Willie Mason: Players Should Strike for More Money - "Without us, there is no game"

[mattyg]

I can't help feeling that if the cap is raised the elite will get richer and the rest will suffer. If the cap is raised then so should the minimum amount each player is paid. If you've got anything left over then use it however you want, but raising the minimum amount will at least ensure everyone gets a fair share.

I think that is what Willie is getting at.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

I think that is what Willie is getting at.

Yup which is where I agree with Willie, however Gasnier is talking about himself missing out on potential 3rd party money from sponsers and that's where the lines are going to get blurred. If players go on strike for different reasons then things aren't going to be resolved. Strike would be the last option and if they must strike, all the players better do it for the right reasons.

 

[Pigskin]

somebody above said it well ... wasn't the best way to put it, but Mason is trying to get his point across

I'm sure he would be the first to admit, striking at Origin time would not be the preferred way to ensure the demands of players are negotiated ... but if it came to a strike as a last resort then sobeit

it would be a great way for the RLPA to get some credibility/clout cause atm they have none

The AFL players association seems to work well, but they are not propped up by the AFL ... and when they believe in something they stand up to the employer as a good union should as ONE

I'm not sure what percentage of players are members of the RLPA these days, (anybdoy know this ?) but if its high enough and they agreed en masse to boycott Origin, then they would definitely make a statement

However if there were enough players to field sides similar to the teams that ran out during the SL war, then this could backfire in their face ... I could see Origin rating higher than ever due to the publicity

Why doesnt' somebody just challenge the Salary cap legally, get rid of it, and finally we could have a fair dinkum draft ... then we could just watch from a distance as all the Sydney teams devour each other like cannibals

Oink !

 

[Ant]

I can see the reasons why players are asking for more, but with respect to their abilities I still think the long term survival of the game needs more money in grass roots not the top level.

Players at the top level are well paid for their performances. As someone else stated there are only a few sportsmen in the domestic football codes who are on over $500000 a year. It doesn't matter if you had a 5million dollar salary cap, union could still outbid. You are not going to pay Tuqiri a million under that cap. A guy like Tahu won't earn that much in league because quite simply he is probably has about half a dozen guys rated above him in his spot. No league club is going to pay $600000 for the 7th best centre in the league.

But there are major dramas in union over their spending. qld lost 1.7 million last year and there were calls today for a salary cap. Only the top 30 or so rugby players earn particularly good money over 250000 a season, and probably less than 10 earn over $500000. That is one of unions big problems they spend so much on their top players, everything below that is so far behind.

There are some things that have been said that I agree with. It would be good if the league was ultra transparent about revenue and expenidture. I do think raising rep player payments is a good way of rewarding players. If say each origin and test was worth $15000 then thats a chance for a player to pick up an extra $100000 if he plays every game at an overall cost of about 2 mill.

I think the 3rd party payments are an issue. If you let open slather you may end up in a murky world. I know once again that union people are complaining perth are supported by mining giants and no one else can compete. If one club has better corporate links they could effectively create super teams reagrdless of the salary cap if open slather on third parties was the rule.

But as I said grassroots is the key.

 

[aqua_duck]

Look the minimum wage is 50k a year for fringe first graders. The way I see it 50k for someone on the rugby league equivalent of an apprenticeship is more than enough. I know not all fringe 1st graders are youngsters but 50k a year is still a good salary and I K now that the career spand of an athlete might only be 10 years or so but alot of clubs will help out ex players with employment if they need it. Players train alot but they do also have alot of spare time on their hands as well.
I remember when my mate Dan Conn was at the dogs, he was playing premier league at the time and the dogs helped him out by aiding him to get his qualifications to be a personal trainer and they put him in the gym at canterbury leagues a few days a week working part time, so now even if he doesn't make it as a footballer he's till got something to fall back on, to me thats better than cubs paying someone 100k and hoping it lasts him the rest of his life he he doesn't make it

 

[greenhat]

*edit*

 

[langpark]

I like what Brett White had to say about it:

"If Willie wants to strike let him. I'll play (Origin). What happened to playing for fun or the love of the game?"

