ARU moves to kill off club player payments: A 3rd tier, club rugby and the $60k persuader

[Quick Hands]

View attachment 4109 Well no one could accuse the ARU of trying to hide the big announcements.
Lets take the biggest week of the premier club rugby year in Sydney to announce what sound like big changes to the rules, availability and maybe even eligibility.
It's surprising how much influence the Pulveriser thinks $60k can buy with the clubs - but it doesn't appear to have dawned on him that if the ARU can influence the clubs for such a small sum those clubs must be a tad under funded.
The other worrying sign is that he does not have his eyes on the ball in the photo - perhaps he is moonlighting as a skills coach for the Wobbs.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...off--club-player-payments-20130909-2tgca.html
It is very unclear to me how teams worthy of playing in this national club comp could expect to play in competitive fixtures in, for instance, the Shute Shield given that the "plan" recognizes that the national comp would need to use teams constituted from several club sides who would then compete with what sound like stand alone clubs from the Shute Shield and equivalents.

I didn't realise how far removed from rugby reality the Pulveriser was until I read this article. Manly get about $60,000 from gate takings, which would barely cover day to day expenses for a SS club - grade, colts, juniors (remember them).

It's the 21st century and we have a sports administrator trying to enforce the laws of amateurism - even if it were possible, it's just too ludicrous for words.

Not having his eyes on the ball seems a nice metaphor.

 

[Dave Beat]

I didn't realise how far removed from rugby reality the Pulveriser was until I read this article. Manly get about $60,000 from gate takings, which would barely cover day to day expenses for a SS club - grade, colts, juniors (remember them).

It's the 21st century and we have a sports administrator trying to enforce the laws of amateurism - even if it were possible, it's just too ludicrous for words.

Not having his eyes on the ball seems a nice metaphor.

And Quick Hands Manly have one of the better gates.

 

[Quick Hands]

I We have far too many teams in our third tier which means that talent is spread too thinly.

This is true, but it's a result of 2 things over which we have no control. 3rd tier competitions work well in SAF and NZ because:
firstly rugby is their major winter sport, whereas in Australia it is the number 4 football code and secondly because of the geographic size of Australia compared to those 2 countries. It's much easier to move teams and supporters around and less expensive that here.

 

[Quick Hands]

Does the Pulveriser really want to go back to this?
You are a professional if you:

• Are paid (in any form) or accept the promise of pay for playing in an athletics contest;
• Sign a contract or verbally commit with an agent or a professional sports organization;
• Ask that your name be placed on a draft list (Note: in basketball, once you become a student-athlete at an NCAA school, you may enter a professional league’s draft one time without jeopardizing your eligibility provided you are not drafted by any team in that league and you declare your intention in writing to return to college within 30 days after the draft;
• Use your athletics skill for pay in any form (for example, TV commercials, demonstrations);
• Play on a professional athletics team; or
• Participate on an amateur sports team and receive any salary, incentive payment, award, gratuity, educational expenses or expense allowance (other than playing apparel, equipment and actual and necessary travel, and room and board expenses).

NCAA rules on amateurism, I recall that the IRB's were even more draconian.

The NCAA also seems to be losing the battle in the US Courts. Noting also that they are dealing with university athletes competing only in university competions, not people trying to earn a living.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1446&context=dlj

Is this madcap return to amateurism being done anywhere else in the rugby playing world?

 

[D-Box]

Many of the top NCAA athletes are not really armature as we consider it as they are receiving tuition and accommodation scholarships at the universities. mValued much more than $10,000 per year

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Many of the top NCAA athletes are not really armature as we consider it as they are receiving tuition and accommodation scholarships at the universities. mValued much more than $10,000 per year

I'm a bit of a College Football fan and I tend to watch a lot of the game day shows. There was a discussion about whether College Footballers should be paid. The case against it outlined that on average these guys are on scholarship worth anywhere between $30-50,000 per year and already receive a stipend to cover their expenses (to the tune of $1,000 per week).

