Sad Reality for Players

[Neils]

 SPECIAL REPORT: Premiership Rugby facing an escalating jobs crisis https://mol.im/a/10864029 via https://dailym.ai/android

[westwaleswasp]

To an extent rugby is heading down the cricket route. Great if you are a top end player, fine at the bottom, squeeze in the middle. The key for all players must be to network opportunities, and in that respect cricketers are in a stronger position as their careers last longer, they can get opportunities over the winter and often finish a degree whilst their careers start.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

To an extent rugby is heading down the cricket route. Great if you are a top end player, fine at the bottom, squeeze in the middle. The key for all players must be to network opportunities, and in that respect cricketers are in a stronger position as their careers last longer, they can get opportunities over the winter and often finish a degree whilst their careers start.

As in cricket, so will it be in rugby. It will result in less youngsters taking the sport beyond their 18th birthday. The result is less quality professional players available (the county game in cricket is quite poor), reduced live attendance, and a decline in the quality of the national team.

[hookender]

Don’t follow rugby league , so don’t really know how their finances stack up, but presumably more stable than ours due to length of set up ? Do the players earn less ,as it seems I hear more of them coming our way (admittedly I guess ‘star players’ ).

 Also I guess they don’t have same issue with country selection for internationals as union does?

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Its the tournament theory of wages applied to sport.

Its easiest to understand if you look at an individual sport like golf. You only need to be marginally better than the rest to win all the money. As the game got bigger and internationalised tournament organisers had to offer bigger and bigger prizes to attract the best players and the best players could travel round winning all the money. Tennis is another good example. In both of those sports you don't have to be far down the food ladder for it to be really tough.

In cricket, which is really a team sport played by individividuals, and by that I mean there are clear and objective statistics, all the money is in T20 and the best players spend their time going round and playing in the best paying competitions. The Indian IPL being the top of that tree and the franchise owners pay millions for the services of the objectively best players.

The round ball game in England (and a few other countries) is the classic example in team sports. A near frictionless market for players means that the top clubs are basically international XIs. I haven't looked for a while but I'll bet the top couple of teams in the English premiership don't have many, if any, England qualified players who aren't actually playing for England or  are heavily tipped to play for England.

And that happens in rugby as clubs try to attract the best players in each position. Wage caps and non-finical restriction such as having to have x number of home country qualified players on the books or in the team do mitigate it. However, you could argue that they are a conspiracy against the best players as it limits their earning capacity. Yes, I know there needs to be a game for them to be able to play, I'm just making the point, not defending it.

[wasps]

I don't know if I agree with your assessment of golf or tennis.


The 100th ranked male golfer is Mito Pereira whose been a professional for 7 years and has career earnings of $2.2M
Obviously there's sponsorship etc on top of that.


In tennis, the 100th ranked male player is Thiago Montero. A 27 year old with a 6 year professional career and prize money of $2.3M




I feel that the golfer will typically have a longer pro career than the tennis player, but I think it shows that both sports offer good opportunities even if you're not someone that the general public has ever heard of.

[westwaleswasp]

I would argue that cricket is actually not suffering at county level from playing quality, it is suffering because they keep shoehorning it in at the start and end of the season, and the blame is diverted by the ECB to the counties when their own policy has been to persue white ball cricket, introduce a new format and engage in corporate approaches of spin that make politicians look truthful by comparison.
Interest in the red ball game is high- livestream of Essex Somerset this year had 6k watching with what looked like 1k in the ground for an early season match where people had to search to find it. It is one of those sports that people cannot watch all the time but talk about a lot, test scores still filter through workplaces.
T20 always does pretty well in the no test counties, bums are on seats, and the rewards are so great at the top end cf 20 years ago that the players will come.
Rugby, like cricket, is mismanaged at the highest level, and spin is placed on everything. Corporate nonsense but without the accountability to markets or shareholders. Price of everything and value of nothing is the linking theme. The rfu might have more fat in the system in terms of freebies and jollies, but fundamentally corporate chief exec types who are financiers at heart are the issue rather than the classic 57 old fart blazer types.

[wasps]

Rugby's biggest problem is the lack of viewers and therefore the lack of sponsorship and therefore prize money.


On any weekend, the total attendances at matches across all clubs is probably about 60k, with most stadiums not at capacity.


Love it or loathe it, but the football premiership stadiums are always full and a few seat 60k or more on their own... And they could probably sell twice as many tickets most of the time.


And that's before considering viewing figures.
When the recent TV contracts were happening, there was talk that TV viewing figures for club rugby were so low that it's almost a loss leader for the TV companies.




Some may argue that the product dished up by the national team is at fault, but even doubling the TV viewers would make little difference.


Ultimately it feels like rugby Union is becoming a more niche sport that is struggling to balance growing the sport, with player safety and welfare.
I'm trying to enjoy the game while I can as I fear things could get a lot worse over the next 10 years

[Neils]

You do wonder if we have the same kind of injury list (of 20+) will there be fit available players around to fill places temporarily.

[westwaleswasp]

True for all teams, really, surely?

I guess when the Rob Millers of this world are not employed, their slots go to academy players when injuries occur, which may  be no bad thing for clubs and the academy players in the short term. In the long term it might be harmful- a less attractive career and a shorter one.

The game is on an odd place. Internationals sell out, the NH appears to be making money as a whole, pockets of successful models appear (Ireland, France now), whilst other places (Wales, England) appear to have issues at club or country level. The SH appears in dire straits and yet keeps producing at least two far good teams, when really it should not.

