International Player Payments, Bonuses and Caps

[miguel de cervantes]

In another thread Springs has alluded to the fact that player payments for internationals from national bodies play a large role in luring players to Australia and New Zealand. Governing bodies for developing nations will never be able to compete on this field.

IMO this needs to be looked at, regulated somehow by the RLIF and taken out of the equation. Is this even possible?

In a perfect world players would turn out for their country out of pride...and this is already definitely the case for lesser nations. If you told the current Australian squad that they were to play tomorrow night for free, how many would pull out with mysterious injuries?

Is there a solution to this obvious inequality? Can a cap be implemented? Would a zero cap mean a mass pull-out of players or would quality players still step up to play?

Ideally the RLIF would somehow determine player payments and stump up the cash, but it is not clear where the money would come from and how it would be distributed. Inequalities woulds still exist...players being forced to play for free seems like the ideal but unattainable solution.

 

[bender]

I think that the only way is out of the square solutions.

One option, i have always thought might be worth considering would be to allow clubs to sponsor international team player payments.

Essentially what this would mean is that Newcastle could essentially pay the Fijian Rugby league (for example only) $50,000 for every game that Akuila Uate plays for fiji. This money would not count towards the salary cap, meaning that Newcastle would be free to structure their deal with him so that he plays for less through the year (saving money in the cap) but is highly compensated for internationals. This would mean, that players could actually have some advantages by playing for nations outside Australia.

Obviously there are some pitfalls with this idea (and it needs to be coupled with otehr reforms such as regular games), but i think we will see 4 international weekends a year (plus end of season games) before too long. Especially if the Samoa v Tonga game is televised to good ratings on Foxtel which i am sure it will.

I can see the ANZAC weekend, and the 3 origin weekends eventually becoming full international weekends, allowing players to commit to all international teams without harming the NRL in any way

 

[miguel de cervantes]

That's not a bad idea. In other words, a % percentage of a player's NRL salary is exempt from the cap, and actually passes through the national body back to the player only when they play for the nation in question.

I'm sure there is a loophole in there somewhere. It seems rich clubs would be able to secure the services of international players over poorer clubs and essentially go over the cap in impunity, the only benefit being the proceeds of such tomfoolery would flow to developing nations.

 

[flamin]

If its only say $50000 AU for 3 players from 2nd tier nations that wouldn't be too much out of the cap but it would make a massive difference to those nations ability to compensate.

I suppose there are questions that need to be sorted out however such as what happens if a player isn't selected? He'd expect to be payed regardless, but say with Samoa or Tonga we're quickly moving to the stage were some first graders might not be good enough to make their team.

 

[bender]

If its only say $50000 AU for 3 players from 2nd tier nations that wouldn't be too much out of the cap but it would make a massive difference to those nations ability to compensate.

I suppose there are questions that need to be sorted out however such as what happens if a player isn't selected? He'd expect to be payed regardless, but say with Samoa or Tonga we're quickly moving to the stage were some first graders might not be good enough to make their team.

YEah, but this is not different to QLD NSW where many people will not be good enough to make these teams.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

http://www.nospam9/nrl/nrl-salary-cap-to-hit-7m-9557/

The other key points to arise from the new CBA include:

Player payments for State of Origin appearances rising to $30,000 per game;
Player payments for stand-alone Tests involving Australia, England and New Zealand rising to $40,000 per match, with members of the the winning of the World Cup or Four Nations teams earning $50,000 ($40,000 for second and $30,000 for third);
The minimum wage will rise from $75,000 to $85,000 over the course of the agreement;
The minimum wage per NRL match is $3000 for players outside the top 25 squad;
Clubs will no longer be able to terminate the contract of a player who is ‘‘not playing the game or training conscientiously and to the best of his ability and skill’’.

So so happy that the National teams are getting paid more than SOO. It's a move in the right direction.

 

[Evil Homer]

But still no payments for internationals outside of Australia, NZ and England

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

But still no payments for internationals outside of Australia, NZ and England

That was what I was looking for.

 

[deal.with.it]

I don't understand how this has happened. Has Australia, England and NZ sat down and said "we are all going to pay our players the same amount; $50 000" ??
Because some nations have a greater revenue then others. If England can't afford the payments, is it possible that the three nations are pooling their money together and paying them out of that to keep internationals the peak of the game?

Would these payments be for when England plays the exiles? Or only full internationals?

I just don't understand at all.