The definition of amateur in College Football wouldn't exactly gel with what we're talking about.

 

[Quick Hands]

Many of the top NCAA athletes are not really armature as we consider it as they are receiving tuition and accommodation scholarships at the universities. mValued much more than $10,000 per year

Correct, which establishes my point. There are so many ways around the rules that even the NCAA with its billions of dollars in resources can't stop the tide.

 

[boyo]

Many of the top NCAA athletes are not really armature as we consider it as they are receiving tuition and accommodation scholarships at the universities. mValued much more than $10,000 per year

But they can motor.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm a bit of a College Football fan and I tend to watch a lot of the game day shows. There was a discussion about whether College Footballers should be paid. The case against it outlined that on average these guys are on scholarship worth anywhere between $30-50,000 per year and already receive a stipend to cover their expenses (to the tune of $1,000 per week).

The definition of amateur in College Football wouldn't exactly gel with what we're talking about.

With respect, it gels exactly with what we're talking about. There is really only 1 definition of amateur in the true sense.
Because once you have an amatuer rule, then you need the full panoply of rules and exemptions that go with it, otherwise people are just paid, but it's called petrol money, laundry allowance, study allowance, time off work allowance, medical allowance etc., etc., etc. So you don't end up with amateurism, you end up with shamateurism, in which those who can skirt around the rules find new and ingenious ways to do so and maintain exactly the same income, while those who can't suffer. It in fact creates and even more unlevel playing field, while putting pressure on clubs to skirt the rules to attract players without reducing in any way their expenses.
If the NCAA is struggling to hold the amateur line, does anyone expect the ARU to successfully do so? With their track record on just about anything, are the ARU going to lead the world in a return to amateur sport?

Have a read of the link I posted in post #64. It provides illuminating reading. The title of the article is :
THE NCAA’S LOST CAUSE AND THE LEGAL
EASE OF REDEFINING AMATEURISM
A couple of nice little points;

Amateurism is assumed to be good. This notion of amateurism is
characterized by nostalgia for a time when sport was played for pure
love. This misremembered glory serves as the foundation for ...
Amateurism, as defined in 1866
by an English organization, demanded that amateur athletes had
never taught athletics for pay or competed for prizes. The amateur
ideal evolved in modern England so that gentlemen would never have
to lose at sport to commoners.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

With respect, it gels exactly with what we're talking about. There is really only 1 definition of amateur in the true sense.
Because once you have an amatuer rule, then you need the full panoply of rules and exemptions that go with it, otherwise people are just paid, but it's called petrol money, laundry allowance, study allowance, time off work allowance, medical allowance etc., etc., etc. So you don't end up with amateurism, you end up with shamateurism, in which those who can skirt around the rules find new and ingenious ways to do so and maintain exactly the same income, while those who can't suffer. It in fact creates and even more unlevel playing field, while putting pressure on clubs to skirt the rules to attract players without reducing in any way their expenses.
If the NCAA is struggling to hold the amateur line, does anyone expect the ARU to successfully do so? With their track record on just about anything, are the ARU going to lead the world in a return to amateur sport?

Have a read of the link I posted in post #64. It provides illuminating reading. The title of the article is :
THE NCAA’S LOST CAUSE AND THE LEGAL
EASE OF REDEFINING AMATEURISM
A couple of nice little points;

Amateurism is assumed to be good. This notion of amateurism is
characterized by nostalgia for a time when sport was played for pure
love. This misremembered glory serves as the foundation for .
Amateurism, as defined in 1866
by an English organization, demanded that amateur athletes had
never taught athletics for pay or competed for prizes. The amateur
ideal evolved in modern England so that gentlemen would never have
to lose at sport to commoners.

My point was College Football players are actually professionals and have been for a very long time now. They are on in effect contracts from anywhere from $80-100,000 a season when you take into account all their peaks and privileges.

We're discussing the move back to amateurism with no payment. We'll that's what I'm discussing.

