Does anyone apart from Leeds fans believe that speech given by Sinfield? I doubt most clubs (NRL aside) would be able to afford the wages that the likes of Hall and Watkins would be on. What a load or bollox.

I see you ignored the point that you can't be both free market, anti profit and pro increased wages.

So I'll leave that to one side.

Lets take on this next fallacy that poor players are being forced to work in slave labour conditions. Surely the government would do something about these poor players not being able to get a decent wage for a decent days pay?

Players not being given their market worth, surely they could go get other jobs elsewhere in the world or in the UK or in other professions???

Surely people would just stop playing RL once they found out that they were on less than minimum wage.

Or could it be that for some people with a limited skill set, the prospect of getting wages way outside what they could achieve in other industries is still a tempting prospect. Because they could be engineers or accountants or surgeons etc....

i addressed it. I dont accept your premise. as i described earlier i think you have set out a false dichotomy.

Have you seen our government?

some do.

You've hit the nail on the head.
Junior development is the way forward for all Super League and Championship clubs.
Its no coincidence that the best clubs in Super League have the best junior set ups.

Seconded.

A successful youth system allows clubs to get more value from their cap allowance. The top clubs can all afford and attract 13-17 quality players, but the game is so often won beyond that. The better quality of youth you have, the more you minimise the impact when you loose your high-earning, high-quality stars.

Leeds were without several players the other week - Stevie Ward, Jamie Jones-Buchanan, Paul Aiton, Liam Sutcliffe just off my head. Two of those were replaced by Josh Walters and Jimmy Keinhorst. Now, I don't know what those two players are paid, but I suspect that there are call centre workers in Leeds City Centre who are earning more this year than the two men who combined for the winning try in the Grand Final.

That doesn't mean the players are underpaid or that Leeds are being cheap - the salary they are being paid is consummate to their experience and value to the club, but having quality in your 'lower paid' positions is what makes the biggest difference.

It's not my argument - it's one that's been made in research [ispecifically related[/i to sports teams - and it found that on average, in an uncapped environment, owners will overvalue players in pursuit of on-field success; and the result of overvaluing talent is, undoubtedly, wage inflation. It's logical to assume that financial difficulties for less wealthy teams, and aggregation of talent to more wealthy teams, would follow.

The procompetitive argument I think is still sound - we may not have a perfect system in SL, for some of the reasons you've described, but there is precedent in other sports worldwide, and the general consensus seems to be that sports SC's are not subject to anti-trust or anti-competition law; largely because they are an agreement between the clubs and the governing body, and that players sign up to that based on collective bargaining by their representative organisations. Didn't US baseball players challenge it and end up locked out for the best part of a season? The fact that the big 4 sports in the US are still salary capped would suggest that Derek Beaumont, with all his bottles of water, won't get very far in his attempts to overturn it here.

I understand the argument from a purely market forces standpoint - but you're applying rules to a situation in which those rules are not relevant or applicable. Sport is not a perfect market - the product is inelastic, there is no meaningful substitute and the primary driver is not profit maximisation.

did they over-value them or overspend on them? If over-valuing how are these studies quantifying value? If their pursuit is on field success, and that is achieved, how can that possibly result in those players being over-valued? Im not disputing that these studies have been done (i know they have) simply that the terminology and conclusions are different to how they are being presented here.

Again, wage inflation isnt a bad thing, my wage inflates every year, as im sure most do. So i dont think it is logical to assume that financial difficulties for less wealthy teams will follow and there would be more aggregation of talent at the wealthy teams.

Put in a real world scenario, which players not at Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire, Hudds, Hull or Les Catalans are elsewhere in SL because those clubs cannot afford them under the cap?



In the US there is specific exemptions from anti-trust laws which is entirely dependent on agreement with players unions. Something which is shamefully lacking here. But we arent the US and have different laws to them. Id also argue even if exactly the same principles were to apply, when your salary cap is nearly 150m it is a lot easier to argue it is working in everyones favour than when it has been stuck at 1.8m for nearly 15 years falling by about 50% in real terms over the course of its life. You are going to struggle to convince anyone that whilst the TV deal has gone up hugely and attendances and advertising have gone up it is necessary and beneficial for the market to function that wages are 1/3rd of what Wigan were spending when the cap was brought in.

