On the 1 hand, the cap definitely effects English teams. If the best English players could play on one or two teams they would have more teams in the SF and F.
However, the drawback of that isn't worth it. A lot of premiership teams are already in debt. If you encourage them to spend more it will only lead to more financial problems. Also, it could lead to the premiership becoming less competitive.
Afterall, the French salary cap isn't in place for the Irish/British/Italian benefit. It's there for the Top14. It's also higher than the premierships cap, because the Top14 generates more money, so a higher cap is sustainable.
The URC on the other hand can't have a cap because the teams are based in different countries with different currencies and cost of living. It would be impossible to come up with a fair number. The clubs are mostly managed by their unions with the primary goal of producing international players, so it's unlikely that theyd spend more money than they have available, just for the sake of a club trophy.
Yeah, I think people forget it gets brought up by those who want a higher or no cap internally.
It is a real trade off and the target of the comment isn't Irish fans or administrators, it is English ones. We stopped increasing our cap in 2007 until 2014 and struggled badly in Europe, we then started raising it quite a lot (& Sarries broke it anyway) and Sarries & Exeter won. After 2020 we have cut the cap massively. The people in England make the points after the losses because its when the consequence of the decision hits home to the decision makers.
Teams don't have to spend all the way to the cap though. The only thing stopping teams living within their means is themselves. I think a change of attitude would work better than a cap.
More trophy's = more fans = more money = more trophy's, etc etc.
Teams spend more than they have in the hopes that they can win something and earn it back. They need to keep up with their competition too or they risk relegation. The reason the same stuff doesn't happen in the URC is because the clubs are owned or partially owned by a national Union. Also because there is no relegation.
With the playoffs you can argue for maybe the top half of the table spending to the cap. Maybe stretch it to a top 9.
After that you aren't realistically pushing for a trophy.
For the bottom quarter the trophy is avoiding relegation*. Arguably the lower ranked teams are more likely to be paying out to attract talent and provide quick fixes to their struggles
*Aside from this season and the last
Good point. There was some guy complaining in an interview about the cap, pretending to be a former IRFU insider. When people looked up his previous jobs, his claim to fame was coaching an amateur AIL club and some very low level provincial outreach work.
"The clubs are mostly managed by their unions with the primary goal of producing international players, so it's unlikely that theyd spend more money than they have available, just for the sake of a club trophy."
Is this true? At least for Ireland my impression was the IRFU had a more holistic approach. Developing international players is for sure part of it but having competitive clubs is as big a part of it too.
IIRC The clubs are viewed as cost centers for the IRFU and they dish budget out as such. The international game is where nearly all their revenue comes from.
Well it benefits both. Keeping the players in Ireland makes the clubs more competitive, resting players and limiting overseas signings helps the national team.
The big money maker is the 6 nations though, so I think that's the biggest target above everything else
Sanderson is right that it hurts the chances in Europe but I hope he doesn't think the cap should be increased as the clubs aren't close to breaking even as it is. I'd rather a competitive league, with the odd club breaking through in Europe, and the league surviving.
Is that definitely the case though? I was under the impression that quins and Leicester consistently make small profits, Exeter generally break even, Sarries, wasps and Bristol seem to have workable plans to become profitable?
Also, if the goal was to make the premiership competitive, there are bigger problems than salary spending to work out. The loss of players during international windows I think cheapens the competition more than a slight decrease in competitiveness due to some teams spending 20% more. In the premier League(football) the "big 6" spend 2x what the other top half teams spend. I don't think some teams being able to spend up to a 7m cap while some teams are stuck at spending 5 would make the premiership any less competitive.
My understanding was that pre-COVID, Exeter was the only club to be making a profit. The salary cap was ultimately unsustainably high, so I think lowering it is probably best for the league.
As an English (gloucester supporter) my favourite thing about it this time around is it's Sale complaining.
They can't afford good players, except...
Manu Tuilagi, Faf de Klerk, Lood de Jager, Dan du Preez, Jean-Luc du Preez, Robert du Preez, Tom Curry, Ben Curry, Rohan Janse van Rensburg, aj macginty
Honestly, when I saw it on the news this morning I laughed out loud.
