I think there's a very interesting take-out from the Semi saga, and similar cases related to the likes of other code hoppers.
Firstly, notice that there are almost no halves who jump ship. Rugby League halves can't make more money by going to another sport. Firstly, their talents aren't as transferable, but secondly their importance to Rugby League teams are such that they demand a much higher percentage of an overall roster spend when compared to other sports where salaries are distributed far more equitably.
Your elite players like Thurston, Foran, Cronk, Cherry-Evans are already demanding million dollar salaries and won't get that kind of money hopping to another code. We've recently seen talks of $700k contracts bandied around for players like Blake Green and Corey Norman, while even promising newcomers like Luke Keary are able to demand half a million contracts.
Rugby League halves are so intrinsic to a team's success that they earn at least double the money that players of equivalent talent earn in other positions.
I'd argue that within a sport like Rugby Union there is not a position that is of relative importance and it's partly because of that, that Leagues becomes vulnerable. Indeed it's almost exclusively outside backs (Radradra, Tuquiri, Sailor, Tahu, Rogers, Folau) where skills are more transferable than League that the code-hopping problem lies. In Rugby Union outside backs get a lot earlier ball and there is more of a reliance on them to create something. In Rugby League, where block plays have become the predominant method of scoring, our outside backs don't necessarily require outrageous talents to contribute to point-scoring opportunities.
The challenge for League as a sport is these marquee outside backs may not be the players who take your team to the finals, but they're the guys who produce the magic. Watching a Semi Radradra blitz downfield or an Israel Folau leaping high above the pack to take a cross-field kick, are the kinds of plays that give you tingles down the spine and gets crowds rising from their seats.
In some respects then the problem is not necessarily a financial one, but is perhaps is a warning flag for our great game that we have to keep tweaking the game so that it doesn't become so structured that our freak athletes hovering out wide just become interchangeable chess pieces on the end of highly rehearsed movements.
Because there's a dichotomy here. Rugby League ultimately is an entertainment product, but players are paid based on their contribution to an outcome (ie winning games). Corey Noman has been Parramatta's most important player from a performance perspective, but without question its been Semi Radradra who has provided the most entertainment value. It's another reason, I feel that the NRL should institute centrally-managed contracts for the game's marquee players, because they are the ones in a position to judge a player's overall value to the code, and not just to any particular team.
Replies
Then shouldnt the NRL think about having a list of the top 10 or 25 Superstars ie the ones that are on everyone lips, in the media, bring the game into the headlines. Possibly excluding those already on high $ contracts.
Then give these a 'marketing' bonus, Cap free
Would be better than losing them to a rival code as they are the salesmen of the NRL and gives them incentive to go that little further and keep out of trouble.
Ive given them the idea now they need to work on the mechanics :)
Yeh I really like it, it would be far easier to implement than the centrally-managed contracts I've advocated.
Arguably, it's also fairer because it doesn't necessary change the dynamics of who plays for what team. If another club is able to offer more money than you still have that competitive dynamic within the market. Club A can't really complain that Club B is getting players who have had their salaries topped up, because the TPA doesn't favour one club over the other it's simply a top-up where ever that player is.
So in this instance, if the NRL paid Semi and NRL-sponsored TPA, other clubs can't complain because they still have the option to offer more than Parra if they want. You might argue that as a player's earnings increase, incremental salary increases becomes less important, but practically I don't think that's the case. An extra $100k is an extra $100k in the end, unless your earning tens of millions when it might start to seem less consequential.
Im sure if it was a yearly thing then they could use KPI to assess who makes it and who doesnt. Plus every year youre in with a chance to pick up the cash.
Also longer injuries would automatically make it harder to get and even rookies if good enough could get in on the action.
Mind you, the amount of media Parra gets, the other clubs would probably complain about not being in the news more. lol
Imagine if Folau could have come back for $500k + TPA's + an NRL marketing bonus of say $100-200k.
He'd probably have taken that
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next