Do we really have an even competition? - By Mary

I must truly say a big thank you to my friends at @TheRoarSports and in particular, @Vic_Arious who inspired me to write this post this morning. What started me thinking was @Vic_Arious's post on whether it is ever acceptable for an NRL team to lose by 50. Check it out here.

When we look back at Season 2013, there have been some absolutely sensational shallackings and it began in Round 1 with the Eels beating the Warriors 40-10 and the Knights beating the Tigers 42-10. Such victories have not been isolated. In particular, the Roosters have managed to destroy 5 opposition teams with margins of 36 and above. The Rabbitohs had a massive win over the Tigers in Round 10, winning 54-10 and most recently, last round the Storm bulldozed the Raiders, 68-4.

In @Vic_Arious's piece, he considers whether it is ever appropriate for a team to lose by 50 and he argues that excuses like 'we didn't show up' and 'they just got a roll-on early' will not cut it. I agree. Professional sportsman are paid well and while I do not expect my team to win every week, I expect them to come out and do the basics right. A 68-4 wallapoing suggests that a team really isn't doing the basics right.

However, I'm going to come at the question from a different angle and look at it from a salary cap perspective (as you all know by know, the salary cap is one of my favourite topice).

As you all know, the NRL salary cap is a hard cap and for 2012 was $4.4 million for the 25 highest paid players at each club. Each club can exercise its discretion in determining how much each player is paid as long as total payments are below $4.4 million. As well as this $4.4 million, each club can spend an additional $350 000 on players outside the top 25 who play in the NRL competition.

The salary cap aims to spread playing talent so the wealthier clubs cannot outbid the poorer ones to acquire all the best players and to prevent clubs needing to overspend dramatically to attract quality talent. It basically seeks to even the playing field. For me, the question then becomes is the salary cap achieving its aim of creating an even competition in the face of victories by teams like the Roosters, Rabbitohs and Storm by significant margins?

We can look at this from a number of perspectives. Let's take a look at the Finals series over the last few years.

A ‘level playing field’ is a fundamental aim of the salary cap. However, when considering the results of the regular season and the Final Series it is debatable as to whether the salary cap has achieved this goal. The results illustrate that from 1979-89, ten years prior to the salary cap’s introduction, the Premiership was shared amongst five clubs. In the ten years following the salary cap’s introduction, this increased to seven teams. This is only a superficial analysis and fails to take into account the increase in teams during this period, which might account for the higher pool of clubs experiencing Premiership success.

However, the biggest issue I think and the one which is undermining the salary cap's ability to even the playing field is the increasing trend of private ownership and its impact on third party deals which are directly made to players by companies. This is because the salary cap does not impose any restrictions on the amount a player can earn through such means as long as he is not using club logos or names but being used as themselves. With owners commanding significant financial standing emerging, like Nathan Tinkler at the Newcastle Knights, their ability to exercise corporate clout toward their playing group, increases significantly. A prime example is the Thoroughbreds, a group of businessmen in Brisbane who assist the Broncos to be competitive. Brisbane has been reported as paying its players $5.15 million in total in 2011, well above the salary cap, largely through third party deals. It is arguable as to whether a Sydney club could generate such support as they are competing amongst each other for the corporate dollar, whereas Brisbane is a one-team town. These trends raise questions about the ability of the salary cap to achieve its goals.
 
This all suggests that there are some clubs, particularly those that are privately owned, that have greater capacity to use the salary cap and its exclusions to their advantage.

There has been much talk about salary cap reform this year. I think the NRL really needs to consider its justification for the cap. If it really is to 'create an even playing field', I would suggest that results are increasingly showing that this is not the case. If however, it is simply to ensure the financial survival of clubs, then the NRL needs to be up front about this.

I would love your thoughts.

Love,

@LadiesWhoLeague