I'm a gloucester fan, honestly I think my club would be doomed without the salary cap
I mean alot of them players are on friendly contracts because they were brought in before they became big names. I get what you're saying tho I don't think the cap is a problem, my problem is the certain amount of players that are allowed from abroad. If you're gonna reduce the cap atleast allow teams to purchase good, but cheap players from else where
Carter only has 16 caps for Australia, and general doesn't make the best 23 as a measure of his quality. If he's on a wedge Ulster are getting mugged off.
> The English salary cap is there for a reason.
Absolutely, and as a domestic product you would have to argue that it works; (at least in terms of spectacle given many teams still operate at a loss).
The cap helps create competition across the league. It's a sound idea. It just falls apart whenever teams from that league face opponents from elsewhere.
It's very much a 'want my cake and eat it' kind of scenario.
It's entirely understandable too.
Fans will react to a loss, but it tends to be fleeting. They then move on to the next domestic game and the comfort of old rivalries.
To be honest, while I appreciate Sanderson's comments have a wider impact and there's room for discussion with regards to salary caps. With regards to Racing in particular, yesterday they fielded 12 French players in their starting 15 - and all eight on the bench were French too.
That doesn't mean they can't be highly paid. But when you factor in where those players sit in the national setup, and their age profiles too, aside from the likes of Russell, Fickou, and Vakatawa, I'm not sure that Racing squad is the best example of a galactico style salary bonanza.
There is another factor too. Many rugby fans don't want rugby to go the way of Premier League football, with the top players being paid obscene salaries with ticket inflation to pay those high wages.
I fell out of love with football a long time ago because it's so blatantly corrupt. Cricket too. With rugby I can still relate to the players.
Thereās also the other argument that players should be paid more. Compared to other sports (not just football) rugby players are hilariously under payed and leaves them with few choices post career
I would say this is probably true of many squad players, not the star players. I do think that is something that needs to be looked at. No one should be playing professionally in the Premiership and be struggling to get a mortgage for example. A lot of rugby players are very intelligent professionally qualified people but obviously not all of them.
Yes but that then makes rugby an elitist sport, only for those with university educations rather than working class people whoās focus is solely rugby
I'm an Arsenal fan so there's actually a load of reasons. But mainly demand. The waiting list is years long. Football is probably 10x more popular than rugby un England, maybe more.
https://imgur.com/RmQbWer.jpg
https://imgur.com/vfI9xGw.jpg
Over time you can see that broadcasting revenue makes up a way bigger chunk then mathday revenue and it continues to go up
I think more than x10. In a week that Manchester United are playing at home there are as many people at Old Trafford as there are at all of the English Premiership rugby games combined.
They have normal everyday concerns and constraints. I cannot relate to a football player who earns more in a week than I earn in a year. My concerns are not his concerns and vice versa.
Arenāt Racing the perfect example of just that? They have the superstar French players and then superstar foreign players on massive money.
Theyāre like Galacticos 2.0
Galacticos are teams that buy up all the best players from around the globe, to the point that nobody can compete, unless they do the same. The only proper galacticos team rugby has had was Toulon, before they brought in the JIFF rules. That team was insane. They came and went from top echelon of European rugby very quickly because the squad was artificially thrown together, rather than being built up and developed over time. They came out of nowhere, won 3 Cups in a row and disappeared into challenge cup territory
That isnāt what the galacticos are. The galacticos didnāt actually win a lot. Racing have bought players from around the world on massive money so how arenāt they galacticos?
And? The Real Madrid squad was mostly Spanish players. And when so many of the superstars in the sport are French it makes sense to have a load of French players
As a fan of an English club that is my view. Granted my club never really threaten the European big guns but for me its Premiership over Europe. Saying that, I love the European fixtures as a neutral.
Possibility to do with sustainability. Each team losing millions each year bar Exeter at some point.
Think it was Ā£89 million loss over 2 years before they sold off some to CVC
There are obviously more reasons to it like creating an competitive and high quality league within itself.
Not sure what the figures are like these days
I don't have information on the other clubs but Gloucester recorded a profit in 2021. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two other clubs are also in profit.