The fact that there is Sky Football, Sky Prem, Sky Cricket, Golf, F1 etc. but no Sky Rugby says something.

On the upside research shows broadsheet papers know the sport attracts their readers. There is blue chip sponsorship to be had- a sort of anti snooker where all the sponsors were once fag and betting companies.

[Shugs]

A cursory look at most football club accounts shows them as financial basket cases. The cap should ensure rugby doesn’t get that silly in England. The problem is that creates a disparity with the higher spending French and the nationally sponsored ERC teams. But on balance I think the cap is a good thing even though I think it is a bit too low for next season.

[wasps]

Absolutely.
The cap is absolutely required.


Not just to keep a relatively even playing field in the league, but also because the rewards just don't warrant spending significantly more than the cap allows.


Let's say that a club (*cough* Saracens) continued to overspend and increased their overspend so that their salaries were £10m per year
Even when/if they won every competition the financial reward just wouldn't get close to covering their outlay.
There would obviously be sponsorship, and I'm sure that some organisations would pay handsomely to have their name on the shirts of perennial winners..... But it's still debatable whether they'd be able to cover costs.


Then there's the other clubs who no longer stand a chance of winning any competitions.
So they either have to reign it in financial so they're only spending within their means.... Or they bite the bullet and start trying to throw money around to compete with the top club.
You've then got 2 or 3 or 4 clubs spending more than they can possibly earn back.




If there was a near bottomless pit in terms of financial rewards (as in football) then I could see an argument for scrapping the cap or significantly increasing it.


La Rochelle probably win about €1m for winning the champions cup
Some reports suggest Real Madrid would have earnt about €70m in the football champions League

[Bloke in North Dorset]

The 100th ranked male golfer is Mito Pereira whose been a professional for 7 years and has career earnings of $2.2M
Obviously there's sponsorship etc on top of that.

That's not quite the point I was trying to make and I should have been clearer in what I was saying. The tour organisers still need a tour that attracts enough players to make it interesting so they need to provide more than an adequate living to attract enough good golfers. That means a fairly comfortable living and the chance of glory for those who, for want of a better term, are making up the numbers. And in sport those making up the numbers always have the chance of glory(My best round was a gross 71 when I was playing off 11.5).

The point I was trying to make is that those at the very top get the bulk of the money. For example Scottie Schefler has already earned $10m this year whereas Nate Lashley at 100 has earned $900k. A very comfortable living for Nate, but when you consider the difference in ability, which really isn't very much in the wider scheme of things, its a big difference in earnings. Its hard to say that Scottie is 10x better than Nate.

It would be a very boring competition and wouldn't attract the TV and sponsorship money if the likes of Nate Ashley weren't prepared to turn up if only the top 10, for example, got prize money.

Apply this to rugby, and these are wholly made up numbers. Rob Miller or Booj or any other squad member, might earn say £100k but the marquee players are going to be earning £1m+. Again a comfortable living and will incentive them to turn up and train knowing they'll get the odd games and may even end up playing in a cup final.

Rugby couldn't exist without the likes of Rob Miller and Booj, but if you look at the history of the professional game the gap between the top earners and those making up the squad had widened, because the top earners can ply their trade anywhere in the rugby world, whereas the likes of Rob face more competition for those squad positions. Are those marquee players really 10x better? Its hard to measure it objectively but those marquee players have a much bigger market for their talent since the game internationalised.

I would argue that cricket is actually not suffering at county level from playing quality, it is suffering because they keep shoehorning it in at the start and end of the season, and the blame is diverted by the ECB to the counties when their own policy has been to persue white ball cricket, introduce a new format and engage in corporate approaches of spin that make politicians look truthful by comparison.

I agree, its a mess and I've lost interest because I can't keep up, but its a mess because all the star players are plying their trade internationally. When I was young when we went to watch Yorkshire we were guaranteed to to see the likes of Geoff Boycott, Fred Truman, Ray Illingworth and the rest of the stars playing in county games, unless England were playing that week and there was only 5 Test matches a season.

Now, with central contracts the only way they can pay players enough to make them available for England, you hardly see the top players at the county level. I'll bet there'd be bigger crowds, TV contracts and sponsorship deals if the likes of Josh Butler were playing week in week out.

We've had similar talk on here about clubs losing their England players for half of next season, how much has that affected season ticket sales? Will the marginal supporter turn out on a cold wet January Saturday if the likes Jack Willis, Alfie Bearberry and Joe Launchbury are away with England?

If rugby isn't careful its going to see the same death spiral as county cricket. To be fair I think that danger is recognised and hence all the rules around salary caps and player qualifications, but they still keep trying to add in more internationals.

[Heathen]

If rugby isn't careful its going to see the same death spiral as county cricket. To be fair I think that danger is recognised and hence all the rules around salary caps and player qualifications, but they still keep trying to add in more internationals.

And the answer is that the RFU is financially broke.

[Shugs]

Agree with a lot of the above. For me what must be avoided at all costs is central contracts. It’s basically the death of domestic competitions. Using cricket as the example is correct and in addition it’s clear that national performance hasn’t improved. The URC is terribly blighted by it - especially in the bigger Irish provinces. That said there has to be a way found to make English internationals more available for their wage paying teams. The answer is less meaningless training camps, less meaningless friendlies and even something like moving the 6N to the summer. None of that is likely to happen.