I wouldn't say match payments are too high BDA. This is professional sport. Compare that with Stage of Origin for example, the $10,000 is quite low.
I honestly don't know where I stand on this. Part of me says, if non-playing tour squad members are paid already for time on tour, then hey shouldn't the players getting selected by financially rewarded greater than those that don't?
Playing contracts are often made up to include all potential match payments. Imagine if you're salary included bonuses for being included on certain projects. You'd base your expected income on what you reasonably expected to be a part of and budget accordingly. How would you feel if somebody said, hey, we're going to split this additional income up amongst everybody, including those that weren't deemed good enough to be a part of it and therefore you earned less than you budgeted for, despite performing to your maximum? The professional in me looking at it, I'd be a little upset.
But at the same time, the former player in me looking at it, from a team perspective, in a successful and quality team, the players in the top squad not making the team are often just as important as the players on the field to success. Without them giving their all and pushing their team mates to be at their best to get picked, the team doesn't perform at their best. For players making several hundred thousand a year, perhaps it's a little petty to be quibbling over the fact that the $230,000 in match payments is split between 30 players instead of 23. We are talking less than a $2,500 hit per game.
This adds up to $28,000 per year and will probably work out around $15,400 a year after tax for the players who play all games a year. Is it worth having every player outside the match day squad feeling excluded, unappreciated and completely ruining team harmony for an extra $300 in your pocket each week over the course of the year, when you are likely pocketing close to $3,600 a week after tax? (Based on an income of around $300,000).