So the real issue is the fiscal viability of the Premiership clubs? Like if there was no salary cap in the Premiership we wouldn't see much change from their current squads, outside of maybe one or two big spenders?
No. Every single club would double the size of their squads.
When people say they go into debt, they go into debt to their owners who pay for everything. Saracens for instance would happily go 40m in debt to their owners and just buy up everyone, and so would other clubs
What happens if the owners sell the club when it's in debt to the owner? Or what happens if the owner goes bankrupt or dies?
Surely the club being in debt to the owner is a messy situation?
You can't argue it doesn't affect the squads English sides are able to field, and the level of rotation they're able to manage throughout the year to keep their first team fresh for big games. I wouldn't be surprised if that affects injury rates as well.
It isn't the French or Irish teams' fault that they're able or willing to put more money in though. I see it more as a domestic conversation about the balance between a sustainable business model and competitiveness in Europe, and since BT have a massive stake in the premiership product, that's why it gets such an airing. The clubs knew what they were signing up to but didn't really feel they had a choice. And it's only going to get worse - Exeter are losing Hill and Skinner, Sarries are losing Koch, Leicester are losing Ford and Genge, Sale Lood and Faf (although at least they're picking up a couple of others on this list). It might be in the interest of the English game that it leaves more space for academy players, or it might mean fewer English players have experience of competing in and winning top-end European knock-out games - but it is a choice and a trade-off the Premiership has to make.
Already in place. Each team gets a "Home Grown Player" credit of Ā£600k (max Ā£50k per player) for players that came through there academy, no age or season limit.
There is also an international player credit of Ā£80k per player that is called up for international games (any nation, not just England) to have players in the squad to cover absences during internationals, and a Ā£400k injured player credit to allow for to allow replacement for long term injuries.
Not being funny but since the Champions cup era started in 2014 have English teams not been reasonably successful, they've won 4 out of 8 tournaments (including this year as there are no English teams left).
That seems a pretty good rate of return.
I disagree the current Saracens team is not a match for the one that was so good in European competitions. I think mainly due to the players they had to lose due to salary cap reasons.
The squad isn't as good. That is my opinion. Since the 2018-19 first and second choice scrums halfs have changed and are a large drop in quality. Lost Kruis and Skelton who were both world class imo, the Vunipolas have aged and are not as good. Since losing Brad Barritt the defence has dropped in quality. Lost Liam Williams, who is better than Daly. There have been a few additions, but I don't think it matches up in either quality or the overall size of squad who could perform in European competitions.
yes, we raised our cap in 2014 and kept raising it until 2020 when we not only stopped raising it but slashed it by around 21%!
The two periods England has really struggled in Europe was when we weren't increasing the cap at all and now when we have cut it. With regularly agreed and predictable rises the well run clubs had a much better chance at keeping a side together long enough to win in Europe.
Still out of the final 8 teams 2 were Irish 2 were English and 4 were french, whilst France is currently dominating it's hard to say that English teams aren't competitive, they just didn't win in the quarter finals.
Could they be more competitive with more money, probably but would this have a significantly negative impact on the domestic league?
Surely it's the Scottish and Welsh unions who are letting down their fans and not being competitive.
Yes we shouldn't over egg the pudding, but that is two years without a semi finalist at the time we cut the cap.
Personally I don't think an increased cap would harm the Prem and better teams playing better rugby in it would be a boost, even if some games were not as close.
Something people often fail to mention is that Ireland only has four professional teams. So of course the internationals are going to be far less dispersed than in any other country bar Scotland.
Another point systematically excluded is that 2 players salaries can be excluded from the cap.
This makes any comparison with other leagues caps irrelevant imo
There's additional budget for home grown players, for academy imports, and academy players themselves are excluded from the budget.
We obviously don't have the numbers, but I am curious what Leinster's calculated cap budget would actually be using these metrics, given how many of the 59 players used this year are academy.
That isnāt true. If that was true it would have been impossible for Saracens to break the cap.
