adamkungl
Immortal
- Messages
- 42,971
There's been a lot of talk and a lot of different ideas about where to go with the promising evolution of the Pacific Islands from this WC. There is definitely huge potential for a bright future but some of the ideas going around, led by the coaches of Tonga and Samoa in particular, are misguided in my opinion.
It is not the NRLs (I will use NRL in place of Australia or ARLC) responsibility nor is it healthy for the game for the NRL to be directly funding match payments for foreign nation, including New Zealand.
To do so would be a waste of money for a start. While the NRL should invest in international football, paying already professional players to play for a foreign team they already play for is not what i would call an investment. What's the return for the NRL? If anything this WC has shown that players will play for them anyway.
Secondly, it's a lazy, short sighted shortcut. It would paper over the bigger issues like the amount of test matches played by these nations, and their ability to secure sponsorships and their own revenue. The NRL is not a charity and other nations shouldn't be welfare recipients.
I have a lot of criticisms for them but Australia and the Kangaroos have earned the ability to pay their players healthy sums, and others have not.
HOWEVER - negativity over with, now for what they should be doing to achieve the same goals in a healthier, more sustainable way.
Firstly, the NRL SHOULD be funding foreign nations proportionate to the number of players they supply to the NRL. Not paying match payments to players as has been suggested (and they currently do for NZ), but an annual grant to the governing bodies to use as they see fit to grow the game, run their rep programs, stage test matches and if they can afford it pay their test players.
Example, as a starting point we could take the amount equivalent to 1 club grant (10mil) divide that by the number of players on NRL top 25 rosters (400) to get an international grant of $25000 per player, based on something like first rep football. So if there are 100 players that come through NZ's systems, NZRL get a $2.5mil annual grant from the NRL.
Why this rather than match payments? Because the NRL takes players from other nations development, mostly New Zealand, gives nothing back, and through financial clout makes it difficult if not impossible for them to keep any professional players in their own systems. NZRL supplies as many players to the NRL as the NRL-funded NSWRL and QRL, but has no Origin or the like to fill their coffers. This funding would be put back through game development, bringing a healthy revenue base to other nations at small cost to the NRL - less than 1 club grant. The return for the NRL is the development of more professional players and not needing to, or being begged to, cover foreign nations for test match payments.
That brings a base revenue to NZ, PNG, Fiji - but what about Samoa or Tonga? I don't know exactly but I suspect they have 0 players in the NRL lists that came through their domestic RL systems, which means in the above scheme they are still on $0.
PNG and Fiji have shown the correct development pathway with the Hunters and upcoming Fiji NSW Cup team. For Samoa and Tonga they have a long way to reaching that same level of government support, sponsorship and development pathways.
But there needs to be more. This is where playing more test matches comes into play, and where Australia (and NZ) and the RLIF/Asia-Pacific RLF can help. Pacific nations need to be playing more tests, and at least one test at home per year. They don't have the funds to stage the events.
Australia and NZ should be playing 1-2 games against tier 2 nations per year. The event should be underwritten by the tier 1 host, and profits shared fairly.
Tier 2 nations need another 4-6 matches every year, and at least 1 at home. These are likely to be less profitable, obviously. This is where the RLIF and regional federation comes in. Some portion of WC profits should be devoted to staging more high profile matches for tier 2 nations. Asia-Pacific RL underwrites the event, and any profits are split 3 ways between the federation and the 2 nations involved.
Playing more matches allows countries to secure loyal players, fans, sponsors, and generate their own revenue.
When high performance pathways and consistent annual revenue streams are in place, then they can pay players.
Annually could play:
Mid-season PNG v Fiji -> winner plays Aus in post-season
Mid-season Samoa v NZ v Tonga tri series -> final in post-season
losers of above play each other post season
As well as the annual major events (Pacific cup, RLWC Qualifiers, RL Federations Cup, World 9s) hosting touring northern hemisphere teams, or outgoing tours.
It is not the NRLs (I will use NRL in place of Australia or ARLC) responsibility nor is it healthy for the game for the NRL to be directly funding match payments for foreign nation, including New Zealand.
To do so would be a waste of money for a start. While the NRL should invest in international football, paying already professional players to play for a foreign team they already play for is not what i would call an investment. What's the return for the NRL? If anything this WC has shown that players will play for them anyway.
Secondly, it's a lazy, short sighted shortcut. It would paper over the bigger issues like the amount of test matches played by these nations, and their ability to secure sponsorships and their own revenue. The NRL is not a charity and other nations shouldn't be welfare recipients.
I have a lot of criticisms for them but Australia and the Kangaroos have earned the ability to pay their players healthy sums, and others have not.
HOWEVER - negativity over with, now for what they should be doing to achieve the same goals in a healthier, more sustainable way.
Firstly, the NRL SHOULD be funding foreign nations proportionate to the number of players they supply to the NRL. Not paying match payments to players as has been suggested (and they currently do for NZ), but an annual grant to the governing bodies to use as they see fit to grow the game, run their rep programs, stage test matches and if they can afford it pay their test players.
Example, as a starting point we could take the amount equivalent to 1 club grant (10mil) divide that by the number of players on NRL top 25 rosters (400) to get an international grant of $25000 per player, based on something like first rep football. So if there are 100 players that come through NZ's systems, NZRL get a $2.5mil annual grant from the NRL.
Why this rather than match payments? Because the NRL takes players from other nations development, mostly New Zealand, gives nothing back, and through financial clout makes it difficult if not impossible for them to keep any professional players in their own systems. NZRL supplies as many players to the NRL as the NRL-funded NSWRL and QRL, but has no Origin or the like to fill their coffers. This funding would be put back through game development, bringing a healthy revenue base to other nations at small cost to the NRL - less than 1 club grant. The return for the NRL is the development of more professional players and not needing to, or being begged to, cover foreign nations for test match payments.
That brings a base revenue to NZ, PNG, Fiji - but what about Samoa or Tonga? I don't know exactly but I suspect they have 0 players in the NRL lists that came through their domestic RL systems, which means in the above scheme they are still on $0.
PNG and Fiji have shown the correct development pathway with the Hunters and upcoming Fiji NSW Cup team. For Samoa and Tonga they have a long way to reaching that same level of government support, sponsorship and development pathways.
But there needs to be more. This is where playing more test matches comes into play, and where Australia (and NZ) and the RLIF/Asia-Pacific RLF can help. Pacific nations need to be playing more tests, and at least one test at home per year. They don't have the funds to stage the events.
Australia and NZ should be playing 1-2 games against tier 2 nations per year. The event should be underwritten by the tier 1 host, and profits shared fairly.
Tier 2 nations need another 4-6 matches every year, and at least 1 at home. These are likely to be less profitable, obviously. This is where the RLIF and regional federation comes in. Some portion of WC profits should be devoted to staging more high profile matches for tier 2 nations. Asia-Pacific RL underwrites the event, and any profits are split 3 ways between the federation and the 2 nations involved.
Playing more matches allows countries to secure loyal players, fans, sponsors, and generate their own revenue.
When high performance pathways and consistent annual revenue streams are in place, then they can pay players.
Annually could play:
Mid-season PNG v Fiji -> winner plays Aus in post-season
Mid-season Samoa v NZ v Tonga tri series -> final in post-season
losers of above play each other post season
As well as the annual major events (Pacific cup, RLWC Qualifiers, RL Federations Cup, World 9s) hosting touring northern hemisphere teams, or outgoing tours.