And that's what it all boils down to. If willy strikes, who cares, there's plenty of depth there and it'll be his loss, not the games. There's Bailey, Ryles, O'Meley, Kite, White and plenty more options there for nsw.

 

[Shorty]

Obviously,Willie has said he'll strike for shock value....I can't see him striking as he is one of the most passionate blokes when it comes to Origin.

I can see the point he's getting at but he really should have just ranted about it instead of trying to threaten to strike at Origin time.

 

[Quidgybo]

We'll go broke

Peter Badel
March 25, 2007 12:00am

QUEENSLAND chairman Peter Lewis has slammed the Australian Rugby Union's player contracting system, warning the provinces will go broke unless a salary cap is introduced.

After the Reds posted a $1.7 million loss at yesterday's annual general meeting, Lewis took aim at the ARU, saying the contracting system was a blight on rugby.

The ARU will hold a wide-ranging review of the system at the end of the Super 14 season that will include the four provinces and the Australian Rugby Union Players' Association.

Lewis's chief grievances concern the use of third-party deals and the ARU's capacity to top up contracts.

The Queensland Rugby Union chairman also expressed frustration at the ARU's willingness to dip into funds to secure National Rugby League star Timana Tahu, weeks after refusing to help the Reds' bid for Cowboys forward Luke O'Donnell.

Last year, the Reds secured Canberra Raiders fullback Clinton Schifcofske without ARU help.

"The current contracting system is the greatest threat to the game," Lewis said.

"We have forced a second review this year after a pointless one last year in which the ARU paid us lip service.

"The review later this year is make-or-break, in my view.

"If we don't get it right and reel this spending in, the Brumbies, followed by us, and then the Waratahs will be in serious financial strife trying to keep a team together.

"We've lost $1.7 million trying to be competitive. Do you need any more proof?

"If we hadn't spent that much more, imagine what team we would have and where would we be."
Lewis is adamant the code needs a rigidly enforced salary cap.

He also called for the ARU to scrap its top-up component, instead offering increased match payments to Wallabies players.

"There should be a salary cap as there is in rugby league and there should be an independent auditor who can access tax returns," Lewis said.

"I have no problem paying a player what they are worth but when you distort the market with a Lote Tuqiri-type (third-party) transaction you throw all the rules out the door.

"The inflationary pressure of these transactions is huge.

"The Force seem to have limitless mining company support, so they'll have the Wallabies over there and the rest of us getting flogged every week.

"It's all about money, not about structure or a level playing field."

Ironically, just seven years ago it was NSW complaining that all top-up money flowed into Queensland, with the Reds then boasting a galaxy of stars including John Eales, Tim Horan, Jason Little, Toutai Kefu, David Wilson and Michael Foley.

ARU high performance manager Pat Wilson said the Reds received the same annual grant ($4.3 million) offered to the rival provinces.

"We're operating in the environment of a collective bargaining agreement with the players association, it's not a simple decision to say let's make changes (to the contracting system)," Wilson said. "We're looking at possible ways to improve the current environment."

OK, so why am I posting this in a Rugby League forum? To make the point that just because RU is paying huge wages and we are losing the odd player to that game (and that's all it is), it doesn't mean those wages are illustrative of what the players are really worth or what the market can afford. RU provinces are sending themselves broke trying to outspend RL. It's all well and good paying more than the other code and attracting all the best players but if you go broke doing it then who are the first to whinge when they're left out of pocket? The players! The whole point of the salary cap is to set club expenditure at a sustainable level. Yes, we *could* pay more but every dollar more is both less to spend on other areas of the game and closer to the point of running clubs broke.

Personally I'm flabbergasted that the players would dare ask for a further increase while the gap remains between club grants and the salary cap. The players surely recognise that once that gap is closed, then their wages will effectively become centerally paid and thus guaranteed regardless of the management of individual clubs. Given the hardship and losses from the hip pocket suffered by players when clubs have gone under (thus voiding their contracts) I would have thought they would be the first to support moves that would centerally protect their incomes. But that said, the only way the gap will ever be closed is if at some point the players forgo a wage increase in favour of just a club grant increase. While they insist on taking a huge slice of any grant increase the gap will remain for many years and the risk of players losing money to a club that has gone under trying to pay more than they can afford will remain. And you just know who'll be crying a storm up when that happens.

