The salary cap in the Super League has been a source of much recent debate, with some wanting to scrap it, many wanting to tweak it, and others giving it their full backing to remain as is. Funding is another issue that is central to the whole idea of having a salary cap.
Here's what the RFL New Era Q&A said on these topics:
Q. What changes will be made to the salary caps for Super League and Championship clubs? A. There will be no change to the Super League Salary Cap Regulations in 2015.The Championship Salary Cap regulations are substantially changed for 2015. The major changes to the Regulations are:The move to a “live cap system”. This represents a significant change from the approach taken under previous salary cap regulations, in that compliance is now to be monitored on a ‘live’ and ongoing basis, enabling breaches to be investigated, determined and sanctioned without delay.The increase in the Finite Salary Cap to £1 million.
Q. How will the financial distributions change to facilitate the return of meaningful and sustainable promotion and relegation? A. The change in structure has seen a significant increase in the central funding available to those clubs relegated from Super League in 2014 and the top clubs in the Championship in 2014. This should allow for more full-time professional clubs in the championship competition in 2015, ensuring that the gap between the teams in the Super League and the Championships is narrower than ever before.
Q. Will the clubs relegated from Super League receive a ‘parachute payment’? A. No, but there is increased annual central funding to those clubs relegated from Super League in 2014.
Q. What changes will be made to the way in which clubs are funded? A. There is a widespread recognition that the return of meaningful and sustainable promotion and relegation between the sport’s two competitions requires significantly increased investment in the Championship. A Championship club receiving a share of central distributions at current levels would have little chance of competing against Super League opposition over a sustained period. The new structure allows for that increased investment and sees the best performing Championship clubs receive up to £750,000 per season from 2015, which will enable them to recruit a competitive squad and invest in the player development pathways needed to achieve sustained success. The top Championship clubs will also receive funding increases at the end of 2014. League 1 clubs will also receive an increase in central distributions and face a more flexible salary cap that allows them to spend an additional £100,000 per season (as long as the total does not exceed 50 per cent of turnover) if they can provide evidence that the spend is manageable.
Here's what Mark makes of all this:
First of all I'm a fan of salary caps in sport as a general position. Some of the most competitive and enjoyable sports leagues have them. They aren't, as some critics will say, a mechanism for bringing the the top clubs down to the level of the bottom clubs. They should in theory even out the talent distribution to a greater or lesser extent depending on how they are organised, so that no one club can stockpile all the best talent and all clubs should have a number of high quality players. Poorer players playing with better players can help improve their game. Closer standards should lead to a greater level of professionalism and intensity. This should then advance the league with the salary cap, with a gradual increase in talent league wide. That should, as seen in other sports leagues outside ours, start to increase interest, sponsorship, revenues and the ability to attract more talent in to the game - so the cap level can increase along the way.
For salary caps to work at their best, though, you really need equal funding at least to give all teams the ability to spend close to the same. Without that, talent and intensity remains unbalanced. Sound familiar?
I would have preferred some increase in the salary cap personally. I'm not talking about a massive lift, I accept at the moment that isn't financially viable. But we can't have a cap that is, although slightly remodelled, effectively the same as it was a decade ago.
The main reason for me thinking there should be an increase is simply that there are more games to be played next year. Excluding the cup which is hard to guess how many games each team will play and an expanded World Club Challenge, we're still going to see an increase in the average amount of games clubs at all levels will play next season compared to this. In Super League teams on average will play 2 more games than in 2014. It translates to an 8% increase in games, so why not an 8% increase in the cap - that would take it to £1,971,000.
It strikes me as unfair on clubs (and/or players) that they need to play more games but can't sign more players without forcing pay cuts (or play more times for the same money).
From the club's perspective, if you have to manage more games on the same cost of playing squad then you will possibly have to lower quality for greater quantity to cover injury, or it may force the greater use of players not really fit, a player safety and welfare issue.
From a player's perspective, I'm not saying that the average Super League player isn't better paid than the average Super League supporter, but if you were told you would possibly have to do more work (however privileged you feel to do that work) for the same money (however good that money is) you probably wouldn't be happy. You may even look for a career change. It could encourage top players away from our league even more than the relatively low cap already might be doing.