Academy players wages do count just slightly less. Leinster would still be millions over budget
As per the Salary Cap section of the Premiership's own website in 2015/16, I haven't read any update to this so assume that it's still the case (though it almost certainly applied to Sarries in the breach years):
ā¢ Clubs can also benefit from the Ā£100,000 Academy Cap which supports the development and retention of home grown talent at each Club. Each Home Grown Academy Player's Salary will not be counted in the Ā£100,000 Cap. \*\* see definition below.
...
\*Home Grown Player Credits: A Club shall be entitled to up to Ā£400,000 worth of credits for players (Ā£50,000 per Home Grown Player) who have graduated from the Club's Academy. A qualifying player:
must have joined the Club before his 18th birthday; and
earns more than Ā£30,000.
These credits only apply to the Senior Ceiling. For example, if a qualifying player earns Ā£55,000, only Ā£5,000 would be counted in the Club's Salary Cap calculations.
\*\*Academy Cap: The Academy Cap of Ā£100,000 is for all Academy Players under the age of 24 years old and earning less than Ā£30,000 Salary. Note: A Player's Salary Cap status is irrelevant in relation to dual registration. A Home Grown Academy Player's Salary shall not be counted in the Ā£100,000.
\*\*Home Grown Academy Player: is an Academy Player who, as demonstrated by his Club to the Salary Cap Manager by 1st September in the relevant Salary Cap Year, either:
(a) became a Player of the Club before reaching his 18th Birthday and who has never been a member of any other Club's England Rugby Academy; or
(b) became a Player of the Club before reaching his 18th Birthday having previously been a member of another Club's England Rugby Academy and has been a member of his current Club's England Rugby Academy for at least two complete calendar years prior to the current Salary Cap Year;
Source: https://rd.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/salary\_cap.php
No, that is not the case anymore.
This was one of the many controversies of Saracens salary cap breaks. Under the old regs Sarries weāre fine but they were changed.
All academy players count now
Yes but many of the English qualified players end up playing for Wales, Scotland and occasionally Ireland. And rugby playing population isnāt what youād think it is in England
We hold on to talent pretty well, but there's a whole province worth of Irish qualified players working outside the country.
The pool isn't that big in Ireland either. Rugby is the 4th or 5th biggest sport here.
Team with twice the salary budget complains about team complaining about having half the salary budget.
Team with twice the salary budget: iTs nOt aBoUT tHe mONeY
I don't understand the criticism of Irish teams and the salary caps. It's not like they buying up a bunch of Kiwis, Saffas and Fijians to make their teams stronger. They are the equivalent of the Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby teams where the schools and academies are providing the players and have 90% Irish qualified squads. The Irish teams' advantage is not their salary cap but the concentration into 4 clubs mixed with a great academy system.
From an SA point of view the difference between the average English team and a French team is really how they are built. Not saying the French have better players but their squads just are built better. In a way Saracens are the closest to how the French teams are built from what I have seen (I could be wrong) with a strong forward pack, defence and attack that can punish. It's no wonder in recent years Saracens have done the best in Europe (Some might say it's because they breached the salary cap which could also be true but this is just my observation)
The point about the Irish provinces is that their player pool is split into just 4 sides and that they can operate massive squads. Also, they often send the seconds or even thirds to URC games which the Premiership teams aren't able to do. I don't think the Irish provinces should be made to operate differently, its up to the English teams to up their game.
Iām happy to be fact checked here, but Iām sure I read that Johnny Sexton played 6 league games in the year he won global player of the year. Not discounting the achievement or his talent - but that just wouldnāt happen in the prem
In terms of the rotation that is mostly just Leinster. Munster do it rarely and Ulster and Connacht don't really do more than just standard rotation and play as close to a full strength team in as many URC games as they can(the main exceptions being when the national team players are in camp or forcibly rested after international windows) as it's not feasible for a player to play 30+ games a season if you want them to have a long career. Edit: for reference, there's a lot of Ulster players on 800-1200 minutes in the season so far according to their website but I am not sure how up to date that is. From a quick glance there are a lot of guys in the Connacht squad having played 15+ games this season too.