With regards to the market forces argument, as i said, it isnt my preference and is a clear 2nd choice. I dont think you can argue on one-hand a salary cap is necessary and beneficial for all parties and on the other hand that clubs arent even trying to make a profit anyway. As for there being no meaningful substitute I dont think that holds water. Sport is entertainment, not only are there a huge amount of alternative sports out there, there are even more alternative entertainment options .

But that is a self defeating argument. If Leeds get to be exceptional because they are bringing through Josh Walters and Jimmy Keinhorsts and Stevie Wards, and every other club wants to be successful too, then every other club will be trying to sign Josh Walters, Jimmy Keinhorst and Stevie Ward, so the value of those players goes up.

What the salary cap does is stops an ambitious lower club paying out enough to tempt a Stevie Ward to sign for them instead of Leeds because the opportunity cost of doing so is too large. So it keeps the value of Stevie Ward lower than it otherwise would have been. So Leeds can offer Stevie Ward or Josh Walters, or Jimmy Keinhorst a relatively low wage because an ambitious lower club would need to offer substantially more to overcome the other things leeds offer meaning they cant spend as much elsewhere and the clubs who can offer the same 'other' things as Leeds cannot offer a meaningful amount more than Leeds because of the cap.

This is why we see such a relatively small amount of movement of star players. We dont even see them moving between the big clubs. When a star player moves he will go to Union or the NRL. Who was the last star player to move between SL clubs? Stuart Fielden? thats nearly a decade ago.

Of this years dream team, there are 2 NRL players, and 11 SL players, of those 11 SL players 8 are playing for the club they made their SL debut. Of the three to move, JP moved a decade ago. Danny Brough went to Hudds from Wakefield and Luke Gale signed from the relegated club.

The reality of the salary cap is it has destroyed the market for top quality players, they simply dont move from the top clubs. So an ambitious lower club is at a disadvantage in signing young players, have to pay more to attract fringe players and simply cannot sign top players. Its all very well arguing that good youth development allows a club to get more value from the cap, but it is impossible under the cap for a lesser club to create a fair playing field in attracting those players. The SC entrenches the big clubs at the top and the bottom clubs at the bottom.

If you over-value, you overspend; you're nit-picking on language. And no, I'm not changing the terminology or conclusions to suit - I'm summarising the findings of research specifically into SC's in sport, which is extensive, academic and credible.



Different kind of inflation - as you well know, so it really is logical; if certain teams can suddenly inflate the wages of players to attract them to their clubs, less wealthy clubs either have to gamble to keep up by paying more than they can afford, or fall behind - both resulting in financial difficulties. The more likely scenario is that certain teams have a roster of internationals and talent is aggregated at those clubs - damaging the competitiveness of the league and impacting negatively on spectator interest at all but the wealthiest teams.



I don't know.



US anti-trust law was based on UK anti-competition law - and now the influence is strongly in the other direction; EU law applies in some cases (possibly SL, since the inclusion of a French team means it crosses borders) and again, that was heavily influenced by the US model; so whilst the terminology and laws are different, they will be closely aligned and I just can't see an agreement that has been subject to collective bargaining being ruled any differently here than it was in the US. And if the SL players union is toothless - perhaps that's something for Jon Wilkin and his comrades to sort out - not a judge.

In terms of it working in everyone's favour - you miss out a key stakeholder group - the supporters; and it would be fairly straightforward to argue that an unregulated bun fight for players signatures would not be in their favour. Unless they happen to be supporters of a club with unlimited funds of course, which is exactly what a SC seeks to avoid.



In economic terms, there is no meaningful substitute; if Coca Cola put their fizzy spew up to £5 a tin, I can buy Pepsi's alternative spew - or a supermarket own brand. If Wakefield put their ticket price up to football levels or go out of business, I can't suddenly start supporting Leeds, or go to the pictures instead - sport doesn't work like that, nor should it, and economists understand that perfectly well - hence the significant amount of research into the subject.

I hope Derek Beaumont does take the RFL to court over the SC - I think he'd lose, and the concept of the SC would have a sound basis in law - then we can stop arguing about it.

