between 36 and 40 players under the new agreement, but even then, the number of professional players with one less team will shrink from 175 to 160, meaning a net loss of 15 players.
Players will also be given an extra week’s vacation, which must be taken as a block under the new deal.
It’s also been announced that the women’s and men’s sevens teams will earn the same amount, with entry-level salaries for full-time players the same as those in Super Rugby squads.
In another win for women, Wallaroos players will receive Test match payments for the first time in 2018. However, there was no mention of the new Super W competition in the press release sent by Rugby Australia on the new CBA. Female rugby players plying their trade for a Super W side will have their costs covererd, but won’t be paid a wage.
Outgoing Rugby Australia CEO Bill Pulver said it was a “tough but fair negotiation” and he was happy with the outcome.
(AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
“[The negotiation] has provided an outcome that ultimately sets our game on a strong footing heading into the final three years of our current broadcast agreement,” Pulver said.
“While we continue to invest heavily in the professional game, Rugby Australia and RUPA have worked together to ensure that the game can address the issue of funding at the community level.
“We have struck a balance that will allow greater investment in the community game, while ensuring that our high performance programs are supported to deliver the on-field success that rugby fans demand and deserve.
“The new CBA is the first of its kind to incorporate all professional programs, including our sevens teams and the Wallaroos, and importantly addresses key issues of pay equality and player welfare.”
Rugby Union Players Association president Dean Mumm said it was critical to secure the new CBA.
“With the previous CBA expiring at the end of 2017, securing this agreement has been a priority for all parties and provides the certainty and stability to put recent challenges behind us,” said Mumm.
“This agreement allows all parties to draw a line in the sand and move forward towards a more prosperous future for Australian rugby.
With the Super Rugby competition being reshaped and the current broadcast deal ending in 2020, it’s a short-term CBA. The previous CBA had been in effect since 2003.
Two South African teams were cut alongside the Western Force for the 2018 season and the future of Super Rugby appears to be hanging in the balance. It’s unclear if any teams from the African nation will compete beyond the end of the current TV deal in 2020.
The re-shaping of the competition left Rugby Australia in a position where they decided to cut the Force, with finances thought to be one of the key issues for the Western Australian club.
At the time, Bill Pulver and Cameron Clyne both indicated there were financial issues which contributed to the decision.
(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
“We did an exhaustive analysis, a massive spreadsheet on all the variables that went into this decision,” said Pulver.
“Some of them community-based, some of them high-performance based and frankly at the end of the day the best decision for Australian rugby was to remove the Western Force.
“Financially, it made the most sense.”
Chairman Cameron Clyne also spoke about the decision to save the Rebels instead of the Force.
“There has been a lot of public support and a lot of genuine financial support from people in Melbourne that have come out,” said Clyne.
“Whilst we do appreciate people like Andrew [Forrest] getting involved it came very late in the piece.
“Part of the issue was the Force were virtually bankrupt and had to be bailed out.”
2017 was an extremely difficult year for Australian Super Rugby clubs, with only the Brumbies making the finals as winners of the Australian conference and no team recording a win against any New Zealand side for the duration of the 2017 season.
With players being split more evenly across the remaining four teams, it’s hoped they will be much more competitive in 2018.
piru
Roar Rookie
interesting we're still not getting reports on the backdoor deals https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/western-force
Train Without A Station
Guest
I’m not underestimating anything. I’m just assuming that the people who have had the power to vote out the RA board if they desire, by not doing so, condone their decisions.
Bakkies
Guest
You are underestimating how unpopular your mates in the RA are out in clubland. Further inaction and more levies will lead to them being thrown out themselves. As for the Reds they were unable to sign Force players and Genia yet the Rabble were allowed to sign 13 and Genia while going over the cap.
Train Without A Station
Guest
The problem is the people with experience running the game at all levels in Australia have done their jobs so poorly you wouldn’t want them to be part of the ARU/RA.
Train Without A Station
Guest
So they are going to revolt against the same people they supported continually? RA can’t act against the wishes of the state unions collectively, without risking being voted out. Are you saying that NSW and QLD have been deeply unhappy this whole time but just never got around to using their voting power?
Train Without A Station
Guest
Apparently the average is based on Wallaby salaries + super salaries divided by total players.
James P
Guest
I doubt SA will move northwards. The Pro14 has been a complete disaster so far for the South African sides. From a playing perspective, the Cheetahs are doing ok with 6 wins from 11 and mid table in the easier conference. The Kings have lost all 11 games. From a home crowd perspective - Cheetahs - 13,982 v Zebre, 6,980 v Leinster, 4,589 v Ospreys, 5,964 v Glasgow, 3,648 v Edinburgh, 3,457 v Scarlets - Kings - 3,011 v Leinster, 4,062 v Zebre, 2,836 v Ulster, 3,619 v Scarlets, 3,600 v Edinburgh For comparison, the Kings had over 10k in their last match in Super rugby and an earlier match of over 20k.
