Australian Rugby / RA

[Braveheart81]

Quantifying effort isn't really feasible, but incentive based, partially non-guaranteed contracts are essentially what US sports run off (especially contact sports) so I don't know why Australian rugby players should somehow be above it

The only US sport where contracts aren't guaranteed is the NFL and that is moving towards far more guaranteed money, particularly for the best players.

Like all sports the best players get paid the most money, get the most guarantees and get the most favourable contract terms (such as no trade clauses etc.).

 

[Tomthumb]

Don't you think we'll just have players leave for a guaranteed cheque? No NHL player worth a pinch of shit wants to go play in Russia. NFL player can't go anywhere and make a big pay day.

They are leaving anyway though

 

[Tomthumb]

The only US sport where contracts aren't guaranteed is the NFL and that is moving towards far more guaranteed money, particularly for the best players.

Like all sports the best players get paid the most money, get the most guarantees and get the most favourable contract terms (such as no trade clauses etc.).

All 4 of the US sports use non-guaranteed or incentive based contracts. NFL uses it most, but they all use it

 

[eastman]

There are way more than 2 or 3 options.

You need time, first to convince people of the need to make a major change, and that does take time.

Then you need to explore, what are the various options, then determine of these options which one is best suited to Australian Rugby needs.

Having made this decision, determine what structural changes are needed and like all of the above these need to be negotiated.

Having reached this point, its a matter of selling the idea to all the major backers, sponsors, broadcasters etc.

Then bring all the people together and implement the plan, maybe it would not take five years but I doubt it could be done in under four years.

The reason the Nobody Really Cares competitions failed was because they were rushed, from start to finish in six months.

I maintain it can't be done quickly

So you are proposing literally nothing but an extended planning phase?

Everything you have said would have either been done multiple times or is currently happening now.

Ill simplify your every post - find the right format and convince the players and other key stakeholders.

 

[half]

revenue from Super Rugby doesn't cover Super Rugby let alone have the ability to fund another competition

OK mate the revenue from the next media deal.... really mate ... and BTW its not fund a new competition, its to fund as I said the development of the concept and the investigation of the best system / model and then selling that to all stakeholders. Its not paying and funding teams.

To succeed it needs to be done slowly with care to determine how people feel, listening to the views of the broader rugby community is essential in the communication process.

 

[Tomthumb]

US sports operate in a different sphere to rugby in Australia...
the minimum wage of NFL is 600% the average salary in the US,
the minimum wage of Super Rugby is 75% the aveage salary in Aus.

It's easy to build in significant bonus clauses when your base contract already guarantees financial stability...

That's because Rugby is a far less popular, less lucrative and has less players vying for spots

We act like these guys should be automatically paid like the top 1% of earners when there isn't any evidence they are worth that

 

[Highlander35]

There's no reason you can't switch to incentive based contracts, it would probably work out well financially for RA, at least to start with.

I don't see a pathway to it improving either the quality of either the Wallabies or Domestic Rugby in Australia, but hey, we get to not call our players overremunerated anymore.

 

[Adam84]

All 4 of the US sports use non-guaranteed or incentive based contracts. NFL uses it most, but they all use it

Athletes in those 4 sports can buy a house on minimum wage with only 1 year's salary... Some sports can buy multiple.
In Australia a rugby players earning minimum wage would need 10 years to afford a house based on average prices.

Comparing to the US sports wages and using that as justification is a silly metric in this case

 

[Omar Comin']

I tend to think a lot of these people made a lot of money because they are pretty brutal with it. Again, does Rugby have or maintain a profile to increase their networks? I'd assume most in that realm who would like Rugby are already aware and in contact with each other. I don't think owning a Rugby Club would bring a lot of notoriety really. Do we know most of the A league owners? I know I don't and if we had a domestic comp it would start much smaller than that I think.

I think the more likely owners/investors would be a little older (semi-retired or recently retired) and motivated more by factors like ego, the desire to leave a legacy, boredom/search for novelty, and existential angst.

Basically owning a pro sports team in your preferred sport would be cool and interesting for a lot of people, that's enough motivation. It's more like a luxury purchase, or gambling with money you can afford to lose for entertainment.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Those teams are getting a lot more then $1million

Tahs: $3.2million(2023)
Brumbies: $4.5million(2022)
Reds: $6.6million(2023)

Rebels/Force unknown.

I have seen these numbers touted before and perhaps some clever accounting at the end of financial year reporting but there is 0 chance they are correct or some favorable reporting where the deal includes lots of contra worth up to that amount. If the Reds were legit getting $6.6m plus the annual grant of roughly $3m plus ticket sales, corporate boxes, merchandise etc, they would be reporting multimillion dollar profits.

$6.6m covers 1.2x the salary cap which would be considerably their highest expense.