I read a tweet recently suggesting that League 13 may be no more.

Lack of support and funds,apparently.

But a club over-spending is different to my point which was regarding the value of players.

in principle it is the same kind of inflation. My wage inflates not to keep pace which general inflation but (in simple terms) to keep me from leaving to a competitor.

There isnt a relationship (at the top level) between affordability and the cap. Part of the franchising criteria was a £4m turnover, so we can safely assume some clubs were below or at least around that amount. So we can see that some clubs will be spending towards 50% of their turnover on wages, whereas others would be spending closer to around 15-20%, this is important........



because talent already aggregates at the big clubs and smaller clubs will always have to gamble on spending more (relative to both their own turnover, in relation to the big clubs, and absolutely) to keep up, but the salary cap reduces the chances of the smaller club being able to achieve success.

And again, the spread or movement of talent from big to smaller, and the limiting of talent being brought in by the big clubs can be achieved better in other ways.

Even if we accept that the US anti-trust law is by and large identical to ours (im not saying it is) then Super league's application of it simply isnt anywhere close to US sports application of it.

And the best way for the SL players to assert their rights would be through legal judgement.

Im not forgetting the Supporters, because it can be strongly argued that the SC cap disadvantages supporters by excluding the best players in Rugby from SL, by the entrenchment of success, in our system by disadvantaging some clubs from promotion and all the arguments negative to the SC.

Its not a fashionable statement, but it is undoubtedly true, but if Wakefield were to go out of business you can suddenly start supporting leeds, you could go to the pictures, you can go watch a different sport.

As for if Beaumont were to take the RFL to court (or a player were) i would question how far SL/The RFL would go to enforce a rule that actually has no benefit to them. I guess on the Marwan/Evalds thread we might be seeing an answer soon.

Why isn't it working?

Well read it ... [urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=E1[/url

Interesting (E1:3:1) that it would only take a vote of 6 clubs (say Salford, Wakefield, Widnes, Hull, Hull KR & Castleford) to increase the cap from the current £1.825 million a year to say £5 million. Those clubs could stick to paying what they can afford as most do now & see what happens at the 'big' clubs.

See Union clubs have been given a £1million pa increase in salary caps. Should we expect a major raid on top RL players as their idea of a quick fix for their ineptitude at international level? Also Gatland and Edwards look likely to be approached for England RU coaching jobs.

Rugby Union levels will be £6.5m in 2016/17 and £7m in 2017/18, plus exclusions for 2 players etc

This is why we are getting left behind and why we must ditch the cap or at worst double it to £4m or so

Whilst we are getting left behind financially, the RU cap covers a first team squad of about 40 players on average.

What is the funding from the RFU to the clubs Mo

Also need to remember that a testimonial year will be of much more value to a player who can stay at (for example) Leeds or Wigan for 10years than at other clubs as the majority of testimonial money comes from the corporate side. This will have a bearing on young players contract negotiations.

£6.5m / 40 = £162.5k avg.

£1.8m / 25 = £72k avg.

any young player coming through can see you are paid twice as much for doing half as much work in union

Or they could earn massively more working in the City. It doesn't mean it's a route available to the vast majority of young lads. Union is still very much built upon the public school system and young lads don't look at things like this and say "oh I'll go and play Union instead".
The only time an issue arises is when they are made an offer by a Union club. But they are relatively few and far between.

It is not the vast majority that is of concern. It is the danger of losing more of our best players which would lower the standard of SL further that is the worry

More chance of good british rl players going to the nrl then union as our players dont seem to popular with unions "old boys". The salary cap will only work if all teams can spend to full cap and if the less successful clubs can keep hold of their better players to build a squad capable of challenging the top 4, rather then lose their better players to top 4 sides. Maybe the rl could sponsor the clubs who are struggling or offer incentives for good young players to stay at the said clubs and give them a chance to build a team capable of challenging for honours. Tbh i dont think the top clubs would agree with lower rated clubs getting much help as it could help stop them monopolising the honours each season. Werent Storm given a lot of help in their infancy to ensure their team was capable of challenging and make them an attractive team to encourage people from an aussie rules stronghold to support.
The salary cap does need increasing but so does the money coming in to rl. The marketing in rl is pants and has been for years. We like to call it the greatest game amongst ourselves but it needs shouting out in areas that arent rl strongholds with a truly competative league to prove it.