Leigh.

 

[mattyg]

What Brett White said is just stupid. It's players like White that Mason is putting his reputation on the line for. Fringe first graders like White who perhaps aren't getting paid what they should, despite training just as hard as what Mason is, and now White comes out and says that?

 

[johns_reds]

:lol: What a rant!

We live in a society where we ae able to ask our employers to pay what we are worth.

If the game is generating 100's of millions of dollars, why shouldn't the players, who are the prime reason the game is able to generate that kind of money, reap the rewards of their hard work?

Ok, so the company I work for earns millions of dollars a year, yet i'm only on average wage, if i went to them and said i want 200k because the company is making profits of over 100 million i'd be laughed at, why should the players get richer? i work as hard as them yet i won't be getting a pay rise from my company

 

[The Informer]

OK, so why am I posting this in a Rugby League forum? To make the point that just because RU is paying huge wages and we are losing the odd player to that game (and that's all it is), it doesn't mean those wages are illustrative of what the players are really worth or what the market can afford. RU provinces are sending themselves broke trying to outspend RL. It's all well and good paying more than the other code and attracting all the best players but if you go broke doing it then who are the first to whinge when they're left out of pocket? The players! The whole point of the salary cap is to set club expenditure at a sustainable level. Yes, we *could* pay more but every dollar more is both less to spend on other areas of the game and closer to the point of running clubs broke.

Personally I'm flabbergasted that the players would dare ask for a further increase while the gap remains between club grants and the salary cap. The players surely recognise that once that gap is closed, then their wages will effectively become centerally paid and thus guaranteed regardless of the management of individual clubs. Given the hardship and losses from the hip pocket suffered by players when clubs have gone under (thus voiding their contracts) I would have thought they would be the first to support moves that would centerally protect their incomes. But that said, the only way the gap will ever be closed is if at some point the players forgo a wage increase in favour of just a club grant increase. While they insist on taking a huge slice of any grant increase the gap will remain for many years and the risk of players losing money to a club that has gone under trying to pay more than they can afford will remain. And you just know who'll be crying a storm up when that happens.

Leigh.

Excellent post, well said.

 

[Nathan B]

OK, so why am I posting this in a Rugby League forum? To make the point that just because RU is paying huge wages and we are losing the odd player to that game (and that's all it is), it doesn't mean those wages are illustrative of what the players are really worth or what the market can afford. RU provinces are sending themselves broke trying to outspend RL. It's all well and good paying more than the other code and attracting all the best players but if you go broke doing it then who are the first to whinge when they're left out of pocket? The players! The whole point of the salary cap is to set club expenditure at a sustainable level. Yes, we *could* pay more but every dollar more is both less to spend on other areas of the game and closer to the point of running clubs broke.

Personally I'm flabbergasted that the players would dare ask for a further increase while the gap remains between club grants and the salary cap. The players surely recognise that once that gap is closed, then their wages will effectively become centerally paid and thus guaranteed regardless of the management of individual clubs. Given the hardship and losses from the hip pocket suffered by players when clubs have gone under (thus voiding their contracts) I would have thought they would be the first to support moves that would centerally protect their incomes. But that said, the only way the gap will ever be closed is if at some point the players forgo a wage increase in favour of just a club grant increase. While they insist on taking a huge slice of any grant increase the gap will remain for many years and the risk of players losing money to a club that has gone under trying to pay more than they can afford will remain. And you just know who'll be crying a storm up when that happens.

Leigh.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the players want a salary cap increase AND a grant increase?

The clubs are getting $x from the NRL and the players want it to be $(x+y). They then want the cap to increase by $y as well.

 

[Nathan B]

Ok, so the company I work for earns millions of dollars a year, yet i'm only on average wage, if i went to them and said i want 200k because the company is making profits of over 100 million i'd be laughed at, why should the players get richer? i work as hard as them yet i won't be getting a pay rise from my company

You have as much a right to strike as Willie, and if you and your colleagues are being underpaid then I support your effort to get a pay rise.