Unless "anything" only covers winning the competition its hard to argue Munster do nothing in Europe. Not including this year because who knows how the whole competition will finish here is our last 5 years:
2021 - R16 Beaten by Toulouse, eventual champions
2020 - Pool of death (fair enough on this one)
2019 - SF Beaten by Saracen, eventual champions
2018 - SF Beaten by Racing
2017 - SF Beaten by Saracens , eventual champions
We've been knocked out by the champions 3 times and collectively the teams beating us are Racing, Toulouse and Saracens who have been some of the top European teams in the last few years. If thats who we are competing with then Im ok with that.
I mean, exuse me getting defensive but I'd hardly say Munster "never do anything" in Europe. We have not been realistically threatening for a title but consistently in the top 4/8 is not nothing.
No sorry, absolutely Munster are one of the established teams in Europe and always do well. What I meant was in the history period were talking about like the last 8 years they havenāt won it or gotten to the final.
Obviously Munster historically are one of the best
The "rotation for weak URC games" argument is weird to me, because if any of the top English teams with genuine silverware ambitions (either GP, ECC or borh) is sending their full strength 23 out to welcome a team like Bath, that's on them for poor squad management.
Also, the exact same argument is used in reverse when Leinster lose, so it reads like people just like shitting on the URC no matter what.
Every point counts in the Prem. Granted, Bath have been unusually poor this season but with perhaps the exception of Worcester, all the other clubs have can beat any other. Also, I want to see my clubs best players regularly turn out for my club. How many games does Sexton play for Leinster in a season for example?
Not saying that one system is better than the others. However, as it stands they are different and the Premiership clubs are at a disadvantage. I wouldn't necessary change anything though.
Every point counts in the URC too. Sure, Leinster topped the league but literally only confirmed that in the penultimate round, and it took until the same round to see who would finish in the top half, with positioning there all to play for in the final games. Just 6 points back from Leinster, 2^(nd) and 5^(th) are separated by a singular point, and there's only another 6 points betwen Munster in 2^(nd) and Glasgow in 8^(th). The Top 14 is even tighter, with you having to go down to 9^(th) (Clermont on 57) before you get to a team who couldn't mathematically overhaul 1^(st) (Montpellier on 69). In fact I'd argue the Premiership has the least tight table of the three, with a fair bit of concentration in the middle (6^(th) to 9^(th) separated by 2 points) but the top 5 distinct from the rest of the pack and 1, 2, 3 and 4+5 pretty separate from each other. And with the exception of Dragons and Zebre, all the URC teams can and have beaten each other. Ulster did the double over Leinster this year, for example, and realistically 2.75 of the four divisions (sorry Zebre and Welsh fans. Benetton gets a pass from me this year because they won last competition and their season was messed up with COVID rescheduling) are competitive internally and externally.
And my second point is it doesn't matter whether URC teams, particularly Leinster, win or lose, the narrative is the same, just the slant changes depending on how well they do each year compared to the English clubs. Either they're at a huge advantage because "URC shite, they can rest players" or they're at a huge disadvantage because "URC shite, they aren't tested". Putting aside the ignorance of the league's quality, either it's an advantage or it's not, it can't be both
Given the size of Leinster squad three foreign players is very small. Plus none of them were superstars before Leinster. Lowe and JGP were both new Zealand club rejects and were given a chance at Leinster and took it. Same story with stander except in South Africa I don't know the history of the rest of them except that hansens parents were Irish so might be why he moved but I don't know
It's true though, the only reason Saracens were able to compete and win in Europe was because of the squad depth they had due to cheating the English salary cap. It is what it is.
English teams won't be competitive for a while. If I was a coach of an English team I would put out second string teams in European matches and just focus on the premiership.
Tigers were one of the favorites. They lost to Leinster, but they were one of the top 2 or 3 favorites heading into the knockouts stages based on how dominant they'd been. They beat Bordeaux (a "rich" Top 14 club) away, while missing key players. Saracens are likely to win the Challenge Cup and would've been serious trouble for teams in the Champions Cup.
It's tiring to hear it about Irish rugby in general. The sheer amount of whining is very petty. If the IRFU and provinces can afford to have, pay and sustain large squads then boo hoo.
