After Eights - Mark's Season Review

This year was the birth of the new era. The dawn of the eights. So I thought the most fitting way for me to wrap up 2015 would be to have a stats run-down of the Super 8s.

The two things I'll be looking at in detail are the match stats compared between the Super League 8s (SL8s) and Qualifiers 8s (Q8s), and the results of games across the whole of the season.

You would expect to see something in the numbers to highlight the difference in quality between the sides in the SL8s and the Q8s. Maybe not in attacking stats so much, but certainly in defensive and negative numbers (errors and penalties). 

What you actually see are remarkably similar numbers when looking at the averages from the 28 weekly round games in these competitions. So what observations, if any, can we make?

• small differences in points per game and the metres numbers that maybe hint at what you would expect - a little more space for open play in Q8s than SL8s.
• small difference in offloads that hint at a little higher skill level in SL8s than Q8s
• small difference in errors and penalties do hint at lower fitness and skill levels in Q8s than SL8s

These just hint at things though, they certainly don't evidence a big gap between the top teams and the mid-ranking teams.

The most surprising numbers for me come when you look at missed tackles and tackle success. This is where I'd expect to see the intensity and fitness of the SL8s to show through, but there is no difference in these numbers.

It's when you look at the end results of the games though that you can pull out some more interesting observations.

• Across the board, the 8s stage of the season sees more points per game - roughly an extra try per game - than the regular season does. A likely explanation for this is the games are played in the summer months, with drier weather and faster fields to run on. Whatever the stage of the season though, points scored each game is broadly similar across the top two levels of the game in the UK.
• Top level games are generally closer on the final scoreboard than at the level down, whether this is the SL regular season or the SL8s. The biggest average gap in scores between the sides on the field was seen in Q8s.
• As you move down the hierarchy, the amount of close games falls and the number of blow-out score lines increase. This does suggest that SL, with higher and more equal funding that assists a full cap spend, sees a more even spread of talent. Further down the hierarchy you see a more significant 'haves and have-nots' factor. You get full-time teams playing part-time teams. You see teams with active academies play those with no talent producing structure. You see those with full central funding play those who barely get a quarter million pounds funding. 
• The big stand-out figure is undoubtedly the 61% of Q8s games that ended with a 18 point or more margin. It's a number that's significantly more than any of the others in this category. Tie that in with the average winning margin and you start to see a different picture than the match stats paint of the competitiveness and intensity of games in that middle 8. Making closer games in this Q8s phase is likely to be a factor that has motivated the change in salary cap at the Championship level - that, and only 2 wins by Championship clubs over SL clubs in the 16 opportunities for that to happen in the Q8s, and one of those was a game with nothing riding on it.
• The breakdown of winning margins is where there is the most support for saying that Super League is the most intense, most competitive and most exciting level of the game in our country, especially at the SL8s stage when the best play the best each week. A high mark in the percentage of games with close finishes and the lowest figure for blow-out scores is complemented by the highest percentage of games in the balance at half time (14% drawn at half-time).
• In the Championship, where we see some suggestion of disparity between the top and bottom sides, you see much less significance of home field advantage. This is probably an outcome of that disparity - the best teams will win whether they are home or away. Whilst the changes in the cap might help the top Championship clubs in the Q8s, it's not going to help the bottom Championship clubs beat them home or away in the regular season, so you'd expect this position to continue.
• A lot has been made of earning that extra home game for the 8s from your regular season final placing. In actual fact, at the top level, home advantage dips a little in the SL8s compared to the SL regular season. In general though, where sides are more evenly matched (SL and the three 8s), home advantage is a significant factor in helping teams win a game. 
• Another sign that the funding gap in the Championship doesn't make for a competitive regular season is when you look at how many games are effectively over at half-time - 77%, the high figure across the competitions. You wouldn't expect the salary cap changes to help remedy this, and all of a sudden John Kear's shortened Championship season idea is looking better. In fairness, a similar picture is seen across the board, with at least 71% of games going to the half-time leader in all the different competitions. That indicates first half performance and the way you start games is very important in rugby league. 
• An interesting twist on from the half-time/full-time results is that Q8s is tied for the highest percentage of second half turnarounds. Given that the most one-sided games happen in the Q8s, this seems a contradiction. Without going into a game-by-game analysis, one possible explanation is that part-time or Championship sides can stick with the full-time or Super League sides for at least half a game, before the better fitness and conditioning of the better trained sides takes over after half-time. 