But... your chances of a) organising a strike, and b) getting want you want because of it, have absolutley nothing to do with NRL players and their fight. Just because you don't feel you could get more money out of your employer, doesn't mean Willie and the players don't have the right to try to do the same.

 

[Quidgybo]

The clubs are getting $x from the NRL and the players want it to be $(x+y). They then want the cap to increase by $y as well.

Still leaving a signifcant gap between grant and cap. That gap is where the risk lies for a club to go broke leaving their players unemployed and out of pocket. The only way that will change if players do everyone a favour (including themselves) and forgo taking a slice of the $y increase to the grant to increase the salary cap too.

Leigh

 

[Nathan B]

Still leaving a signifcant gap between grant and cap. That gap is where the risk lies for a club to go broke leaving their players unemployed and out of pocket. The only way that will change if players do everyone a favour (including themselves) and forgo taking a slice of the $y increase to the grant to increase the salary cap too.

Leigh

Well, I agree that the gap cannot be allowed to increase. But surely having at least a share of the $y go onto the cap will not destroy the game or certain clubs.

I don't think the NRL is about to willingly give extra money to the clubs. If Willie and the players insist on extra funding for the clubs, while also allowing some of that money to go towards decreasing the gap, then they'll be helping themselves AND the game.

 

[sharko]

I do not think Mason should be encouraging other players particuarly young players to actively breach their contracts. I am sure there are performance clauses in their contracts that would stipulate the only reasons for not partaking in a match if selected would be injury, suspension or rep duties. I suppose the NRL could threaten to deregister Mason for advocating breach of contracts..but I do not think they would do it.

 

[Danish]

The Rugby League Professionals Association, our players union, is weak and does nothing for the players. Yet, how can we expect the RLPA to represent our best interests when it is partially funded by the NRL? That money has compromised our union . . . how can we expect 100 per cent support?

:lol:


Why do you think the RLPA NEEDS NRL funding Willy??


couldnt be because you players aren't giving them "a big enough piece" of YOUR pie, could it??


Despite the fact he is a knob, I agree that the NRL's earnings should be made public and each years salary cap should be directly determined by revenue.

Have a read over how the NFL's system works to see how i think our cap should be implemented:

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Mason isn't as dumb as some might think.

Essentially his point is that the players as a whole should be allowed to earn more than the current salary cap allows. By raising the salary cap, players will be more inclined to stay with Rugby League in Australia, rather than be lured with big $$ by Union or the English Super League.

What other sport in the world loses so many of its players to other sports in the prime of their careers? I cant think of any that come close to the NRL. Sure, some may be geniunely interested in testing their mettle in union. But with the big divide in earning potential that each sport has, there has been unprecedented defections from League to Union in recent years.

Rogers, Sailor, Tuquiri, Cross, Thorn, Blacklock, Schifcoske, Walker, Tahu. Many others were extremely close to signing with the rah-rahs, Gasnier & Johns immediately come to mind. Combine this with the player losses to the ESL, there are over 100 established NRL first graders lost to our competition. If the NRL offered greater earnings for players we wouldn't have lost an overwhelming majority of these guys. Even though our competition is quite strong, imagine how much stronger it would be.

Back to Mason. His comments will always polarise opinions, and while his delivery may be controversial, he has got this very important subject huge publicity throughout the rugby league community. The threat of striking during SOO is very extreme, but it got the job done - big headlines, and exposure of these issues. I agree with him - NRL players across the board should be earning more than they currently do. Its not simply about greed, its more about protecting our competition from its competitors.

 

[B-dos]

while i tend to agree with legend and a few others here regarding the need to increase the cap and make the administrators etc more accountable for the funds they receive, i really think Mason has gone about this the wrong way.

the worst thing mason did here was threaten to strike during the origin series. putting the fans offside is the last thing he should be doing but striking during the origin series will only do just that. there is no doubt that there is a large public perception that many footballers are overpaid as it is and behaving like this (striking) is only going to turn fans off even more.

Raising the cap and giving the lower paid players a little more money is fine. Raising the cap and giving a large proportion of the increase to the already highly paid players is not.

Willie may have done better to think through his arguments and proposed solution a little more before going public with them because as it stands i dont hear a whole lot of sympathy coming from the public and his threat to strike during origin is a big part of this.