THE
RL1908 BLOG
News,
Reviews & Opinion - Sean
Fagan - RL1908.com
|
IS THE 10m RULE KILLING SYDNEY NRL CLUBS? |
Season 2008 has seen the focus in the NRL on club
funding, and suggestions of ongoing need for expansion
via new/re-located teams.
The
entire debate though appears to be centred upon
the salary cap, and the difficulty many NRL clubs
apparently have in funding players' wages.
Some
aspects of club finances though have me somewhat
confused, and I've been pondering the following
....
a)
Just how much are NRL clubs spending, and on
what/why (paying players seems to be about 25%
of their spending).
b) Is the fast-paced NRL game under the 10m
rule and inter-change making the financial position
worse i.e. driving a need for full-time off-field
training, increased coaching and support staff
facilities far greater than in previous eras.
c) Despite statements that the salary cap stops
clubs going broke, or lessens the likelihood
of it, how can that be true when there is no
restriction on spending for everything else
other than on players' contracts?
Here
are some clippings....
From:
The Australian - 24 may
2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23748602-5013406,00.html
For
the uninitiated, each club has $4.1million
- including, among other things,
$200,000 for sponsorship servicing
to spend on its roster of 25 first-grade
players. David Gallop said...."The
need for a strict salary cap system
has never been stronger. It's delivering
a close competition as well as making
sure that they have a chance of
financial survival."
|
|
From:
Sydney Morning Herald -
11 April 1994
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/22633/20051119-0000/www.rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/expansion.htm
As
the boards of losing clubs line
their coaches in their gun sights
and the competition divides into
the "haves" and the "have
nots", the NSWRL should ask
itself two questions. First, has
the 10-metre rule prised open the
gap between the top and bottom clubs?
Second,
has the time come to put inner-city
clubs on notice that only an amalgamation
can create the type of juggernaut
necessary to take on Brisbane and
Auckland.
The
10-metre rule favours fit, gifted
players. Lesser-talented players
who spend their daylight hours working
at a regular job cannot match the
Broncos, who spend their days training
in gyms and on tartan tracks.
The
rule makes it very difficult for
tired, less skilful players to retreat
the required distance in defence
before the clever, athletic attackers
are jumping out of dummy-half, launching
yet another raid. In other words,
the 10-metre rule, like the four-point
try, widens the points difference
between the one-city clubs, who
can arrange sinecure employment
and professional training for their
players, and the metropolitan clubs,
who exercise little "after
hours" influence over their
playing staff.
The
response of the Broncos to this
gap has been: "Get your act
together and come and join us."
The attitude of the metropolitan
clubs has been: "Let's pull
the Broncos down to our level."
Scorelines
over recent rounds raise the question
whether there are enough talented
players ....playing to the standard
of the 10m/one-city clubs.
|
|
If
it supposedly currently requires about $15 million
to run an NRL club each season, and the salary
cap is $4.1 million (an amount which the NRL grants
a large proportion to each NRL club anyway)....what
the heck is the other $11 million going on?
While
the salary cap shares players around (though it
also indirectly leads to some players opting out
by going to RU or England), the cap was also meant
to stop clubs going broke - but they are all obviously
sourcing and spending their $11 million on everything
but players anyway....there is no cap on what
they spend on everything else (including coaches
and facilities)....so the cap won't stop a club
going broke.
From
1908 to c.1950, almost 90% of each club's income/funding
went to
the players - at the end of the season the gate-receipts
were divided up amongst the players based on how
many games, which grade etc.
I'm
assuming that through the 1950s-1980s, the majority
of each club's money was still being spent on
players' salaries. To get this money in the early
1980s (say 80% of the club's income) required
players to devote 2 hours twice a week for training,
plus 3 hours on match day - 7 hours per week.
In addition, these footballers had the opportunity
to earn money from a full-time job.
But
today the players are getting about 25% of each
club's funding/income - a worse deal than in 1908!...and
putting in way over
40 hours per week, plus the modern problems of
being a RL player going out in public, always
"on duty" etc.
It
just seems to me that if clubs today can generate
$11 million, and the players are being held to
$4 million per club, then the players (collectively)
are getting a worse deal than in the 1980s.