 

[Tomthumb]

Athletes in those 4 sports can buy a house on minimum wage with only 1 year's salary... Some sports can buy multiple.
In Australia a rugby players earning minimum wage would need 10 years to afford a house based on average prices.

Comparing to the US sports wages and using that as justification is a silly metric in this case

They are paid more because they are worth more, but they wouldn’t be paid that money if the competition they played in was losing money

you’re looking at the numbers instead of the process. Professional sport is a business, and successful businesses don’t pay employees random amounts while losing money every year

 

[half]

So you are proposing literally nothing but an extended planning phase?

Everything you have said would have either been done multiple times or is currently happening now.

Ill simplify your every post - find the right format and convince the players and other key stakeholders.

No, I suggesting the way these things succeed is by getting everyone on board. That takes time.

""" Find the right format"""" yes but that will take a lot of time if you want it to work.

The idea it can be done sitting around a broad room , using some fans surveys to make a decision in months, and then imposing that decision from a top down perspective will fail. Not only fail but fail badly.

 

[hoggy]

revenue from Super Rugby doesn't cover Super Rugby let alone have the ability to fund another competition

The surely its about time to look at alternatives to a model that is sending the game broke.

 

[Braveheart81]

All 4 of the US sports use non-guaranteed or incentive based contracts. NFL uses it most, but they all use it

NBA, MLB and NHL are all guaranteed contracts. You sign a $20m a season contract then they are obligated to pay it for the duration of the contract.

There are certainly incentives to boost the total value of the contract through things such as All NBA selection but this is the cream on top, not a large part of their remuneration.

Until the last few years there was very little guaranteed money in NFL contracts. You could have a 5 year $100m contract but if you get cut after one season you don't get paid $80m of the contract. That has started to change significantly. Signing bonuses and guaranteed money has become a far bigger aspect of contracts particularly among the star players. They have the bargaining power to demand it.

 

[Adam84]

The surely its about time to look at alternatives to a model that is sending the game broke.

yes... said that many times..

 

[Highlander35]

They are paid more because they are worth more, but they wouldn’t be paid that money if the competition they played in was losing money

you’re looking at the numbers instead of the process. Professional sport is a business, and successful businesses don’t pay employees random amounts while losing money every year

If your position is that Rugby Union doesn't have a place as a professional sport in Australia, that's fine. Nothing stops Australian Rugby utilising aa similar model to Argentina.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Why not? What model are player contracts amounts based on? Seems to be the powerbrokers just decide how much to pay someone based on a whim as opposed to basing it on their tangible worth

The salary cap and individual contracts in US Sports are directly correlated to the profits made by the competition. Hence why the NHL Salary cap is around $200 mil less than the NBA's

Player payments in Australia are based on a revenue share agreement with RUPA, through the collective bargaining agreement.

RA agrees to pay the players 29% of player-generated revenue. That's where the player payment pool comes from. (At least they did in 2018 when it was last published)

How it's split between Wallabies, sevens, super rugby and women's players is unknown as far as I know

 

[wamberal99]

I don’t think people of extreme wealth would truly care if they lose money. The money a potential rugby team could make is pittance so they would never invest for any financial reasons, infact I think most would expect to lose considerable amounts on it. Reason why someone might be interested is if the team allows them to grease the wheels of their existing businesses/interests. Does owning a team bring with it notoriety? Does it provide a platform to wine and dine corporate partners? Will it bring them social clout with the importance of the team to the community?

People of "extreme wealth" got that way because either they inherited it, or because they think differently about money to most of us. They might be reluctant to spend money, or to accept other people laying down rules, unless there are clear benefits to them or their businesses.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I have seen these numbers touted before and perhaps some clever accounting at the end of financial year reporting but there is 0 chance they are correct or some favorable reporting where the deal includes lots of contra worth up to that amount. If the Reds were legit getting $6.6m plus the annual grant of roughly $3m plus ticket sales, corporate boxes, merchandise etc, they would be reporting multimillion dollar profits.

$6.6m covers 1.2x the salary cap which would be considerably their highest expense.

This is for the QRU, not the Queensland Reds, but they have been reporting huge profits

It's not real though, as it includes Ballymore grants

It costs something like $14m to run a Super Rugby Team. $5m for the player's salaries, and the rest on coaches, match day, marketing, corporate etc etc

The issue is revenue for most of the teams. The Reds are in a pretty good spot. The Rebels as an example, had expenses of $14m and revenue of $9m.

 

[dru]

Usual reminder that RA are bound by the constitution to represent the state member unions, Super Rugby licence holders and professional players.

It's not RA that needs to give up control. It's their shareholders.

I dont want RA to "lose control". I want them to hand over professional management to a professional management organisation.