What we know is the 8s have brought some excitement. What we also know is they will keep being tweaked because more than being about 'Every Minute Matters', it seems to be about trying to please everyone. 

The cap changes announced already for the Championship should benefit the Q8s at the detriment of the Championship regular season. It might also put a bit more pressure on those SL clubs that are in the mix at the end of the regular season for falling into those Q8s spots. 

Whether these are good or bad things its hard to say at this stage, but I'm sure we'll all enjoy finding out in 2016 and beyond. And I hope you've enjoyed this post as well as the rest of the SLP output in 2015. I'm off to see how the NRL and League 1 fit into all this...see you next year! (and at Christmas...and on Twitter...and on Facebook!)

Mark

SLP

p.s. like us on Facebook gang, let's catch up to our great Twitter following yeah!?!

#RLNewEra - Salary Cap and Central Funding

Last time we covered off how the Challenge Cup will work out in the new structure. Now we're turning our attention to something less clear cut and surely more controversial - heck, its been controversial for long enough already it didn't even need the restructure to stir things up!

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. 

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!).

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!

Marquee Players - A Change of Heart by Tom

Last night we reposted my blog from a few weeks ago which detailed my thoughts on the idea of a marquee player exemption for Super League teams.

Having re read this blog myself I found that I have actually come around to a new way of thinking about this controversial proposal. 

I am in no way in favour of the blanket proposal made by Dr Koukash. I find it to be self serving and solely in his interests. He hides behind the shield of "I want to improve the sport" when I suspect what he actually means is "I want to improve the playing staff at Salford and see some return on my investment".

Dr Koukash, is of course, perfectly entitled to his opinions and I won't engage in the horrendous sour-grapes style Koukash-bashing that goes on over twitter every time he puts his ideas forward.

Since I've now gone some way to demonstrating my pro-Koukash proclivities, it's probably time I show my hand. But first, a little context...

Our sport is set to lose one of its three best players. England is about to lose its best player (sorry Mark, I don't mean little Sam). 

When Sam Burgess takes the field for Bath next season a body blow to English rugby league will have been fully delivered.

Five of our six best forwards, (Jammer, The Burgess', Cooper, and Mossop) ply their trade in the NRL. As does our best half back, Widdop. Our most exciting prospect in several years, Daryl Clark, is being linked with a move down under, as are the majority of Leeds outside backs at one time or another. 

Super League faces a talent drain from both the game in Australia and the other code. It seems that we cannot compete financially with our current structures in place.

The answer, to me, is to implement the Marquee Player Exemption. But only for players from THIS hemisphere. 

This would effectively kill two birds with the same stone. Firstly we would have a genuine means by which to more effectively retain the top 0.5% of talent in our game. This would help improve the overall quality of the sport as no team could hold a monopoly by virtue of their bank balance. It would also stem the flow of talent away from the English game.

It would also stop teams from investing in mediocre Aussies/Kiwis/Samoans/Tongans as marquee players and therefore reducing the options for our home grown talent.

The Northern Hemisphere Marquee Exemption would also have a beneficial effect on developmental rugby league and our junior systems. Teams would be behoved to develop their young talent because in the event they unearth a superstar, he can be exempt and therefore retained by the club that developed him during his formative years. The impetus then goes into improving structures and relationships away from the first teams so that a wider stream of young talent can come through the doors of each club. 

There will, of course be players that WANT to play in Australia, and try their hand at the NRL, it is after all, the sports premier competition. But at least we would have a carrot to dangle on our sticks. Rather than just a stick.

We can't stop players from moving away from our sport if they really want to. But we need a way to encourage them to stay. 

