The Rugby League World Cup has been the backdrop for continuing negotiations between the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) and NRL executives over a new collective Bargaining agreement.
Many of the game’s top athletes have criticised the NRL for attempting to lowball the players financially, despite huge revenue being generated across the code.
As a rugby union fan, the chasm that exists in relation to the representation of rugby union players in Australia as opposed to their league counterparts, as well as the incomparable financial situations both codes find themselves in, has become apparent.
There has been an incremental increase in the NRL salary cap each year of the modern era. In fact, the cap has more than doubled over the last ten years, from $4.4 million in 2012 to $10 million in 2022. The currently disputed proposed CBA would see the cap rise to $11 million in 2023.
Compare this to an increase of $4.4 million in 2012 to $5.5 million in 2022 for Super Rugby AU.
Importantly, neither the RLPA nor the players themselves have held back from expressing their dissatisfaction with certain terms of the proposed CBA, searching for longer-term health security and an increase in the minimum wage.
While the outcome may differ slightly from current reports, it looks likely the average contract will reach $400,000 and the new minimum to be close to $125,000.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
This type of advocacy is completely void from Australian Super players.
Why can our league counterparts stand up for themselves and we cannot? Because the RLPA has a financial seat at the table, while RUPA is a limp arm of the RA executive.
Players in Australia exist at the unrestricted discretion of RA. The emergency COVID CBA amendment that was thrust upon players during the 2020 season saw a 60 per cent wage reduction for an initial six-month period, while lower-paid players were placed on jobkeeper payments. Wallabies payments were also slashed in the amendment.
The players had roughly 24 hours to agree to the cuts or be stood down, placed on JobKeeper payments and have their registrations captured.
While times were extreme, these measures trod the lines of legality. A mandate was handed down from RA and passed on to the players by RUPA.
The 2020 COVID pay reductions were a fast-paced example of the lack of representation the players in Australia have.
Famously, a Reds trio refused to agree to the 2020 amendment. Where was the advocacy for them from RUPA? There cannot be a reasonable expectation of significant increases to player income or wellbeing if there is no driving force behind them.
Can anyone remember a time where RUPA or Australian players came out and stated they would like different or improved outcomes? An increase in the salary cap in line with generated revenue?
The RLPA is a disrupting force for the NRL, in the best possible sense. They create an environment where there will be some push back and disagreement in order to improve outcomes in the sport from the perspective of players.
The salary cap has risen 25 per cent in rugby union in ten years. League’s cap has risen 150 per cent. While the failings of RA commercially have no doubt inhibited the chances of improved financial outcomes, it probably doesn’t help that there isn’t anyone at the table supporting the players’ interests.
Either RA is acting so fair and equitably that there was never any need for push back from RUPA, or RUPA are not doing anywhere near enough.
You be the judge.
G money
Roar Rookie
another by-product of ra and the toxic relationship with nz. go alone now. reinvigorate this decaying sport
Jacko
Roar Rookie
I cant argue your positiveness, Mark. Im not so sure I share it but keep it up as we need it in the sport. Personally I like the NZ model of SR/SRW ( tie a SRW team to each current SR team across Aus and NZ ) in Feb to June and NPC from july/Aug to oct but RA need to work out what suits them based around their club scene.
Mark Baptist
Guest
This makes so much sense. I apologise if this isn't the case, but I'm reading that in this scenario, the Super Rugby/Super W teams could field reserves teams (for lack of a better term) in my AXV Premiership. Further, given the 19 week schedule v Super Rugby's 16 weeks (Super W 5 weeks), the different finals systems, and allowing for the scheduling, Super Rugby/Super W stars could, theoretically, play in the AXV Premiership from time to time, increasing fan interest and attendance etc.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
I see a NPC as a major priority for Aus rugby. Without it it's just moving the problems around. Super rugby is a failure for Aus because of not having an NPC level comp. That is where I see it worth borrowing money for.
Mark Baptist
Guest
If RA goes it alone thats great. Hope it works. Thank you for demonstrating your patience, reslience and gratitude on this matter, Jacko. While I concede there may be losses to start, a domestic comp on the lines of the Australian XV Premiership would eventually turn a profit on both sides and change the game as we know it for the better: the Qld and NSW team rivalries alone would be something to see.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Had RA not been propped up by loans from World Rugby ($13.8m) and HSBC ($6.9m) in 2020, they would have struggled to stay afloat. An additional $4.5m loan from World Rugby was approved on 10 March, 2021. RA lost 27 mil in 2020. The domestic comp you speak of lost massive money. The final rated fantastic but the comp didnt. Do some research on the comps actual figures, not just read the headline around the final. Womens rugby will definitely require MILLIONS in investment and it will lose money. If RA goes it alone thats great. Hope it works.