And that's without even touching on the other nations.

----

Would it be such a bad idea to have a tiered system (i mentioned this before). Nations move between tiers according to the RLIF's standards. These tiers also reflect match payments.
Perhaps one of the standards is to bring in 'x' amount of $$ through gov't, sponsorship, ticketing, broadcasting etc.
A tier one nations may get $40 000 match payments, but they must also bring in $1M to the RLIF.
Tier 2 nations may pay $10 000 match payments, and must generate at least $100 000.
Tier 3 gets $1000 match payments and must bring in $20 000 etc.
Tier 4 doesn't pay matches and simply puts on the show themselves.

To move up tiers you have to have 'x' amount of juniors, seniors, coaches, etc. just like the RLIF specifies for membership.

This isn't a fool proof idea, and definitely not specific yet. But it's an idea that should be at least worked on.

 

[expansionist]

I may be asking something thats off thread - but there is a link..

Can anyone confirm if the RLIF actually derives revenue from any and all international matches? So then would player payments be made by the RLIF or the ARLC in the case of Australia?

If it was the RLIF then they would be responsible for setting payments for all nations?

Ive never really understood what paths are available for the RLIF to make money, and if the individual member nations actually pass on what they should..

 

[RedVee]

I don't understand how this has happened. Has Australia, England and NZ sat down and said "we are all going to pay our players the same amount; $50 000" ??
Because some nations have a greater revenue then others. If England can't afford the payments, is it possible that the three nations are pooling their money together and paying them out of that to keep internationals the peak of the game?

Would these payments be for when England plays the exiles? Or only full internationals?

I just don't understand at all.

And that's without even touching on the other nations.

---- on.

I don't understand either, but I assume that the ARLC is paying $50k to each NRL player that plays a test for the 'Big 3'.

It is the NRL players CBA.

 

[deal.with.it]

At the moment, the WC is the only revenue. I believe every other international is between the teams playing and more importantly whoever organises it.

 

[deluded pom?]

I don't understand either, but I assume that the ARLC is paying $50k to each NRL player that plays a test for the 'Big 3'.

It is the NRL players CBA.

So if England can get the bulk of their squad playing in the NRL we would be bankrolled by Australia ;-) Sounds good to me. The Kiwis will already be in that boat. :lol:

 

[Usain Bolt]

NZRL chairman was on Radisport this morning saying they had nothing to do with the negotiations lol now they have to find the money to pay these match fees

 

[deal.with.it]

Uh oh!

 

[Bovrick]

NZRL chairman was on Radisport this morning saying they had nothing to do with the negotiations lol now they have to find the money to pay these match fees

FFS. How hard is it to be slightly professional. Who doesn't include all the bodies you are ruling over in negotiations???

 

[RedVee]

FFS. How hard is it to be slightly professional. Who doesn't include all the bodies you are ruling over in negotiations???

It seems a strange call that it is announced as part of the players union and ARL/NRL CBA. The money must be coming from the NRL media rights as I believe/assume that is the greatest source of funds for the game here.

I don't see how they can make anyone else part of it? Unless there is a payment from the funding to the NZRL (or RFL?) ?

 

[ozenzud]

NZRL chairman was on Radisport this morning saying they had nothing to do with the negotiations lol now they have to find the money to pay these match fees

It is worse than that.

On one hand I was really pleased that internationals are being put in front of the SOO. That is a positive.

But this is a big bad deal for the NZRL. Overall, for NZRL, this is an absolute disaster. The ARL commission now adminsters junior footy in oz. The NZRL adminsters footy on NZ. No surprises there.

But the new Oz TV deal does nothing for NZRL. The main source of funds for the NZRL is the international games. The Anzac test and the end of season tests. The NZRL makes around $300-$500,000 profit each year with an approx turnover of about $6mill. These figures are approx and ballpark. I've seen them from the NZRL roadshow.

But because the NZRL has the world cup, it expects a loss this year as it does not get the revenue direct from this event and doesn't have an end of season test. So it has to cut expenditure. The first stage of that was a cut to the under 15's interprovincial comp.

So you have the Players association and the NRL, significantly undermining the NZRL without them having any say in it! The players get the money that goes directly into junior development in NZ, thereby undermining the whole game here.

I'm happy the kiwis get paid more and that they get paid more than SOO, players but this is just a joke. A bad one. Not having the NZRL there to argue its own case is just appalling.

It is two steps forward and 1.98 steps back with league.