Less money in business is pretty much universally considered a bad thing. Yet the NRL would have you believe that third-party agreements (TPAs) going down in value by almost $2 million is a win.
It was revealed this week that the total number of TPAs for 2019 was $6 million, compared to $7.8 million in 2018.
While fairly acknowledging that the TPA market copped a significant hit due to the retirements of Billy Slater and Johnathan Thurston – the Cowboys’ total went from $350,000 last year to just $16,000, which gives you an idea how much JT was on – NRL chief operating officer Nick Weeks was keen to spin it as a positive.
“The reduction reflects the retirement of some of the game’s elite players and the effectiveness of additional checks and balances we have put in place to identify noncompliance with the rules are working,” Weeks said.
“We recognised the genuine concerns our clubs and fans had about third-party agreements. That’s why we introduced more strenuous measures to ensure these arrangements are genuine arms-length deals.”
(NRL.com)
He’s not opened with “good news everyone”, but Weeks has not addressed the elephant in the room – that what should be a significant source of player income has dropped in a dramatic fashion.
It’s not just a loss in monetary value either, with NRL.com reporting “the number of players with agreements dropping from 94 to 81 in the past 12 months”, while “total agreements has also dropped from 205 to 172”.
JT and Billy the Kid were once-in-a-generation players, sure, but they don’t account for 33 total deals – nor, shockingly, are they 13 people.
This is a problem and it needs to be addressed.
If the NRL’s additional checks and balances to identify noncompliance have resulted in $1.8 million being slashed from an income stream, those checks and balances need to be checked and balanced.
TPAs have long been considered a murky world and tend to be the source – or certainly where the finger is pointed – when a salary cap breach occurs.
But just because it’s been poorly implemented to date doesn’t mean it’s an inherently bad system.
A third party deciding to sponsor a player is a good thing – again, it means more money coming into the game – and when it’s a multimillion-dollar part of rugby league business, HQ should be charged with cultivating it.
Instead they have put in place rules that have seen this particular market dip by almost 25 per cent.
In any business in the world, when one of your revenue streams goes down by a quarter and you can isolate that your own systems are the root cause, you don’t celebrate those systems.
Nick, real easy for you. More money equals good. Less money equals bad.
A fair system needs to be put in place, but if your idea of fair means you lost $1.8 million, you need to re-evaluate.
The NRL should be the biggest advocates for TPAs – and in fact they actually organise extra contracts for certain players as “whole of game sponsorship”. Of course the fact that these particular sponsorships are not included in the TPA breakdown means we’re back to square one on murkiness, with NRL.com noting that the Roosters – paupers that they are, with only $69,000 in TPAs – are benefitting significantly on account of both James Tedesco and Cooper Cronk getting some (probably a lot) of that sweet, sweet, totally-not-a-TPA-because-it’s-for-the-whole-game money.
I get it, because Cronk and Tedesco are amazing players and seem like nice people – totally the kind of fellas you’d want promoting your game.
(Brendon Thorne/Getty Images)
But head office should be obligated to help all clubs get similar deals for players.
And it’d be manageable too, because the part about these deals that is generally ignored is that it’s not free money. A player signs a deal with a third party and then actually has to do work in order to be paid.
Sure, it’s probably pretty cruisy work – appear in a few shonky ads, attend an opening, maybe speak at a corporate event – but it’s work all the same, and players at all clubs have skills and abilities that go beyond the footy field.
Why doesn’t head office create a register for all players and make it searchable based on a company’s needs and budget as well as a player’s abilities (and be honest about these abilities, because way too many boring, boring blokes need to be told they’re not media personalities)?
Only got a couple of grand? You’re probably not going to get Benji Marshall to spruik your goodies, but it may turn out that one of the Tigers’ lesser lights will do it for that price. And who knows, he may turn out to be a charming, hardworking young man whose presence increases sales, and a great business relationship could grow from it.
We whinge about players being having too much spare time. Well, how about the NRL tries a bit harder to put them to work?
It’s two birds with one stone as well – increasing incomes while also helping players prepare for life after football (or ‘life’ as the rest of the world calls it).
Look, maybe this year was a one-off, an adjustment due to these new rules, and we’ll see that $1.8 million return with interest in 2020.
But the NRL should be working hard to ensure this is the case.
Because – really, I need to say it? – losing $1.8 million, a dip of almost 25 per cent, is not a good news story.
mushi
Roar Guru
I'd also like to ask the hamster, why have you proffered nothing to say why a salary cap would indeed deliver the outcome you said is obvious?
mushi
Roar Guru
But it's the "way of the world these days" you need to deal with hamsters
Joshua C Burnell
Guest
If these were real then the NRL would publish the player and the company. After all these are promotional deals how could they not be publicly available information in the first place.
Daz
Roar Rookie
One has to wonder why the RLPA isnt all over this...