Bakkies
Guest
Only one team has so many Western Force players to call on.
Bakkies
Guest
'I dont have a problem with RA having decided to retain the Rebels then working with VRU to shore up funding for 2018 and beyond, nor RA using their connections with Infrastructure Victoria through Sherry to help this process. I dont think that is a conflict for Sherry.' If that is not a conflict then I don't know what is. They still haven't released the figures to the Victorian taxpayers for what they are forking out for the loss making venture.
Bakkies
Guest
'I’m trying to work out where your beef is here.' It's not hard really. - Only one side has been sold for a dollar twice - Enough said about selling it to Andrew Cox - The same side has cost the governing body at least 30 million dollars in un-budgeted funding. They have also had 13 million dollars in debt written off - They sold their business to a union that is fighting hard to stay afloat and I just don't see where the business plan to say viable without bailouts from the RA is - They reappointed the boys club and Cattermole to the board - I see no evidence of them signing a new major sponsor Yet you are happy for the RA to keep the side that is costing the grassroots and other unions funding. The 2016 Annual Report said that the VRU AND the Melbourne Rebels had voting powers. http://issuu.com/australianrugbyunion/docs/high_res_copy_of_annual_report_-_op?e=24291087/48091789
andrewM
Guest
Vic Rugby did have a representative on the board - Stooke didn't just represent WA
DaveR
Guest
Bakkies, I'm trying to work out where your beef is here. I was against the culling of the Force, and think the handling of the issue by RA was appalling, such that all RA directors should be removed. From my observation, RA significantly damaged the national game, Super Rugby, and the club scene during 2017, but the directors seem to think "it wasnt my fault". I dont have a problem with RA having decided to retain the Rebels then working with VRU to shore up funding for 2018 and beyond, nor RA using their connections with Infrastructure Victoria through Sherry to help this process. I dont think that is a conflict for Sherry. After all, Vic rugby did not have a representative on the RA board (which it should have now) wheras WA rugby did have Geoff Stooke. My position is that the RA directors dont have enough knowledge and experience of running the game at all levels in Australia, the evidence of which is the damage done to the sport across the country in 2017. And that board is still in place except Pulver.
Bakkies
Guest
That's BS TWAS that 5 million or so yet will go straight down the money pit that is the Rebels who are still not solvent, have no major sponsor and are owned by a state union with little money in the bank. The Reds will get an advance to cover their payouts and incompetence.
Bakkies
Guest
It is brilliant Andy the salary cap goes up in the year where the RA is guaranteed to lose money due to no June tests and a truncated 4 Nations.
Bakkies
Guest
Did Infrastructure Victoria have anything to do with the new facilities for the Gold Coast Titans of Australian Rugby.
Bakkies
Guest
Get ready for another grassroots revolt because they are getting nothing extra this year. The NSWRU had to move because they couldn't stand the effluent from the RA's boardroom. They and Qld who have benefited the least from the RA's mismanagement hold the voting power to turf the parasites out.
AndyS
Guest
Can't see it myself. If they couldn't make it work first time around, there will be no chance once no-one trusts the administration. There isn't going to be any fundamental change in how rugby is run so WA will always be first up on the chopping block. I think the expectation that history is only going to repeat will see people just not get involved again. Even if RA wanted to, after what happened this time around there is probably not much they could do that would convince people otherwise. I'd question whether the only stakeholders that they're interested in would want to try again anyway - I think they'd sooner start from scratch and blow a ton of cash on West Sydney instead.
AndyS
Guest
Oh, and apparently more this year..."The salary cap of $5 million will be swelled to $5.5 million for 2019 and 2020, but there is no set figure for 2018" (http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/female-players-benefit-from-new-rugby-union-cba-20180110-h0g1m8.html)
AndyS
Guest
175 players @ average $200k = $35M 160 players @ average $225k = $36M So all the money that used to be spent by five teams, plus an additional $1M. But as you note, the Super rugby teams were $25M of that (5 x $5M). Now it is only $22M (4 x $5.5M). So depending on how much of the SR salary cap is paid by RA, they will need to find somewhere between $1M and $4M over and above what they paid before. And more interestingly, the previous $10M difference between SR salaries and the total to SR players a) increases to $14M, and b) leaves an awful lot of money unaccounted for if they've been truthful about Wallaby top-ups.
ScottD
Guest
My wife and I just purchased a 2018 Dockers membership. First time ever and it only happened because the Force were axed. The statement by Clyne that the "Force were virtually bankrupt" is such a cynical lie that it beggars belief. The absolute gall of the pratt astounds me. How could they be even close to bankruptcy when all their costs were guaranteed by Twiggy?