adamkungl
Immortal
- Messages
- 42,955
Currently players are employed by the clubs and effectively loaned to representative sides.
This causes tensions when players return to their employers injured, overworked (or overweight).
Clubs are demanding compensation, and are generally reluctant to release players for internationals, especially if they are seen as 'tier 2'.
If the sport is seeking to put internationals at the top of the pile (which it probably isn't, clubs bring in the big $ right now, but in the interests of looking outwards lets carry on...), this is a pretty backwards system.
So what if things were the other way around?
Rep players to be contracted firstly to their national body, and then loaned to clubs. This is standard in some other sports, cricket and I think some Rugby nations.
This would remove the belief that players belong to clubs before nations, place the responsibility and welfare of rep players into the hands of their national teams, and remove the clubs ability to withhold players for minor surgeries or flimsy reasons.
Example:
The Kangaroos would have 40 or so contracted players.
Their duties would be 6-8 post season internationals + State of Origin mid year.
When not required for rep duty they would play club footy.
Which is basically the same as now, but duties and responsibility come from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
Obviously there are a number of difficulties with this even with only a few seconds of thought:
First and foremost, how would clubs compete for rep contracts and how would it effect their salary cap?
Would rep contracts be standardised, tiered or individual?
How would dual-national eligibility work?
How would fringe rep players be contracted and how long would national rep contracts last?
This causes tensions when players return to their employers injured, overworked (or overweight).
Clubs are demanding compensation, and are generally reluctant to release players for internationals, especially if they are seen as 'tier 2'.
If the sport is seeking to put internationals at the top of the pile (which it probably isn't, clubs bring in the big $ right now, but in the interests of looking outwards lets carry on...), this is a pretty backwards system.
So what if things were the other way around?
Rep players to be contracted firstly to their national body, and then loaned to clubs. This is standard in some other sports, cricket and I think some Rugby nations.
This would remove the belief that players belong to clubs before nations, place the responsibility and welfare of rep players into the hands of their national teams, and remove the clubs ability to withhold players for minor surgeries or flimsy reasons.
Example:
The Kangaroos would have 40 or so contracted players.
Their duties would be 6-8 post season internationals + State of Origin mid year.
When not required for rep duty they would play club footy.
Which is basically the same as now, but duties and responsibility come from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
Obviously there are a number of difficulties with this even with only a few seconds of thought:
First and foremost, how would clubs compete for rep contracts and how would it effect their salary cap?
Would rep contracts be standardised, tiered or individual?
How would dual-national eligibility work?
How would fringe rep players be contracted and how long would national rep contracts last?