Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Here's a parallel I was thinking about when I saw the headline of an NRL article about the insurance situation (link here).
Because the NRL players basically have no other avenue for income, and because rugby league has no base outside eastern Australia, South Auckland, and the very small part of the UK population that could give > 0 fucks about anything except roundball, there is the ability for players to whinge about conditions through the media in order to force change.
They exist in a kind of uneasy truce where the players know they can make waves if they need to, and the NRL knows they can pay for it because they have negotiated a huge war chest. But both of them know they're lashed to the other so its worthwhile not being too big a dickhead (or you'll be on the third iteration of your last chance).
But its not a bad thing because neither side really gets to dictate to the other.
In rugby union, if a player is unhappy about their situation, there is no media power there to get things through, because the appeal of rugby simply isn't widespread enough and the ARU don't have the funds to do anything about it anyway. So the player who wants more money can just go offshore, and understand that they don't get a golden jumper because of it (and probably weren't in line anyway, given the cyclical effect of World Cups on consistency in team selection).
The bigger issue is when a player is courted by the ARU as a concrete requirement - which is a BIG mistake on the employer's part as no-one is irreplaceable. I have reservations about the ARU top-up situation in certain circumstances as it creates an inequality based on your position, particularly as it relates to backs versus forwards pay.
Think about a situation where we have e.g. four excellent openside flankers. Now only two of them at most are going to make the Wallabies on game day, and the squad maybe has a third 7 if circumstances are right. We might have a real shortage of quality scrumhalves at the same time, but the chances of that fourth openside getting a top-up are still zero. They'll be lucky to maybe get a Test match payment if they get on the field after a hideous run of injuries.
The ARU has to make decisions about the best X players to give top-ups to ahead of time, while the provinces maintain a maximum limit on player payments and a cap that overarches all of that.
In part, the development of the NRC gives us a product for a bigger media footprint and therefore more cash in the game (e.g. Buildcorp sinking $350K into it). It may lead to bigger player pools using their negotiating power of course, but I think the key to assisting the game is attracting private investment - something that clubs like Eastwood should be able to do through their network of corporate contacts if they're doing it right.
Because the NRL players basically have no other avenue for income, and because rugby league has no base outside eastern Australia, South Auckland, and the very small part of the UK population that could give > 0 fucks about anything except roundball, there is the ability for players to whinge about conditions through the media in order to force change.
They exist in a kind of uneasy truce where the players know they can make waves if they need to, and the NRL knows they can pay for it because they have negotiated a huge war chest. But both of them know they're lashed to the other so its worthwhile not being too big a dickhead (or you'll be on the third iteration of your last chance).
But its not a bad thing because neither side really gets to dictate to the other.
In rugby union, if a player is unhappy about their situation, there is no media power there to get things through, because the appeal of rugby simply isn't widespread enough and the ARU don't have the funds to do anything about it anyway. So the player who wants more money can just go offshore, and understand that they don't get a golden jumper because of it (and probably weren't in line anyway, given the cyclical effect of World Cups on consistency in team selection).
The bigger issue is when a player is courted by the ARU as a concrete requirement - which is a BIG mistake on the employer's part as no-one is irreplaceable. I have reservations about the ARU top-up situation in certain circumstances as it creates an inequality based on your position, particularly as it relates to backs versus forwards pay.
Think about a situation where we have e.g. four excellent openside flankers. Now only two of them at most are going to make the Wallabies on game day, and the squad maybe has a third 7 if circumstances are right. We might have a real shortage of quality scrumhalves at the same time, but the chances of that fourth openside getting a top-up are still zero. They'll be lucky to maybe get a Test match payment if they get on the field after a hideous run of injuries.
The ARU has to make decisions about the best X players to give top-ups to ahead of time, while the provinces maintain a maximum limit on player payments and a cap that overarches all of that.
In part, the development of the NRC gives us a product for a bigger media footprint and therefore more cash in the game (e.g. Buildcorp sinking $350K into it). It may lead to bigger player pools using their negotiating power of course, but I think the key to assisting the game is attracting private investment - something that clubs like Eastwood should be able to do through their network of corporate contacts if they're doing it right.