I would also introduce a marquee player rule (though I don't like that particular name for it). I've spoken about it on the show and written before on the topic. Having one - or even two or three off-cap players, as long as their is a contributory aspect that encourages home grown players available for England selection (or France, or other home nations of course) - can only be a good development for the sport and the league. I've shown that it shouldn't have a massive skew on competitive balance previously and if you restrict them to clubs/owners who can financially support them then it won't impact the financial sustainability aims of the New Era.
The reintroduction of the 50% revenue clause is a good step in regards sustainability. What isn't clear is if there is a cap on the amount of money owners can contribute from their own pockets - I asked the RFL if there is a limit on that (there is under the Football League's financial fair play regulations for example) but didn't really get an answer. However, if cash rich owners at revenue shy clubs can personally underwrite the cost of marque players (Marwan, I'm thinking of you!) then I don't see a problem with it.
Then, outside Super League, there is a big change. A change that you have to say was needed in a return to promotion and relegation. It should be quite clear I'm not in favour in general of this, but to be fair to this new system, there is a degree of sustainability in the logic of the new and frankly tough pathway that is set for any club to enjoy a spell at the top level. We've seen the odd cup upset over the years where part-time Championship clubs with a maximum allowed spend of £400,000 (if special dispensation was awarded) topple Super League opponents, but to compete over effectively a quarter of a season there would need to be better parity in spending ability, so the increase to £1,000,000 for Championship clubs makes sense. Of course, with the 50% revenue clause all 12 won't be able to spend to that level. That actually sort of leads neatly to funding, because this is where eyebrows for me are raised as to whether anyone has fully thought through this new structure.
Average Championship crowds between 2004 and 2012 (the years I have the best info for) were 1,763. Limited, although at least some again, TV coverage definitely impinges on sponsorship earning potential. The central funding will be a maximum of £750,000 for the foreseeable future (although its £788,000 and £787,000 for Bradford and London for 2015). The sliding scale looks to be £750,000 down to £150,000, with the majority getting closer to £150,000 that £750,000. In short, revenue generation in the second tier will not be great. It seems unrealistic that the 2015 'Qualifiers' will feature anyone outside the two relegated sides and the sides that finish in the top two or three of this season's Championship.
We now have 14 full time clubs and should have at least 16 in 2015. How many more could afford to join that number with the way funding is laid out is questionable. I would also ask how long it is sustainable if the reality we see is little movement between the top two divisions.
And then if you drop to League 1 - which two clubs will do each year - you find yourself with a salary cap limit of £200,000 and central funding of around £75,000 from the TV deal. Any benefits you've developed from the Championship times will be gone surely. Any youth you've brought through or coaching staff you've developed will be at serious risk of being lost from the club before finishing the job of securing a strong full time future.
It makes me wonder what the objectives really are and whether that has really been understood in this 'whole game approach'. Of course, I'm painting a somewhat worst case scenario, that supports my anti-P&R viewpoint, but remember two clubs will go down to League 1 every year, but no clubs are guaranteed to go up to Super League. When you flip it around like that I wonder if the sustainability, growth and development that the above RFL answers suggest is really in-built in the new system.
I'll talk now briefly about the One Million Pound Game in all this funding. Giving it that title, bestowing it with so much financial significance, really emphasises that there is still a large funding gap. A massive disparity. And if the RFL don't effectively run the 50% clause, like you might argue they didn't effectively police licensing, then we could still see overspending and an arms race element to things that undermines the whole process. Again, this is worst case, and I genuinely don't want this to fall flat on its face in failure. I don't want my prophecies to be realised. I just hope all the ducks are in a row and any lessons of the past have been well and truly learned.
As we're getting this now (and so should fully back it whilst its there!) its kind of irrelevant what I would do. I would say the most successful changes or additions to the top league have been the carefully thought through, planned and prepared ones - the introduction of the Catalan Dragons and the accession of the Widnes Vikings being the prime examples. If I was going to tell you what I would do it would involve greater central planning and much wider sharing of revenues, resources, expertise and information - it is the sport/leagues that is competing with other sports/leagues much more so than it is the teams competing against each other, that is something we should never lose sight of, but that is another much longer story that I will one day write in full I'm sure.
