gingergenius
First XV
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,211
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
When the RWC is over later this year, we will have reached a major turning point in the professional game. Hoards of stars from the Tri-Nations are likely to head North, chasing 6-figure salaries.
Here's the situation we have now amongst the fully professional competitions (where only a handful of clubs worldwide make a profit):
In the Aviva Premiership there is a salary cap of £4.2million. The league has just said the cap will remain the same, although dispensations will be given to clubs who have seen the salaries of academy players rocket.
From the point of view of Saracens, Leicester, Northampton and Bath, having a low salary cap means they cannot recruit world class players to try and match other European opposition. Furthermore, as salaries rise, they are having to trim their squads to fit in with the cap, which, in a game where injuries and international callups can rapidly deplete a starting XV, is a major hindrance.
Less wealthy (and successful) clubs - Newcastle, Sale, Leeds, Exeter - are against any change - since it will increase the gap between the richer and poorer sides - see the English Premier League football as an extreme example.
The situation in the Magners' League is very similar. Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Ospreys have their fair share of foreign stars, but this is also a league containing Connacht and Newport-Gwent, who have no stars at all.
Looking at Super Rugby and the situation is even more difficult. Quite simply, SANZAR nations are not as wealthy as those up North, and they cannot afford to pay high salaries to everyone. The one incentive they have for their best players to stay is the prospect of international rugby.
And that brings me on to a key point - depth. The Tri-Nations have been selecting only from domestically-based players for years, because they have the depth to do so. England, in the face of a player exodus to France, have started down this road as well. Again, England have the depth to do this. They might miss the Wilkinsons and Haskells of this world, but they are not irreplaceable. Wales, however, cannot afford to turn round to the likes of Hook, Phillips and Byrne and say they can't play internationally. So it is the smaller countries whose domestic sides will suffer most.
Why is this all an issue? Because different leagues work under different rules creating a tiered system of competitions. At the top is the French Top-14, whose salary cap is roughly twice that of England's. The Aviva and Magners come next, with Super Rugby at the bottom. This ensures a steady flow of players up the tiers.
So what should we do about it?
Should we raise the salary cap and allow the game to go the way of football? Certainly, this is the most successful way of marketing rugby, and the rate the SH factory seems to churn out talent, seems to be raising the overall standard of club rugby. But the cons are obvious.
Or, should a Europe-wide salary cap, of say â'¬5m, be enforced? We cannot include the SH nations because they don't have the same economies, but at least this would mean that there is less money floating around in France, and the likes of Carter would stay in New Zealand. Not that it wouldn't be great to see some of these players in the HC, but I'd hate to see the situation where there are enough All Blacks playing in Europe to render any victory over them slightly hollow.
What do you all think?
Here's the situation we have now amongst the fully professional competitions (where only a handful of clubs worldwide make a profit):
In the Aviva Premiership there is a salary cap of £4.2million. The league has just said the cap will remain the same, although dispensations will be given to clubs who have seen the salaries of academy players rocket.
From the point of view of Saracens, Leicester, Northampton and Bath, having a low salary cap means they cannot recruit world class players to try and match other European opposition. Furthermore, as salaries rise, they are having to trim their squads to fit in with the cap, which, in a game where injuries and international callups can rapidly deplete a starting XV, is a major hindrance.
Less wealthy (and successful) clubs - Newcastle, Sale, Leeds, Exeter - are against any change - since it will increase the gap between the richer and poorer sides - see the English Premier League football as an extreme example.
The situation in the Magners' League is very similar. Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Ospreys have their fair share of foreign stars, but this is also a league containing Connacht and Newport-Gwent, who have no stars at all.
Looking at Super Rugby and the situation is even more difficult. Quite simply, SANZAR nations are not as wealthy as those up North, and they cannot afford to pay high salaries to everyone. The one incentive they have for their best players to stay is the prospect of international rugby.
And that brings me on to a key point - depth. The Tri-Nations have been selecting only from domestically-based players for years, because they have the depth to do so. England, in the face of a player exodus to France, have started down this road as well. Again, England have the depth to do this. They might miss the Wilkinsons and Haskells of this world, but they are not irreplaceable. Wales, however, cannot afford to turn round to the likes of Hook, Phillips and Byrne and say they can't play internationally. So it is the smaller countries whose domestic sides will suffer most.
Why is this all an issue? Because different leagues work under different rules creating a tiered system of competitions. At the top is the French Top-14, whose salary cap is roughly twice that of England's. The Aviva and Magners come next, with Super Rugby at the bottom. This ensures a steady flow of players up the tiers.
So what should we do about it?
Should we raise the salary cap and allow the game to go the way of football? Certainly, this is the most successful way of marketing rugby, and the rate the SH factory seems to churn out talent, seems to be raising the overall standard of club rugby. But the cons are obvious.
Or, should a Europe-wide salary cap, of say â'¬5m, be enforced? We cannot include the SH nations because they don't have the same economies, but at least this would mean that there is less money floating around in France, and the likes of Carter would stay in New Zealand. Not that it wouldn't be great to see some of these players in the HC, but I'd hate to see the situation where there are enough All Blacks playing in Europe to render any victory over them slightly hollow.
What do you all think?
