This is a simple fix. The ARU should stop offering contracts. You shouldn't have a contract to play for your country. It's stupid. Play them in match fees and nothing more. Most sports don't do it and stupid that the ARU does.
The A-League is one of the worst leagues in the world. I was talking to a prominent English journalist who was out here recently and asked in what he thought of the A-League and his reply was "it's like league 2 but with less running." League 2 being the lowest professional league in England (about 90 odd teams from the top). Too get a million dollars for half that squad is a correct valuation. It is money rather then nothing.
I wouldn't expect Australian Rugby to end up like the A-League as you produce much higher quality Rugby players than you do footballers. A better point of reference in football would be South America where a high proportion of the world's top players are developed, spend much of their career in Europe and return at the tail ends of their careers.
The Messi situation will never happen again. Barcelona have a transfer ban imposed by FIFA due to breaking under age laws. You can't sign players from outside the EU under the age of 18. We'll see less and less of this type of situation happening.
Messi's situation was unique, but it's my understanding that he's not 1 of the 10 players for which Barcelona are under investigation for. Most big European clubs get around the FIFA regulation by having feeder clubs who will sign the player locally prior to him being 18 then the parent club pays a nominal fee for the player.
For other players they point to the FIFA regulations and tell the kids parents that they can't sign him when he's under 18 and they suggest that his parents read the regulations carefully. Upon reading the regulations the parents then discover that if they move there for non-footballing reasons then they can sign with the club.
Barca's ban is justified because they've been breaching the rules for a very long time and the Spanish FA have looked the other way. However I wouldn't take their 2 window ban and a paultry fine (for them at least) of half a million Euros as a sign that there'll never be another U-18 from outside of the EU in the Barca academy.Barca will just be smarter about it in the future.
Also big clubs tend to be able to get their punishments reduced once the lawyers get involved and I wouldn't be surprised if Barca do the same.
It's not about profit it's about sustainability, rarely any team in any sport is profitable, only players, coaches/managers or agent. Big clubs have used the transfer system to help them process/sustain.
Not making a profit is not sustainable in the long term for any business. At the moment teams in Australia have to be propped up by the ARU.
Manchester United - Selling Ronaldo keep the team balance the books and sustain a high level for future years (showing signs of falling are appearing now). Even being the most commercially successful side in the world with all the money TV revenue can provide the still have $$ problems.
The Ronaldo transfer was one of Europe's elite selling their top player to another of Europe's elite. No money or top player move outside of Europe in this deal.
Spurs - Sold Bale for record fee, managed to buy half a new team (would have been more of a success if they brought the players they where recommended to buy but didn't), But kept them close to the top of the league. If there wasn't a system in place for Bale to leave midway through his contract, they wouldn't have had him for as long and been left with nothing.
80% of the money that Tottenham got from Gareth Bale was spent buying players from other European clubs. Spurs signed Bale for a fee of £7 million pounds from a smaller club and then sold him on for £80 million to real.
Tottenham are one of England's top 8 clubs and are at the top of the domestic transfer system so they reap more benefit than most clubs do.
Arsenal - who managed to pay off a huge % of their 60k stadium through smart transfers (buy young players for cheap, turning into professionals and making a massive profit. Biggest being Cesc Fabregas who was brought for next to nothing and sold for 40mil. They did this will about 8 players, turning over huge profit. Arsenal are considered to be the best club in the world when it comes to business. One of the only clubs that consistently turn profit. Recently brought one of the best players in the world, Ozil.
Arsenal are a club I greatly admire due to their financial prudence. But they are a very rare gem among Europe's elite. Also a majority of the club's fans blame their lack of trophy's in the last 9 years on their refusal to spend big in the transfer market.
But again Arsenal are one of Europe's elite clubs who benefit most from the transfer system.
Newcastle - Sold Andy Carroll to Liverpool for $36mil. Brought a 5-6 players with the profits and the qualified for the Europa League
Newcastle are owned by a billionaire but still can't compete financially with the top clubs in the transfer market. They're an enormous club but they still have to sell their best players to fund incoming transfers. They would also be considered one of the Premiership's top 8 clubs for whom the transfer system works best.
Southampton - Have a fantastic youth system. Have developed the likes of Bale, Walcott , Chamberlin, Oxlade-chamberlain to bigger clubs for fees. This has helped them get promoted to the Premier League, where they get a lot of TV money helping them become more stable. The transfer modal has been very helpful to them.
Selling there players helped them to keep the club going to move into a more profitable position.
This is the same Southampton who were relegated when they went into administration in 2009 and also handed a 10 point deduction. That's despite having to sell Bale to Tottenham to keep the wolf from the door. They were due to get a total of £10 million pounds for Bale but the fee was reduced to £7 million as they needed the money faster. I wouldn't call that sustainable.
Also Walcott move to Arsenal before Southampton went into administration for a potential fee of £12 million. But again due to Southampton's financial position this was reduced to just over £9 million.
But still the money wasn't enough to save Southampton financially.
All of these examples involve clubs at the top of the English or European game because that's where the big TV money, sponsorship deals, merchandising deal etc. are. Very little of that money goes outside of the European system. I don't want something similar to emerge in Rugby.