Mark Baptist
Guest
It was mentioned earlier that the BIL and RWC on the horizon have given Rugby Australia the future revenue to borrow against to survive until then, and a debt line from Ares Capital is already in place. Note I've also been using the overwhelming popularity and success of Super Rugby AU in 2021 as a guide for this AXV Premiership: the Wallabies players thought SR AU was phenomenal. In fact, the massive spend on women's rugby to make it fully professional in this case would be of benefit not only to the women, but also to Australian rugby and rugby in general - I don't know why anyone would complain about that.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Mark, the travel to Perth is a lot further than the travel to NZ, Brisbane to Melbourne not much less, so you will have teams travelling all over Aus and Im not seeing the savings. Aus doesnt give NZ any money so I dont know where you get that from. NZ gets around 100mil a year and Aus get 33 mil so again I dont know how you arrive at that thought. Womans rugby does not pay for itself as an amature sport let alone a pro sport, so there will be a massive spend again to pay for that. And then you say that the "HIGHER SALARIES and SUPERIOR level of competition will keep the Wallabies here. How will it be a superior comp? How can RA be going broke with current salaries yet suddenly afford double the amount of higher ones? Surely if Aus is such a massive market compared to NZs then wouldnt they already be going great guns? Nothing makes sense Im afraid.
Mark Baptist
Guest
I believe in this case that the costs will be lower by virtue of not having to spend money on international travel, as well as eliminating having to give money to New Zealand and generating higher revenue within Australia, while the higher salaries and superior level of competition on offer would give the incentive for the current crop of Wallabies to remain. Also, any broadcast deal here would be of a higher value than our share of Super Rugby's broadcast money - my proposal also includes making the Women's XV Premiership fully professional, and if the money is there, paying them equally ala Rugby Sevens (which has become a de facto third rugby code in my opinion).
Nick the yabbie
Guest
Hey bruce, as you say the rich own the game even us peasants played. Why not then get all your rich mates and sponsor RA, so we can at least watch rugby at a level we had twenty years ago. Put your money where your mouth is.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Also, my ten-team Australian XV Premiership would cost far less and be of more benefit to Australian rugby as a whole, while going from 15 games one year to 18 the next is more realistic. Mark how will it cost less and retain the current crop of Wallabies? Not possible sorry.
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
When was the last time RA did a state of the union national conference for all parties to review the game and talk to each other?
fiwiboy7042
Roar Rookie
The problem with the BIL and RWC is that they are in the future. It's very likely that the BIL tour will be reduced to 8 games, two less on the current tours, and the RWC is profit-sharing as well. What is RA going to do between now and 2025? The worry for the RA is that by the time the BILs roll around, any profit they make will have to go towards servicing their debt.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I wonder if RUPA has too much influence, depending on who decides which Wallabies sit on the board? They may be better off than the states who have largely been neutralised by the dilution of voting rights following the corporatisation of the ARU. The main issue is not enough revenue, which is driven by the supporter base attending matches, buying memberships/merchandise and subscribing to watch games on TV. If RA and SR teams cannot successfully attract large crowds, then it will also impact on TV subscriptions. Most TV subscribers would at least have an interest in going to games. If TV and RA worked hard to build their audience it immediately flows on to the other party's audience, yet both are pretty passive about promoting the game. I very much doubt that the broadcast contract even imagines there is a relationship between the two. The nature of the game is that people who watch it, played it, or know someone that did. The future is in increasing numbers of players and being able to promote watching professional rugby. They are the areas of RA failure. A clear pathway and competition structure will probably identify itself as the game develops with increased support and player numbers. Right now it is guesswork and speculation, although no competition or structure will survive financially unless we have more players and increased numbers of supporters turning up to watch. A ten year project; five years building for 2027 and five years leveraging off its success. RA is thinking about starting in 2028 after locking up RWC profits in a trust so they can't be spent. The problem is not RUPA.
Mark Baptist
Guest
The NZR-Rugby AU dispute means any Australasian competition is out from 2024 into the forseeable future, unfortunately. Also, my ten-team Australian XV Premiership would cost far less and be of more benefit to Australian rugby as a whole, while going from 15 games one year to 18 the next is more realistic. With NZ, I may as well keep their five Super Rugby teams, along with Fiji and the Pacific Islands, and add an eighth team for a NZ domestic competition with 14 or 18 games (18 games being played over 19 rounds).
Jacko
Roar Rookie
No its always good to listen to another perspective Brett but Union and League are such different sports. Union is about the internationals where League is a domestic focus.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
The point everyone is missing is that the professional game, regardless of sport, must be at arms length from the governing body. It simply doesn’t work any other way. But hey, I’m just a Rugby League Neanderthal, we’ve got enough issues of our own, why I am I bothering to help a sport I can’t stand.
The Crow Flies Backwards
Roar Rookie
I hope they like Coopers
jeznez
Roar Guru
Kiwi fans can argue their position much better than I can but for them they don't want to dilute their talent. Financially they've got 100m in assets and just done a PE deal. They are in good financial shape, their broadcast agreement dwarfs ours. If push comes to shove, am pretty sure they'd rather run their own comp, add one or two more teams to their existing ones and run a 9 team comp along with the Drua and Moana Pasifika. That would be much less impact to them than releasing a whole heap of players into Aussie sides. All that said, they don't want to dilute the talent. Suits them to have 5 strong teams that get very high quality rugby against each other but that can then take a bit of a breather and run out their development players against weaker Aussie sides. Suits their support and primary goal of a strong All Blacks. Oz needs to find our own solution rather rely on players from a different country coming and filling our teams.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Brett NZ currently earns 60+ million more q year for tv rights bow