 

[Quick Hands]

My point was College Football players are actually professionals and have been for a very long time now. They are on in effect contracts from anywhere from $80-100,000 a season when you take into account all their peaks and privileges.

We're discussing the move back to amateurism with no payment. We'll that's what I'm discussing.

They might "actually" be professionals, but the NCAA is an amateur organisation, administering amateur sport. So many ways have been found around the rules they just have to live with it. You'll find that these guys are technically amateur, otherwise they couldn't participate in any NCAA competition.

So in the 21st century, it's just not possible to stop people being paid, if someone wants to pay them. They just don't call it pay anymore, they call it, "perks", "privileges","allowances", "expenses", etc.

We'd have the ridiculous situation where some people could have all sorts of benefits given to them being treated differently from someone receiving less benefit in the form of cash.

I'd love to see someone take the ARU on in the courts if this ludicrous proposal goes ahead.

That the person running the game has actually proposed this is quite frightening, particularly when he is on a significant salary and wants to stop guys who train 4 or 5 times a week from receiving peanuts.

 

[Dave Beat]

Break away comp called Green and Gold Rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

They might "actually" be professionals, but the NCAA is an amateur organisation, administering amateur sport. So many ways have been found around the rules they just have to live with it. You'll find that these guys are technically amateur, otherwise they couldn't participate in any NCAA competition.

So in the 21st century, it's just not possible to stop people being paid, if someone wants to pay them. They just don't call it pay anymore, they call it, "perks", "privileges","allowances", "expenses", etc.

We'd have the ridiculous situation where some people could have all sorts of benefits given to them being treated differently from someone receiving less benefit in the form of cash.

I'd love to see someone take the ARU on in the courts if this ludicrous proposal goes ahead.

That the person running the game has actually proposed this is quite frightening, particularly when he is on a significant salary and wants to stop guys who train 4 or 5 times a week from receiving peanuts.

I agree that asking guys to sacrifice the time and effort they current do for nothing as opposed to the small amount they were receiving is wrong. I have said above (page before this one) I suspect clubs would more than likely prefer to look to source income as a means of replacing the grants rather than go down that route. Even if they do, it will be a cash economy in all likelihood.

I'm not going to go into too much detail regarding the NCAA, but the organisations has lost a great deal of credibility in the last few years due to its attitude toward College Football. Football is the big driver in terms of University revenue. Same for the NCAA. This has lead to the overlooking of payments and privileges provided by Universities. The NCAA has effectively through its lack of action and enforcement sanctioned professionalism in College Football.

 

[Quick Hands]

I agree that asking guys to sacrifice the time and effort they current do for nothing as opposed to the small amount they were receiving is wrong. I have said above (page before this one) I suspect clubs would more than likely prefer to look to source income as a means of replacing the grants rather than go down that route. Even if they do, it will be a cash economy in all likelihood.

I'm not going to go into too much detail regarding the NCAA, but the organisations has lost a great deal of credibility in the last few years due to its attitude toward College Football. Football is the big driver in terms of University revenue. Same for the NCAA. This has lead to the overlooking of payments and privileges provided by Universities. The NCAA has effectively through its lack of action and enforcement sanctioned professionalism in College Football.

I think we agree.

In regards the NCAA, true they have turned a blind eye on ocassions, but they've also lost regularly in the courts. See post #64 for one of their losses.

EDIT: I also see it as an exercise in futility to try to enforce amateurism in this day and age. If the NCAA and the IOC can't do it, I have zero confidence in the ARU's ability to do so.

 

[Dave Beat]

I

I think we agree.

In regards the NCAA, true they have turned a blind eye on ocassions, but they've also lost regularly in the courts. See post #64 for one of their losses.

EDIT: I also see it as an exercise in futility to try to enforce amateurism in this day and age. If the NCAA and the IOC can't do it, I have zero confidence in the ARU's ability to do so.

I wonder how much coin will be spent trying, how does what Uni offer fall under Pulvers guide.