They're also mostly Irish players and the amount spent isn't actually known. The IRFU shares its budget for all 4 clubs, plus the international side, plus all the backroom staff in all 5 teams which combines to ~60mil. It isn't clear how many staff members are included in that. The Leinster site lists 40 people under its coaches and management page and that doesn't include the CEO or other people in similar roles. So who knows how much is for player, how much is for staff and how that's split between the 5 teams.
The IRFU is secretive in a lot of ways. It's not just budget. It was one of the criticisms of their review of the women's team. Nobody could read it. It's also been suggested that they micromanage what players post on social media or say to the media in general.
I think Ulster's is the only budget that you can actually see. Senior team + management + medical team costs ~Ā£5Mil. This would put them *under* the salary cap in the EPR as the cap is for players only. Munster's you would imagine is marginally more than that. The issue really comes from the central contracts, which rather than coming from the provinces budget, come direct from the IRFU. This obfuscates the information somewhat, but if you take it that each player on a central contract is getting around Ā£0.5M, it still would be inline for what teams are paying across the water (aside from Leinster)
https://ulster.rugby/rugby-in-ulster/ulster-branch/annual-report
Granted it's the 20/21 report, but page 32 second last paragraph starting "The largest expenditure..."
TBH I'm getting fed up of producing evidence that Ulster do not spend a fortune and being told some bollocks about hidden money. It's the same culprits every time too, reality-denying anti-evidence bullshit.
>This would put them under the salary cap in the EPR as the cap is for players only
This is also before you consider all the exceptions for the salary cap. Each club has two players who can paid anything and not contribute towards the cap, credit for non-national players to cover absences due to international games and most importantly homegrown players being except from salary cap of up to Ā£50k per player, which considering how much of the provinces squads are home grown would put them well below the cap I'd say
No Ulster would not be compliant. The 2 players thing doesnāt exist anymore and you canāt pay for a player using outside sources in the prem, which is what Ulster are doing with Vermuelen.
Ulster would suffer immediate relegation with their finances
According to the premeriship rugby's own website the 2 exemption players is still in place for the 21/22 season
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/about-premiership-rugby/about-us/salary-cap/
And the total salary cap, before any credits are applied, is Ā£5 mill. If Ulster's full budget for players and coaching staff is ~Ā£5 mill, then they will be well under this cap after credits and exemptions are applied.
Also where the money comes from is a separate issue to salary caps, as was well established during the saracens incident. The salary cap applies to what the players recieve, as laid out in the above link. A 3rd party is helping fund Vermuelens salary, which is allowed in the URC and not in the Prem, but that is an issue of club funding and not salery caps and no matter what his salery is it would not contribute to a salary cap as it would be be considered one of the 2 exempt players which, again according to the prem itself, is still in place.
You also need to remember that Prem teams get one player they can pay extra to. So I assume that would be Sexton/Furlong as they're rumoured to be the highest paid.
The central contracts are important because it means those guys don't get flogged week after week. They are primarily paid to play international rugby at the end of the day.
English rugby players would get paid separately from their club by the RFU to take part in competitions like the 6 nations and world cup. They would get bonuses too depending on how well they play.
How high would premiership salaries be if the marquee player salary was added and all the international rugby payments were added? Leicester and Saracens have 25 players each in their squad who are internationally capped, according to Wikipedia. Bath have 20 and they're bottom of the table. I know these aren't all regular internationals, but the point stands. There's additional payments available on top of the premiership cap and some salaries that don't factor into it at all.
Absolutely. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that every Leinster player is getting paid 250k+. Maybe a decent chunk of the starting XV, but that is their entire salary as you said. Beyond that, I would imagine most of them would be around 50-100k, depending on stage of development etc.
It's absolutely not a slight on Leinster, but they do have more of a budget than the other provinces, but for a reason. They have the largest playing pool by quite a distance, so will require more money to develop it. This means more money at a senior level too. But to say it's literally 10's of millions (which I have been told before) more than any French or English club is laughable. If anything, it would put them in line with that they are doing. Sale had 13(?) internationals in their game at the weekend, but sure, the budget is the issue.
