Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Premiership's 24 best-paid players cost £14million in 2019/20... and not all were 'marquee'

(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

The days of each Gallagher Premiership club having two marquee players on their roster whose salaries are separate from the £7million salary cap could be numbered following the publication of the Lord Myners salary cap review report. The extensive 55-page report has revealed that the 24 best-paid players for the 2019/20 season cost their various clubs a total of £14million – with seven of these highest-remunerated players not listed as ‘marquee’.

ADVERTISEMENT

Myners’ brief for his investigation, which was commissioned by Premiership Rugby boss Darren Childs in December, was to report on the regulations regime, not an additional review of the Saracens case or its handling even though it was relevant to the context in which he began reviewing the salary cap. 

The first marquee player allowance was introduced in 2012/13 and a second was allowed from 2015/16, but Myners has concluded that with the game in serious financial trouble due to the coronavirus pandemic, the time is ripe for to review the usefulness of the marquee player system. 

Video Spacer

RugbyPass brings you the latest episode of The Breakdown, the Sky NZ TV rugby programme

Video Spacer

RugbyPass brings you the latest episode of The Breakdown, the Sky NZ TV rugby programme

Writing in the report, Myners said: “There are some existing areas of the regulations that are obviously not widely supported. Quite a few clubs expressed a desire to end the marquee player system on the grounds that it is inflationary, overcomplex and unnecessary. I have a great deal of sympathy with this position.

“Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that the existence of exemptions and allowances cause both confusion and inflation. Particularly at a time of financial hardship such as all participants now face, it seems wrong to me to continue making exceptions to the principle of the regulations which can drive costs only in one direction – up.

“Marquee players are the most obvious example. Under regulation 3.3, clubs are entitled to nominate up to two marquee players each season whose salaries are unlimited and not taken into account under the cap. 

“This was introduced to help the competition grow with star quality players (both from home and abroad). This enabled clubs to recruit and retain some of the very best players from around the world and add commercial value to the PRL product. It also played to the objective of improving the performance of PRL clubs in European competition 

ADVERTISEMENT

“In 2013/14, there were five players in the Premiership with a total cost to their employing club – including such extra costs as agents’ fees and image rights – of at least £300,000. In 2019/20, this number had risen to 99 players. 

“It’s also worth noting that seven of this season’s 24 highest-remunerated players are not ‘marquee’. The 24 players in this cohort cost their various clubs a total of £14m in 2019/20.

“It’s clear to me, and to many others within the clubs, that the marquee-players exemption completely cut across the objectives of equality and competition and create unhelpful inflationary pressure on wages. The time is ripe for a review of their continued usefulness.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

G
GrahamVF 20 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

149 Go to comments
J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

149 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search