That's one thing I find peculiar about RUPA.
I'm pretty sure that RA has to pay a set X% of the broadcast revenue to players, as negotiated by RUPA.
This all makes sense, of course. The Union is there to protect their interests.
But I think RUPA should've negotiated another Y% -- where Y is a substantial amount -- to be spent on Super Rugby and Wallabies coaches.
A first year player earning 10% less but being coached by Graham Henry probably has a far higher career earnings potential than if he was coached by Dave Wessels and earning 10% ($5,000?) more.
Brilliant post. The calibre of system-wide rugby coaching is simply fundamental to maintaining the market share of rugby in any given mature market for pro sports. There are many intrinsic reasons why coaching calibre matters so profoundly to successful pro rugby outcomes, and surely they are obvious to most posters here.
The core problem with Aust rugby since c. 2003 has been a strategically reckless imbalance between a rapidly expanding quantity of pro rugby played (and players playing it) that has vastly exceeded the virtually zero investment made into selecting, training and developing an adequately parallel number of 'up to the job' pro HC and AC coaches.
'Parallel' in that the quantity of players and playing days would be/should be matched by the quality of coaching capability in depth sufficient to ensure a high calibre of both long-term player and team development.
As you infer a symptom of this essentially disastrous syndrome of structural imbalance (now manifesting itself negatively in virtually every aspect of Aust pro rugby) is the way in which RUPA greed and short-sightedness (utterly and stupidly indulged by the ARU/RA) has biased Aust pro rugby income allocation to players' income vs investment in the core developmental infrastructure essential to a balanced evolution of player, team and, critically, coaching quality.