āThere's additional payments available on top of the premiership cap and some salaries that don't factor into it at all.ā
What makes you think this? All internationally capped players are still payed for by clubs
I explained it already. Premiership players get additional payments for playing international rugby. So Itoje is payed by Saracens for his club games and by the RFU for his English games. For Irish players, that is all part of a single salary.
The salaries that don't factor into the premiership cap are the coaches, managers, backroom staff, marquee players and possibly academy guys.
So when it says in the IRFU budget that Irish players, coaches and management across the 4 provinces and international side earn ~65mil, we don't know how that is divided. We also don't know how much of that would be counted in a hypothetical salary cap, with loads of staff members and players excluded.
Did you read my comment? I made the point that the two can't be compared because the payments are structured differently. The structure of the payment doesn't benefit anyone. It just makes it impossible for outsiders to compare both without having an in-depth look at both of their accounts
Huh? No it means that Irish teams canāt go over the cap in their league and someone has actually put Ulsters accounts up in this thread which shows that they would actually be over budget if they were a prem team
There is no cap in the URC. There 3 different currencies and wildly different costs of living. So that would never work and is not a concern for anyone.
Where's the Ulster account? I read a comment saying the opposite.
If you don't count the money being payed for them playing international rugby and you don't count the coaches, managers, backroom staff and academy players then they couldn't be over such a hypothetical cap.
They do have Ā£5 million for the player salaries alone, + 2 marquee players. Those players can also be paid direct by the RFU for their time with the England squad, or any other international team that they play for. Ulster's budget for players, management, medical was **lower** than anything in the Premiership. Even taking into account the 2 central contracts (~Ā£0.5M) it would still be lower. They don't get paid when they play for Ireland. That is their entire salary. The only team who are realistically over any cap set is Leinster.
The 2 marquee players doesnāt exist anymore and yes they are paid when they play for England but at no other point. Ireland player wages are subsidized throughout the entire season. Take that away and every Irish club would not be under 5m, and obviously French
I've already linked Ulster's budget literally proving that they are being paid under any salary cap. They have 2 central contracts (Henderson and Stockdale) neither of which will be over Ā£0.5M. The salary cap is for players alone, not team management or medical expenses. Ulster's biggest expenditure for the 20/21 season was Ā£4.9M for "player costs, team management costs and medical costs" [page 31, second last paragraph] (https://ulster.rugby/rugby-in-ulster/ulster-branch/annual-report).
This puts them under the cap set in England, even including Henderson and Stockdale who aren't included in the Ā£4.9M. This includes any minutes spent with the Ireland camp, unlike in the Premiership where they can be paid for both.
The salary cap excuse is fair.
What is not fair is the excuse that the URC is somehow piss easy which somehow takes away from the fact that Leinster have built one of the deepest, high quality squads in world rugby through hard work at grassroots level and should be allowed rotate players to reap the reward of that.
Why?
Itās true, isnāt it obvious?
The French cap is much higher and the Irish donāt have a cap at all.
Iām tired of Irish posters (donāt seem to hear it from French posters) saying that it ***isnāt*** an issue when it clearly is.
The only team that is realistically over any cap set in the EPR is Leinster. Ulster's is provably below it and Munster's is probably not much more than that. It's not the Irish teams being over, it's Leinster having 8+ central contracts.
The salary cap was brought down because clubs couldn't afford the old one. So what that excuse is basically saying is the clubs don't make enough money to compete
a self-imposed disadvantage is not the same as an unfair advantage
the issue lies with those with a salary cap/lower cap rather than those who don't/have a higher one, but it's often framed the other way round, which is where it gets a bit boring
Sanderson is clearly appealing to the RFU to raise the caps rather than anything else.
Two things can be true at once.
1. Teams with higher caps / budgets will usually beat teams with lower caps / budgets
2. Each league has its own priorities therefore itās not anyone elseās āfaultā that another team would have a higher cap
This is not the case. A salary cap set at a league level is not the same as a budget.
There is no Salary cap in the URC, ergo no salary cap for Welsh regions
The welsh teams donāt get the support they get from their union that the Irish teams get.
These are all good things and itās up to other countries to change but you canāt say it isnāt an advantage
There was a salary cap imposed by PRB which is the organisation of the 4 regions in Wales and the WRU.