Tom
Super League Pod

PS. Don't forget to get in touch and listen to our latest show. All the links are in the sidebar!

Marquee Players? Not For Tom

Last week we re-posted a piece Mark had written about the salary cap that effectively addressed the question of Marquee Players as the Super League clubs built up to voting on Marwan Koukash's proposals. Mark basically concluded they wouldn't have much of an impact on competitive balance so the positives outweighed the negatives and he was in favour of the idea.

Tom has a different perspective and in an unprecedented manner, there is disagreement between the hosts of UK Rugby League's premier podcast. In the interest of balance, here is Tom's view:

I feel differently to Mark about the idea of Marquee Players and the effect they would have on Super League. That said I'm not sure how voraciously I need to make my point since the majority of Super League chairmen agree that, at the very least, the timing of such a proposal is inappropriate.

Let's begin with the comparisons being made to Rugby Union. Kick-and-Clap has a Marquee Player system in place. It also has higher attendances, a more lucrative sponsorship deal, wider television coverage, an international game that is competitive beyond three leading nations, and a network of leagues across the world where players can earn similar amounts of money. Players move more freely around the sport (unless you want to play for the All-Blacks) and can look forward to experiencing a similar level of competition in one of five or six domestics competitions. That's before they gain the opportunity to play in either the Rugby Championship (formerly Tri-Nations), Six Nations or a World Cup. Union is, for me, the happy medium between the Super League and top flight association football - it lives within its means, and it's means ALLOW a Marquee Player to be part of it's make up.

Don't get me wrong, Rugby League is the better product, but despite tentative growth in South Africa, the USA, and Eastern Europe, no one can argue that as a sport we aren't some way behind Union in terms of a wider global appeal.

The gap in financial clout between the NRL and Super League is also wider than we would like it to be. The NRL has broad nationwide coverage as Australia's number one winter sport, it has a higher salary cap and players can earn tonnes more cash though lucrative sponsorships and endorsements. These, coupled with the lifestyle and climate in Oz make playing over there a highly attractive proposition for our home grown talent and the trend for bringing over northern hemisphere players is growing.

The pro Marquee Player chairmen that exist in Super League come from the financially most able clubs, and it's understandable they want to flex their fiscal muscles so that they might improve and develop their squads and reap the potential benefits of having a marquee player. However, away from the East Lancs Road, the HJ and the Trafford Centre car park *wink-wink*, the idea of a marquee player should be filling clubs with dread. Only the most foolhardy and poorly run teams would try to sign a Marquee Player in the hope that one man could have such an impact as to turn them into a top four side (so I fully anticipate the Bulls will sign up SBW on a three million a year deal fairly soon!). 

The clamour to remain competitive could well outweigh the need to grow sustainably. As a Bulls fan, I know first hand just how valuable even £600k (half the current Sky TV money) can be to a team in need. If we suddenly make that market value to tempt players over from down under then we are putting our institutions at risk.

The argument that this system will improve the quality of the competition holds little water for me. I'll use Luke Walsh as an example. Let's say for the sake of this hypothetical that he is St Helens' Marquee Player. He certainly costs them enough in wages, and his early performances in Super League have been of a very high quality. In Super League.

In the NRL, however, he lost his place in an average Penrith team that finished tenth in 2013. Take nothing away from him in Super League, but he is hardly Marquee in the eyes of the Aussies. And maybe that's the problem. Our idea or marquee is their idea of average. 

Maybe there is more catching up to be done in terms of financial growth, but allowing clubs to rack up a massive strain on their already tight budgets puts teams under undue pressure and at unnecessary risk. If teams start folding as a result of signing up  average NRL players at inflated prices,then the game as a whole will suffer.

If teams don't live within their means they fail. If teams are forced to overreach to be competitive they will not be living within their means and they will fail. Marwan Koukash is no doubt doing great things for Salford but as yet they haven't shown that having bags of money to throw at people will pay off. This week they were butchered by Saints having previously seen off a poor London side and nearly letting a strong lead go against Wakefield. 

If the RFL doesn't administrate these proposals properly, we will very quickly see an insurmountable gap open up between the richest and poorest sides.