Ultimately, I'm all for giving the structure a chance and I'm all for salary cap regulations. I'm just not sure we've landed on what cap is best for the immediate future or, more importantly, addressed the funding issue yet. That is the key to sustained success, not what system we play under. Someone at the top needs to understand that, someone who can get all the others to buy into that mindset. What use is an outstanding product that you can't afford to package and sell properly.
Hopefully you've enjoyed Mark's thoughts on this part of the New Era announcements. In time we'll add Tom's contribution on this topic.
We also want your thoughts too - it isn't something we got much input on when we asked on social media, which is surprising given its importance and relevance to the future of our sport.
Give us your thoughts on Twitter or Facebook (links in the sidebar) and we'll add them in, or why not just leave a comment. And whatever you do, don't forget to keep listening to the show where we'll be filling you in on any changes and updates in the New Era every week on Super League Pod!
I would have preferred some increase in the salary cap personally. I'm not talking about a massive lift, I accept at the moment that isn't financially viable. But we can't have a cap that is, although slightly remodelled, effectively the same as it was a decade ago.
The main reason for me thinking there should be an increase is simply that there are more games to be played next year. Excluding the cup which is hard to guess how many games each team will play and an expanded World Club Challenge, we're still going to see an increase in the average amount of games clubs at all levels will play next season compared to this. In Super League teams on average will play 2 more games than in 2014. It translates to an 8% increase in games, so why not an 8% increase in the cap - that would take it to £1,971,000.
It strikes me as unfair on clubs (and/or players) that they need to play more games but can't sign more players without forcing pay cuts (or play more times for the same money).
From the club's perspective, if you have to manage more games on the same cost of playing squad then you will possibly have to lower quality for greater quantity to cover injury, or it may force the greater use of players not really fit, a player safety and welfare issue.
From a player's perspective, I'm not saying that the average Super League player isn't better paid than the average Super League supporter, but if you were told you would possibly have to do more work (however privileged you feel to do that work) for the same money (however good that money is) you probably wouldn't be happy. You may even look for a career change. It could encourage top players away from our league even more than the relatively low cap already might be doing.
I would also introduce a marquee player rule (though I don't like that particular name for it). I've spoken about it on the show and written before on the topic. Having one - or even two or three off-cap players, as long as their is a contributory aspect that encourages home grown players available for England selection (or France, or other home nations of course) - can only be a good development for the sport and the league. I've shown that it shouldn't have a massive skew on competitive balance previously and if you restrict them to clubs/owners who can financially support them then it won't impact the financial sustainability aims of the New Era.
Regarding the impact on competitive balance, my response to this would be one player doesn't make a team. When Warrington signed Andrew Johns for the season climax in 2005 they didn't win the league, they lost heavily in the first playoff round. Wally Lewis' spell at Wakefield in 1983-84 didn't stop the club from being relegated that year. Outside rugby league, Ballon d'Or holder Cristiano Ronaldo's Portugal couldn't make it out of the 2014 Soccer World Cup group stages and NBA league MVP LeBron James wasn't enough on his own to even win any conference titles with Cleveland, before joining a dream team set up at Miami. Because of the restrictions that will apply, the biggest wallet can only buy so much still, but what it can buy (or retain) might have that little bit more star quality.
Regarding the financial aspect, I would point out you don't have to sign a high salary marquee player if you don't want to or can't afford to. Many teams reportedly already don't pay to the full salary cap limit yet knock off other teams in a pretty close and full of surprises Super League XIX. Rugby League fans by and large, I'm sure, accept the financial realities their club faces and would accept if their club can't afford a big name. Especially if the rule means the league can grow a bit, attract some new investment and sponsorship, which will potentially benefit their team too (as long as they aren't relegated!).
