There has been so much debate around the NRL’s most profitable club, the Brisbane Broncos, and their inept performance against reigning back-to-back premiers Sydney Roosters last Thursday night.
From Anthony Seibold’s remarkable statistician memory recalling a Sydney Roosters thrashing to the Melbourne Storm in 2016 to the Broncos players not facing their own media obligations to explain the defeat and a spicy old-fashioned rugby league feud between NRL hall of famer Gorden Tallis and Matt Lodge played out in the media, it’s been one hell of a week for the Brisbane Broncos as they try to escape the furnace.
But is Brisbane’s downfall to do with their current recruitment and retention or has it got to do with the current NRL salary cap model and how our future NRL stars are profiting earlier with over-inflated contracts before serving a rugby league apprenticeship?
Like any trade, you level up, you do the hard work on less pay and once you’ve climbed that mountain you’re fully qualified. The NRL should not be any different – in fact major sports organisations like the NFL and NBA apply this methodology in their contract systems.
News Corp reported on 23 May the NRL rookies contracts could be capped to limit player market blowouts, and since the salary cap era has exploded from $5.5 million in 2014 to $9.5 million today there has been some questionable spending on future talent.
Most infamous are Ash Taylor and Anthony Milford. Both signed their mega-deals in 2017 and have since failed to live up to the million-dollar expectations.
Now, we can’t begrudge a player trying to earn the most they can during a playing career that might end tomorrow but, but we do need a model that helps clubs develop and keep players longer while also enabling them to keep their experienced players at their club to maintain the fabric and culture of a team.
During the 1980s and 1990s some older players would give back and play reserve grade, giving the younger players a chance to play against seasoned veterans to learn their trade and understand how to become an NRL player.
As we look to the future, the NRL need to introduce rookie scale contracts from ages 18 to 23. These contracts would increase incrementally annually. They would still reward players if they break out and make a State of Origin team or play for the Kangaroos, but these pay upgrades would be sensible. Once they’re free agents, players can use their achievements as a bargaining tool for their next contract.
Protecting players and clubs from player agents who manipulate their true value before their time is also important.
David Fifita in line for a huge contract bump at the ripe old age of 20 years old. He has played three State of Origin games but will soon be one of the pack leaders and one of the highest-paid at Brisbane after only 37 first-grade games.
David Fifita (Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
I’m all for players earning as much as they can, but paying players millions of dollars on potential does a disservice to the player, who hasn’t completely earnt that contract. The ones who suffer are the poor fans of the club, as they get screwed from roll-of-the-dice decisions of the administration.
What Thursday night highlighted for the Broncos was that even a rich club is not immune to questionable spending. Mortgaging the future on potential is a risky ride, especially when there is no-one in key positions to properly show them the ropes.
Nothing beats experience at the top level, and I hope the NRL looks to create reform to keep teams at a competitive level.
Zavjalova
Roar Rookie
Yeah players who sign there first contract shouldnt be paid anymore than 80000 for their first year or 2 regardless of how good they are
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Not sure I agree with all of this, but I like the concept in part. Looking across at the AFL, all draftee's are guaranteed a two year contract on a set amount of money (as negotiated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement). Those kids then also receive match payments for any games they play in those 2 years. Its a good system, stops the crazy situation we are seeing with the Souths kid being paid way too much, although it does limit earning potential for those youngsters in the first two years. Although same may say that's not the worst thing that could happen. Doesn't stop them signing a million dollar contract at 20yo, but they have to show they are worth it during the early stages of their career.
Rob
Guest
After revisiting my thought regarding this article I sort of agree with Max. The Cowboys made a decision to not give better money to Ponga, Kikua, B. Smith and others around the time they locked in Hess, Morgan and JT13 for bigger deals. They kept a few young ones and let the others go. They had Ponga but they sort of lost him through a desire to keep Thurston playing and older players were held onto. It's about balancing the youth and experience, cap money and squad balance. The successful clubs get it right but sometimes a couple of years rebooting is required. The biggest issue is 3rd party loop holes in my opinion. The Roosters have an advantage in some of these areas.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Yeah i really don't understand how it's an issue because some clubs make poor investments. They do this with experienced players too. The other issue it would create is players would then not sign deals that lock them in beyond 23, which is what the clubs want to achieve with these deals. It seems to be based on the author thinking young guys should have to pay their dues, so clubs should be prevented from offering them good contracts because he doesn't want to see them paid a lot.
Nat
Roar Guru
Haha, no ones cares about an economic arguement, until you throw a jibe in there. To bad they punted ol Reg from this site, he would've been into that one for sure. :laughing: :laughing:
Paul
Roar Guru
had to get those last 3 words in Nat :happy:
Adam
Roar Guru
*cough* Hunt
Nat
Roar Guru
Economics 101, something is worth what someone is willing to pay. You're talking about limiting a players income between 18-23yo, most careers don't last that long. What happens to Payne Haas when he's represented Aust for 3yrs, does his knee and gone from the game by 23yo? All he has recieved for his 3yrs service is $350k but his front row partner has received $2.5m. Just like choosing to play league as a profession is a risky and limited occupation, clubs need to make smart choices around their players. Big contracts are a gamble but that's their risk - unless you're Souths...
Paul
Roar Guru
"I’m all for players earning as much as they can, but paying players millions of dollars on potential does a disservice to the player, who hasn’t completely earnt that contract. " I think you've missed the point of any contract, Migos. There are probably a dozen or more experienced players on serious bucks who have signed up for big money but not delivered. At my Dragons virtually the whole team fits that description, but Ben Hunt & Corey Norman are two serious underachievers who we took a gamble on and it hasn't paid off, ditto with Shaun Johnson. Parra fans could argue the big bucks paid to Moses hasn't be justified till the past season and a bit On the other hand as I said yesterday, guys like Payne Haas, Corey Horsburgh & Nic Cotric deserve the big dollars because they're showing what good players they are right now, though none are older than 22.
Rob9
Roar Guru
Interesting read and idea. Aren't South luring this 17yo 'next big thing' from Kings on a (reported) $500k/year deal for x4 years? Spending 5% of your cap on a school kid is insanity for mine. Not sure I agree with the rookie contracts idea though. If clubs are willing to pay it then good luck to them. Some times it pays off while other times they get burnt. What I am against is throwing any $$ at all at school kids- regardless of the sums. Professional clubs should play no role in the lives of adolescents (beyond their attachment as fans) for countless reason. There should be a 'look but no touch' rule until the players 18th birthday to then sign them on their first NRL contract in their 19th year. NRL clubs are promising talented kids and their families the world, all at an age when they're not even old enough to vote.
max power
Guest
seems to have worked out for Kalyn Ponga? maybe we should put a limit on veteran halfback contracts after the failures of Shaun Johnson and Ben Hunt? other issue is that young stars will leave the NRL for other codes. that cant happen in the NBA and NFL. Milford was not a rookie when the Broncos signed him ridiculous idea
Rob
Guest
It's a conundrum because obviously some young talent is superior to others. Just like established players some are more valuable than others. I do agree that too much too soon is detrimental to the game and the player. Maybe a cap for young players until 25 games. Some players mature earlier and some later. Maybe a cap on a players experience will encourage good kids to go to weaker teams for opportunities rather than be stock piled at the stronger clubs. Stronger clubs will then be mindful of holding their older stars. Harry Grant is a good example.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Ironically , spending 800 big ones or whatever it was on the experienced Darius Boyd was a big gamble as well and there are plenty of other examples of big money gambles on experienced players including Foran.