 

[Quick Hands]

I
I wonder how much coin will be spent trying, how does what Uni offer fall under Pulvers guide.

That's the fundamental unfairness ingrained in the laws of amateurism. They can allow all sorts of benefits, worth many thousands of dollars to certain people, but deny any benefit in the form of cash to others.

Some would argue that 19th century amateurism was the aristocracy's way of keeping the plebs in their place as elite sport became the preserve of those who had enough wealth to spend time training and playing.

Just think for a moment; SS coaches, club doctors, physios, some club adminstrators, Super players returning to club, academy players playing at club, elite panel referees refereeing SS and no doubt some others would be paid during their SS involvement. Some players would be on university scholarships worth thousands, others might work for employers who gave them time off to play/train on full pay, but the poor bloke who has a full time job has to play and train with and against them for nothing. Apart from being grossly unfair and almost unenforeceable, it's also an unreasonable restraint of trade I would have thought. I'd love to hear the ARU try and justify in court how, in a professional sport, some participants in one particular competition should be prevented from receiving any payment.

I'm still waiting for someone to point to any other place in the rugby playing world where the governing body is trying to ban player payments. I'd also like to be shown an example from any sport where moving from a professional paid environment to an amateur environment has led to a higher standard of competition - assuming of course that any example can be found where a governing body has moved from a professional to an amateur model. I'm all ears Mr Pulver.

 

[happyjack]

The IRFU are trying to enforce this too.
In a perfect world it would be great. The real issue is the ARU themselves. Most club payments/benefits go to help prop uo academy players who are expected to train full time for $5k. Some of the guys are forced to relocate from regional areas or minor states.
To steal from a movie the ARU can't handle the truth. They need Premier clubs scraping together their dimes to ensure that the next tier of players can survive.
The reason this is an issue is because there is a limited pool of funding for high performance Rugby and the franchises want the Premier funding to increase their budgets. To achieve this they are pushing the case that clubs only spend their funding on paying players and not resources or programs.
It has been 14 years since we have seen a holistic corporate vision for the game. Everything at the moment is piecemeal bandaid solutions that are often very divisive and mean spirited.
Unfortunately the clubs play into their hands with petty jealousies against clubs like Sydney Uni.

 

[TOCC]

Professional model?

The Shute Shield is not a professional set-up, a professional competition would be all players earning enough money from rugby to support themselves, this isn't the case, its barely even semi-professional, some clubs like uni are resourced akin to a professional side but in terms of player payments they aren't professional.

Given the financial states of the clubs and the massive disparity in finances and players it makes sense to implement control measures over player payments, its exactly the reason why other codes implement the salary cap, to prevent clubs from competing for players and driving themselves into debt.

Player payments are a financial liability thats only going to be a greater risk if a new third tier is implemented above the shute shield.

 

[Quick Hands]

Professional model?

The Shute Shield is not a professional set-up, a professional competition would be all players earning enough money from rugby to support themselves, this isn't the case, its barely even semi-professional, some clubs like uni are resourced akin to a professional side but in terms of player payments they aren't professional.

Given the financial states of the clubs and the massive disparity in finances and players it makes sense to implement control measures over player payments, its exactly the reason why other codes implement the salary cap, to prevent clubs from competing for players and driving themselves into debt.

Player payments are a financial liability thats only going to be a greater risk if a new third tier is implemented above the shute shield.

Not correct.

A professional sportsman is a person who receives financial reward for playing, coaching, refereeing etc.

A full-time professional is someone who makes their living from that financial reward.

 

[wamberal]

Professional model?

The Shute Shield is not a professional set-up, a professional competition would be all players earning enough money from rugby to support themselves, this isn't the case, its barely even semi-professional, some clubs like uni are resourced akin to a professional side but in terms of player payments they aren't professional.

How do you know how much players at clubs like Southern Districts are paid? It is common knowledge that some players are earning pretty attractive bikkies.


I would guess that the same question could be asked at a couple of the clubs, not to mention the Golden Boys Corporation.