Then, outside Super League, there is a big change. A change that you have to say was needed in a return to promotion and relegation. It should be quite clear I'm not in favour in general of this, but to be fair to this new system, there is a degree of sustainability in the logic of the new and frankly tough pathway that is set for any club to enjoy a spell at the top level. We've seen the odd cup upset over the years where part-time Championship clubs with a maximum allowed spend of £400,000 (if special dispensation was awarded) topple Super League opponents, but to compete over effectively a quarter of a season there would need to be better parity in spending ability, so the increase to £1,000,000 for Championship clubs makes sense. Of course, with the 50% revenue clause all 12 won't be able to spend to that level. That actually sort of leads neatly to funding, because this is where eyebrows for me are raised as to whether anyone has fully thought through this new structure.
Average Championship crowds between 2004 and 2012 (the years I have the best info for) were 1,763. Limited, although at least some again, TV coverage definitely impinges on sponsorship earning potential. The central funding will be a maximum of £750,000 for the foreseeable future (although its £788,000 and £787,000 for Bradford and London for 2015). The sliding scale looks to be £750,000 down to £150,000, with the majority getting closer to £150,000 that £750,000. In short, revenue generation in the second tier will not be great. It seems unrealistic that the 2015 'Qualifiers' will feature anyone outside the two relegated sides and the sides that finish in the top two or three of this season's Championship.
We now have 14 full time clubs and should have at least 16 in 2015. How many more could afford to join that number with the way funding is laid out is questionable. I would also ask how long it is sustainable if the reality we see is little movement between the top two divisions.
And then if you drop to League 1 - which two clubs will do each year - you find yourself with a salary cap limit of £200,000 and central funding of around £75,000 from the TV deal. Any benefits you've developed from the Championship times will be gone surely. Any youth you've brought through or coaching staff you've developed will be at serious risk of being lost from the club before finishing the job of securing a strong full time future.
It makes me wonder what the objectives really are and whether that has really been understood in this 'whole game approach'. Of course, I'm painting a somewhat worst case scenario, that supports my anti-P&R viewpoint, but remember two clubs will go down to League 1 every year, but no clubs are guaranteed to go up to Super League. When you flip it around like that I wonder if the sustainability, growth and development that the above RFL answers suggest is really in-built in the new system.
I'll talk now briefly about the One Million Pound Game in all this funding. Giving it that title, bestowing it with so much financial significance, really emphasises that there is still a large funding gap. A massive disparity. And if the RFL don't effectively run the 50% clause, like you might argue they didn't effectively police licensing, then we could still see overspending and an arms race element to things that undermines the whole process. Again, this is worst case, and I genuinely don't want this to fall flat on its face in failure. I don't want my prophecies to be realised. I just hope all the ducks are in a row and any lessons of the past have been well and truly learned.
As we're getting this now (and so should fully back it whilst its there!) its kind of irrelevant what I would do. I would say the most successful changes or additions to the top league have been the carefully thought through, planned and prepared ones - the introduction of the Catalan Dragons and the accession of the Widnes Vikings being the prime examples. If I was going to tell you what I would do it would involve greater central planning and much wider sharing of revenues, resources, expertise and information - it is the sport/leagues that is competing with other sports/leagues much more so than it is the teams competing against each other, that is something we should never lose sight of, but that is another much longer story that I will one day write in full I'm sure.
Ultimately, I'm all for giving the structure a chance and I'm all for salary cap regulations. I'm just not sure we've landed on what cap is best for the immediate future or, more importantly, addressed the funding issue yet. That is the key to sustained success, not what system we play under. Someone at the top needs to understand that, someone who can get all the others to buy into that mindset. What use is an outstanding product that you can't afford to package and sell properly.
Hopefully you've enjoyed Mark's thoughts on this part of the New Era announcements. In time we'll add Tom's contribution on this topic.
We also want your thoughts too - it isn't something we got much input on when we asked on social media, which is surprising given its importance and relevance to the future of our sport.
Give us your thoughts on Twitter or Facebook (links in the sidebar) and we'll add them in, or why not just leave a comment. And whatever you do, don't forget to keep listening to the show where we'll be filling you in on any changes and updates in the New Era every week on Super League Pod!
No comments:
Post a Comment