So, you've read some of the things that formed our opinion, now we want you to get in touch with yours too. We'll discuss all this and more on Episode 7 of Super League Pod.

Super League Salary Cap & Marquee Player

We briefly mentioned the salary cap in Episode 4 of our show. We haven't have the time to do a full up to date consideration of the cap, we plan on doing something soon.

For the time being though, we thought we would share a piece Mark wrote in March last year on the topic, taken from his own blog: Should Super League have a 'Designated player' rule?

For the full piece click on the above link. We've included an abbreviated version below:

The 2013 salary cap rules say that basically the top 25 earning players can't be paid more than a combined total of £1.65million (for full details, click here). It's fair to say all clubs don't currently spend to the cap, but the ones that do are predominantly the ones at the top - although rumoured full cap spending at London in the past couple of years hasn't seen them compete. 

(Marwan Koukash was) proposing an increase to £2.5 or £3 million, pushing it closer to that of the NRL (for 2013 this is A$4.4m  £3m), but leaving it way behind the RFU Premiership cap figure still (£4.26m for 2012-2013 season). It means that Super League would be able to retain more of its stars and have the potential to have some star pulling power to bring in some big name overseas players or exiles back from the other code. This should in theory attract media attention, fans and sponsorship to the game in the UK, putting it in the position it deserves to be in higher up the larger public consciousness.

An interesting sidestep to increasing the cap limit is the 'Designated player' rule (DP), nicknamed the Beckham rule, that has applied in Major League Soccer (MLS) since 2007 as a workaround to signing big names within salary cap constraints. 

This rule allows MLS clubs to sign up to three players whose salaries exceed their budget charges - a charge of US$368,750 for a DP on a US$2.95m cap that applies to top 20 earners. (I would note the RFU Premiership operates a similar rule called the Excluded Player rule, but as the player has to have recent international pedigree, they will likely miss a number of games in a season anyway). If Super League brought it in, such a rule could see top paid players cost maybe £250k a piece towards the cap and then paid what the teams want on top of that.

The MLS rules limit teams to two DPs and they can 'purchase' a third from the league, with the money paid being distributed around the clubs who don't have three DPs. If the rule is brought into Super League then I'd propose letting teams have up to two British DPs - the second dependent on evidencing affordability - and also the ability to 'purchase' one overseas DP. The reason for this is it would help keep homegrown talent in the sport rather than see them go to Union. Financially clubs would be allowed compete on wages for big name players with the NRL, so the league could still field some big names to draw fans but it means no one club could hog the talent available and injuries can still be that great leveller during a season.

The theoretical advantages of applying a salary cap are the promotion of greater competitive balance (i.e. equality) between teams as well as a control on costs to prevent overspending to achieve success at the cost of long term financial stability. Any such rule change if applied to the Super League would need to maintain the advantages of a cap rather than erode these - though the extent to which the current cap has been successful could be questioned, we have seen improving competitive balance particularly in the share of trophy wins and we were seeing a degree of stability and growth before the global economic crisis changed the way things worked financially.

Financially, the ability to hold on to or bring in higher profile players might well see attendances and viewing figures increase. There is certainly some credibility to the argument that audiences want to see star players. This would in turn see more money coming into the sport through TV deals, ticket sales and sponsorship deals, so as long as clubs don't bankrupt themselves to get DPs in the team then it should help with financial stability and growth. In the MLS, the league appears to have strengthened since the rule came in. More teams have entered the league and average attendances are up across the league - 15,378 for 2002-2006, 16,763 for 2007-2011.

