Pay for international games is a super complex issue really.
I think most would agree that players should be paid an amount proportional to the profits generated by the international game.
BUT investment in the game should be considered more important than paying players.
ALSO what if a game (or season) takes a surprise loss? Do players then not get paid? That's not feasible either.
Some of the profits from big draw matches should subsidise smaller ones to assist nations outside the big 3 growing the game.
Basing funding on tiers is very shaky ground. It results in nations like Tonga pushing to elevate up to tier 1 when the reality is it would cripple them.
There's also a difference between RLIF tournaments and bilateral tests/tours. Central funding doesnt really work for a Kangaroo tour for example.
I think
For RLIF tournaments, participating teams should be given a central funding pot to cover costs and player payments. This should be budgeted and accounted for as a proportion of the tournaments forecast profits. Participating teams should be given an equal amount for equal tournament standing. Ie. every team in the A tournament receives the same amount, but the A teams get more than the B teams.
Lets take a wild (probably very wild) guess,
$400,000 per team (approx $20,000 per player for 2 weeks salary and running costs) for the A tournament teams.
$250,000 per team for the B tournament.
Any extra player payments covered by individual nations sponsorships or revenue streams.
This is probably what has already happened with the Oceania Cup.
I reckon the transition from NRL backed 4Nations to RLIF-backed has resulted in them needing to keep costs down in the first years to ensure the tournament's profitability. More games means more overheads means more risk.
For tours, nations organise their finances as they see fit.
Player payments should be balanced somewhere between making it worth their while, and giving us the best possible series of matches.
The Kangaroo tour may see Australia taking the lions share of the profits, thats fine. Its on England and any other participating nations to ensure they get a fair deal. And if we want a game of France v Kangaroos for example, France have to propose a deal to ensure its profitability, or the Kangaroos have to take a small financial hit for the good of the game. Which leads us to the likely situation where the Kangaroos won't bother, unfortunately. If players were paid $10k per game instead of $20k, we'd be far more likely to get games v France and Wales and a longer tour. But the RLPA probably limits the Kangaroos ability to adjust player payments. The players demanding to be paid less is currently the only way we get more games on a tour like this. There's limited TV value in Aus to a game vs France at 4 in the morning.