The
clubs will clearly spend up to whatever income
they can raise. We wouldn't be losing players
to the UK or RU if the cap was $8 million, and
having all these players still in the NRL would
make for stronger teams than we currently have.
The
clubs though cry poor when it comes to paying
players more. Why?
Because they are obviously diverting money that
they are not allowed to
spend on players, onto all sorts of off-field
measures in an effort to
get the edge over the other teams. "Winning
the Grand Final begins in
November/summer" is often heard phrase.
No
doubt the 10m rule and inter-change, which demands
athletes over footballers, is a also a heavy factor
in the increasing amount of spending on off-field
preparation.
The
clubs are demanding 100% of each players' working
week, in an effort to get the physical/fitness/technique
edge over opponents.
So
the players' cut of club income is now down to
25%, plus they are denied the time to have a job
(and earn that income), plus they aren't allowed
to have their own sponsorships where they can
come under conflict with the salary cap rules.
No
doubt, as every club is spending the bulk of its
money on off-field items, they all need to keep
up with each other's off-field training/facilities
etc.
No
doubt there are extra costs in running a NRL club
than in the 1980s (air travel, accomodation, player
injury care etc) but not to the point where the
players' cut should have gone from c.80% to 25%.
So
the effect of the cap, and the modern game's physical
demands, is to divert money into off-field spending
instead of into the wallets of the players, fueling
increased demands on the players (fulltime training),
and doing nothing at all to curb spending by each
club.
The
10m rule and inter-change have created a game
that demands all this extra money being spent
on everything but the players' income.
We
seem to want to demand more and more from players,
and give them
less of the game's income.
Having
no salary cap may well send clubs broke, but seemingly
so will having a salary cap too!
I'm
starting to come to the conclusion that it is
not RU and Super League, nor even the NSW Govt,
that are causing a funding crisis with Sydney
clubs.
We
don't need this relentless pursuit of a fast-paced
game to make our sport entertaining to play and
to watch. Is there really a need in 2008 to fund
training (staff, facilities, equipment) of players
for 20, 30 or 40 hours a week, when in 1988 it
was 7 hours? Even more bewilderingly, we seem
hell-bent on spending way beyond our means to
do it!
If
the on field rules were changed so that the off-field
training/preparation costs could be significantly
brought down, players could have part-time jobs,
longer football careers, their football contracts
would be higher and more competitive with RU and
Super League, and even more part-time footballers
could actually meet the physical demands of playing
RL (thus increasing the player pool).
Or
is there something here that I'm not taking into
account?
The
point of the article is to demonstrate that each
NRL club is spending around $11 million annually,
to put a $4 million team on the field each year
- and that cost is entirely caused by the choices
we as a sport choose to impose upon ourselves.
It's
not NRL players salaries (they are capped) causing
each NRL club to have to find another $11 million
each year.
It's
not the NSW Govt taxes causing each club to need
$11 million each year.
It's
not competition with AFL, RU or English RL, that
is causing each NRL to need to find $11 million
each and every year.
Let's,
as a sport, stop putting pressure on our footballers
to curb their incomes, and look at the other 75%
of the spending budget.
That
75% of club spending is an area that has never
been called into question - the media has never
looked at it, and club CEOs never publicly talk
about it.
If
NRL clubs want fans to contribute financially
to their club (by taking up club membership),
isn't it a fair enough question to ask: "What
is the club spending its money on?"
Only
25% of each club's income is going on players
- so what is the other 75% going on?
Is
there a way to curb that 75% spend so that every
NRL club can be in a sounder financial position,
so that no more clubs have to merge or die, so
that it is easier for a new club to enter the
NRL?
Everyone
is focused on player salaries, but that isn't
where 75% of each club's money is going EVERY
year.
Everyone
is focused on clubs needing to find alternative/more
income, yet nothing is being done to examine that
75% and asking why clubs need to find and then
spend that $11 million each year.
If
we as a game don't ask that question, then the
Sydney clubs in particular will continue to come
under increasing financial pressure to compete
in the off-field race for the NRL premiership.
|