My belief is that the salary cap is working. The lack of competition for silverware reflects the small number of clubs with sufficient resource to compete at the top end of SL. Why does it work better in Australia? Well, they had mergers. We resisted them - no Humberside, Calder or Cheshire. Choosing tradition is entirely legitimate, but wanting competitive balance as well is probably a bit 'cake and eat it'.
There are all sorts of loopholes in the cap, so I expect that wage bills vary significantly, even between teams notionally spending up to the limit. The higher rate of tax means that an extra £10k spent is only about an extra £6k received. Plus you're going to get more job satisfaction playing for the perennial winners. When you look at things in the round I don't think any of it is very surprising.
at least supporters of 'opponent' teams can expect to beat the wealthier clubs every now and then. We all know how the season will end, but at least the results of individual games remain somewhat uncertain, and for that I'm grateful to the cap. If they happened to agree with this analysis, then fans of Leeds/Wigan/Saints might say 'well just merge then', but they have the consolation of supporting teams who win stuff, so surely can't complain too much. Success fatigue will elicit limited sympathy I'm afraid!
The youth development thing is a factor, but only one of several. By itself it wouldn't make all that much difference, to clubs 7-12. No more than putting formula 1 tyres on my Ford Fiesta would allow it to do 180 mph.

Mergers has nothing to do with the competitiveness of the comp. in nrl, clubs being legit in spending the cap and players moving clubs to earn a bit more are. You often see a player break through, get some rep honours and be able to command a top tier salary that the current club can't match. If there are 4-5 players per club who can command top tier salary then the next tier down are the ones targeting by the struggling clubs. Still can't figure out why this isn't happening in SL IF all clubs are paying same salary cap. I don't buy the staying at a successful club, it's a short career and if a player can earn 50k more somewhere else then I doubt he'd not be tempted.
Next season we'll have a struggling warriors strengrpthend by RTS and Luke moving from gf winning clubs and Foran moving from a successful manly club to a wooden spoon eels.

because players can't earn 50k more.

a 1.8m cap is 72k a player for a 25man squad. Even a wage of 150-200k has a huge effect on that.

The big clubs all have the same exemptions and discounts, there wont be a significant difference between the 4-5 stars at each club, there wont be a significant difference between the 10 first teamers, there wont be a significant difference between the 10-15 fringe players and prospects. Wigan can't afford to offer 50k more than Leeds or Saints or Wire because the cap makes the opportunity cost of doing so too high. Spending an extra 50k on a star player for them means losing a first teamer and replace them with a fringe player.

For the lesser clubs they perhaps can afford to offer an extra 50k for a star player, but they can't offer the opportunity for prize money, trophies, have the barrier of inertia, can't offer the security of a big side, the off-field and sports science stuff and still need to deal with the fact they have spent 50k more and need to build a squad.


The very best players in SL are on 150-200k, a 50k difference in salary is a huge jump. Its a decent player. We just arent going to see 1 team offer 50k more than the rest in a league where the average salary equals 72k. The NRL salary cap is much higher, the effective spend is about £3.5m with a hell of a lot more 'marginal talent'. So for the same percentage the NRL can offer a 100k increase as an SL club offering 50k. Added to the increased marginal talent the NZW can offer TVS a big increase without it costing so much of the cap, and 'make up' that increased spend with a bigger, better selection of cheaper players stepping up.

The cap is full of holes, so I very much doubt we (Hull KR) spend what Leeds or Wigan do on player wages.

Plus they have the option of paying fees, instead of competing for ooc players in an open market. And then bigger support staffs and so on.

Basically there are enough big clubs in Australia to support a highly competitive league of a sensible size. In the UK there aren't. The cap means that when Rovers or Widnes play Wigan or Leeds, the outcome usually ranges from narrow victory to heavy defeat for the underdog. Without the cap that'd probably be defeat to very heavy defeat. The cap levels things a bit, expecting to level things much more is not realistic IMO.