Succhi
Roar Rookie
I’d like to see some of the successful players mentoring others on how to attract and manage TPAs. To learn how to sell yourself, behave in public, speak at events, etc can only help players for life after football, particularly those players that aren’t on the big coin. I think one of the reasons for the downturn is also the decline of the “characters” in the game. They are so stereotyped and boring.
mushi
Roar Guru
Fair enough. I have explained it multiple times on here, though to be fair I’ve just borrowed from thousands of others academic research and basic common sense so passing it of as my “idea” or “explanation” seems grandiose. It’s just basic common sense. To believe salary cap provides an even playing field you have to believe the following: Coaches don’t matter Training facilities don’t matter Emotional state and enjoyment don’t impact how anyone performs Players are utterly indifferent to winning or losing Making a rep team doesn’t matter Cost of living doesn’t matter The desire to live in every city or suburb is equally interchangeable across the world (you know despite house prices suggesting otherwise) Players have no ties to family what so ever People have no ties to their current employer Players have no relationship with team mates or other people People have no risk aversion what so ever Players are immune to brand attachment to teams Every person is equally, and perfectly, adept at not just gauging talent but assessing the exact path of development Players are entirely indifferent to role and opportunity to play There is no variance in post career earnings between players Basically you have to believe players are just lobotomised half-humans and that every front office person should be on minimum wage (as there is no capacity to deliver value) and that there is perfect parity across the planet. The salary cap is predominantly a cost control mechanism. We haven’t had industrial action in leagues around the globe because universally players in various competitions hate the idea of a competitive playing field where as owners are altruists. Does it remove polarising gaps in distribution of power, sure, but it will never come close to parity and the reasons are obvious. That you needed it explained is disappointing.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
And because it can't be guaranteed what happens when the money doesn't turn up. We lost Gasnier for a while because of this.
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
And yet you have not explained how your statement is true or relevant. Its the way of the world these days, you can just say things and say they are true without any need to back it up. "Salary cap doesn't work", OK then, we'll all just go along with that shall we because Mushi said so, must be true. Well done.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And importantly the Whole of Game Agreements are like central contracts in other sports. They are available to the player, regardless of where he plays. The club that gets the benefit is only the club that secures him on an even playing field.
Bernie Vinson
Guest
Club TPAs total Storm ($809,998) Broncos ($349,852) Panthers ($233,333) Sharks ($211,952) Rabbitohs ($198,591) Knights ($181,275) Sea Eagles ($148,718) Wests Tigers ($132,458) Dragons ($82,951) Eels ($80,166) Roosters ($68,966) Bulldogs ($59,680) Raiders ($45,333) Warriors ($27,591) Titans ($18,153) Cowboys ($15,667)
Bernie Vinson
Guest
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/how-the-roosters-relied-on-only-69k-in-tpas-yet-went-back-to-back-20191213-p53jt3.html
Bernie Vinson
Guest
The big clubs in big towns can always be in the finals - Melbourne, Brisbane and surprisingly Cooper Cronk is unlikely to be on a TPA given Roosters alleged low figure could he be covered under whole of game figure but Storm having 10% more in salary cap is bizarre.
mushi
Roar Guru
And of course it is a mystical being that manages to visit every house on the planet in one evening riding reindeer
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Of course the salary cap delivers an even playing field, its unregulated and unreportable TPA's that cause the unevenness......
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Its pretty clear that TPA's should be arms-length deals, so not sure why you think the club has work to do in this matter. The club needs to be absent in the whole matter for it to be a TPA.
Andrew
Guest
Whole of Game Agreements are essentially given to players whose image is used to promote the game. If the NRL are profiting off their image, they should be entitled to be paid for that. If some clubs are smarter at identifying who those players could be, then more power to them. They should be rewarded, not held back with the clubs who have mediocre administration.
mushi
Roar Guru
Re reading some of the articles I think I get what you’re driving at: the gap between “arms length” TPA’s and total non-salary cap amounts. And I both agree with your statement and disagree with its spirit. Yes, you probably benefit from understand accounting conceptually to understand how the NRL is treating these in different ways… but that’s hardly some cloak and dagger misdirection. That's like saying knowing the rules of the NRL helps with watching the game Some of that $3.3m are allowances expressly allowed under the rules with a cap (motor vehicles, non NRL vocational training/education) or require NRL consent as reasonable(, medical insurance reasonable relocation expenses etc). Given 1.6m of that could be taken up on motor vehicles that total figure actually looks really light on. The whole of league carve out also makes sense. If the NRL is saying they effectively nominated it or the contract seems largely independent of who the player plays (i.e. contracts with partners of the NRL, payments as community ambassadors outside of the club’s target area, contracts related to rep team etc) for then why allocate it to a club? Or should they allocate 1/16th to each club?
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
Does seem to be the mysterious WoGA's which the NRL declines to publish. "The NRL released details of this year's "arms-length TPAs", which amount to $2.7 million of the $6 million in total TPAs. They didn't disclose the breakdown of the remaining $3.3 million, which is what they call "whole-of-game arrangements" - money from the NRL's key sponsors like Holden and Channel Nine." From this fans could think the salary cap is working and all teams are equal. More fool us. Clearly some clubs have found a way around the cap to keep their lesser/medium talent, especially when $1 million contracts are out there for the top players and most players in first grade are getting overs $330 000 per year.
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
The missing $3.3 mill does seem to be the mysterious WoGA which the NRL doesn't seem inclined to include or publish. "The NRL released details of this year's "arms-length TPAs", which amount to $2.7 million of the $6 million in total TPAs. They didn't disclose the breakdown of the remaining $3.3 million, which is what they call "whole-of-game arrangements" - money from the NRL's key sponsors like Holden and Channel Nine."
mushi
Roar Guru
Well if you can point to the other sources we might be able to help clear up the disparity.