In competition terms, the best thing to look at is how this has affected the MLS competitive balance since it's inception in 2007. In terms of win-percent ratios that show within season competition, so are a medium term measure (explained more on page 22 of this), in the five years before the DP rule was introduced the average figure was 0.991 and for the five seasons following the rule coming in it was 1.110. So win-percent ratios increased by 11%, meaning seasons were less competitive by this measure after the DP rule was introduced. However, it's fair to note that DP doesn't fully explain this change as another factor that must be considered is the league size increased every year - traditionally, new teams in a league are less competitive in their first years, so the addition of less competitive teams would make seasonal competitive balance weaker and probably have a greater influence than the DP rule, which if anything would allow new teams to bring in some star players (in 3 of the 5 seasons 2007-2012, the team with the worst record was a new team for that season). In terms of title winners, a longer run measure of competition that shouldn't be affected by weaker new teams, for 2002-2006 eight teams took top spot in the two conferences and for 2007-2011 seven teams made up the ten conference topping spots, though in terms of MLS Cup wins (equivalent of the Grand Final) there has been no difference between the two periods. So, a notable drop in medium term competition may be due to other factors and a very small reduction in long term competitive balance has been seen, but over such a small data sample this isn't significant enough to say the DP rule has had a negative effect on competitive balance in the MLS.

The two leagues obviously aren't like-for-like so a firm conclusion can't be drawn, but from what theory and evidence there is, the introduction of a Designated Player rule in Super League wouldn't be a bad idea and is certainly something the game's administrators should consider.

Whilst I'm on the subject of the Salary Cap, there are some other changes that I would like to see made to what we currently have in Super League, separate to the major change considered above. These in no particular order are:

• Recognition for producing international players for the England team. Say, for every player that featured in the most recent end of season England squad, their club gets 10% of the player's salary added to their Salary Cap limit the following season. Maybe as well, alter it to include some benefit conveyed on the club that developed the player as a youth. Drawback would be that it doesn't really benefit long term planning as cap limit will change each year for the team.
• Extend the benefits conveyed on long-term players. Currently, any player who has played for the same Club for at least ten consecutive seasons will have half their salary excluded from the Salary Cap for his eleventh and subsequent seasons, subject to a maximum of £50,000 for any one club. I'd increase the amount, say to £200,000 for ten year serving players, with the £50,000 limit applying for players giving five years service. Fans identify with one club players and whilst player movement shouldn't be restricted, clubs should be rewarded for long-term investment in players. As well as extending its value, I would restrict it only to players who made their first grade debut whilst registered at that club. This promotes attention to youth development as well as retaining players.
• Special dispensation for injured players. I must admit, I don't know what actually exists in this area, but if nothing exists then something should. Where a player is injured for large periods of time in a season clubs should be able to remove his salary from their cap amount, whilst still paying the player his contracted salary compensation. This will allow them to temporarily sign a replacement to keep squad strength up. This would have to be regulated so that the injured player must miss a certain amount of the competition - say minimum 8 games - and is de-registered from playing for the amount of time set at the start of his injury period, and once that pre-set period expires he applies to the cap again. Maybe something like this already exists, and if so then fair enough.
• Change the rules for players outside the top 25 earners. Currently in Super League, clubs can spend a maximum of £50,000 on players outside the Top 25 earners who have made at least one first grade appearance for the club during the year, though costs for players outside of the Top 25 earners, who do not make a first team appearance, will be unregulated. I feel this limits how many of your young players you can blood into first team games and hampers a club when the squad is stretched by injury. I would prefer something akin to what operates in the NRL, where a Salary Cap of $250,000 for the top 20 players who qualify for the under-20s competition and don't sit in a club’s top 25 earners, each club can spend an additional $50,000 on players outside the under-20s top 20 who qualify and play in the competition. The only benefit I can see to the Super League rules is teams can't stockpile all of the junior talent on the cusp of breaking into the top grade, but I think clubs should be encouraged to develop scouting systems and identify talent for themselves rather than poaching from other team's youth grades.
• An alternative to the DP rule and increasing the cap level is reducing the number of players it applies to. Say keep it at £1.65m but this only applies to the top 17 earners, with a further cap to apply on the next 17 earners at £825k or something.

Clearly, some of Mark's points are slightly outdated with the changes that got announced to the cap lately and the thrust of his piece is certainly past its use by date as now Dr Koukash wants to scrap the cap altogether. 

Get in touch and let us know your thoughts and ideas on how our game can improve the salary cap, or whether you would keep it.