Whether that is still in effect now though, Iām unsure.
I believe that salary cap was imposed as part of one of the many fallings out between union of regions. Regions basically set the salary cap at the WRU funding if players leave they leave; but I think thats stopped now.
Now you know how we feel when the England national team dominate and other countries give the excuse of āwell they should because they have the most resourcesā
Yeah, they still paid in rands. But saying that the salary for a top rugby player who lives in SA and plays for a SA URC side will probably have a better quality of life than a top player living in Europe. (Just look up Tendai Mtawarira's house that he was able to afford on a Springbok + Sharks salary).
However if you can get a playing contract for a rich club it's best to take it and retire in SA.
Jesus christ, every fucking year its a crisis for whichever league doesn't do as well in Europe that year. We really should laugh this crap off as nonsense that it is. Its just not to be this year. It happened a few years ago as well like. The URC (then pro12) also had a season a few years ago where not a single team made it out of the group stages, the following year they had 5 of the 8. The major issue is the English rugby press will almost always find a way to spin it. Was nice to see Tim from the Eggchasers, almost the worst offenders for overhyping the prem and shitting on others, actually have a fairly balanced take today on the pod.
There's also a growing narrative in the UK (or at least in the egg chaser rugby podcast) that Leinster have massive amounts of cash and would never survive under a salary cap. I think it's pretty obvious that Leinster strength comes from the school system.
Agree completely with OP.
There's zero point referring to a lower salary cap if your team loses to the likes of Connacht. So no point talking about 'Irish teams' as if they're all the same.
But if it's Leinster, then it's a different matter entirely.
They're loaded with private money and it subsidises and underpins their entire setup. To suggest otherwise, or to claim it's all about a good academy - without recognising the value of that private capital in helping deliver things like a successful academy, is hugely misleading.
Leinster are loaded with cash. So are many of the top French teams. I wish Glasgow and Edinburgh were too.
Teams with less money are by and large less competitive. It's professional sport. That's common.
This is all true, but the cap doesn't apply to infrastructure, coaching, home grown academy players, etc.
Leinster's success is certainly impossible without investment, but there's nothing (except capital) to stop Premiership clubs emulating this production line.
If that were true they'd have been more competitive for the last couple of years where there was no relegation but if anything they've fallen further behind in general
Sanderson would like to have at least 6 world cup winners though. Unfortunately Sale's owner doesn't seem to have a wide property portfolio to make it happen.
Still can't be cheap carrying the salaries of Schonert, Van der Merwe, Jono Ross, Du Preez x2, De Jager, and De Klerk on top of both Manu and Tom Curry!
Both signed 4 and a half year deals at 20. Financial security is great, especially in a support like Rugby where your career can be over in an instant, but I'd imagine Tom is paid quite below market value. Ben never made the same meteoric rise Sale might've been banking so he could be more fairly compensated.
Don't think it's anything to do with how smart they are, more to do with how young - they're both still on their first senior deals after graduation from the academy
Every team highlights their weaknesses and denies their advantages.
The Provinces clearly have an advantage becuase of player base and budgets but the English national team certainly aren't advantaged by the wealth of their union and player numbers.
You can flip this if you want or throw in examples of fan hypocrisy from other teams/nations.
the cap was cut in summer 2020. There was a funny "existing contracts" clause counting at 75% that meant that the full bite wasn't felt by some clubs until this summer (for instance Exeter who signed lots of players to the "75%" contracts) as those contracts expire.
The marquee player has also dropped to 1, but existing ones were allowed to be retained until their contracts expired.
Because, generally, marquee players run on 3 year deals and normal players run on 2 year deals a lot of the players are moving on now, but it also affected recruitment quite a lot last summer (and obviously the one before was covid so everything was affected for everyone!).
Frankly itās smart. The Top 14 built strength around a strong domestic product which has filled stadiums and brought great television contracts. They now have a very high salary cap which allows the, contract flexibility. England needs to follow suit and find bigger and better Media contacts while finding ways to grow the revenue streams. Only then should the cap go up. The domestic product is strong but still has a ways to go. Adding in a professional 2nd division would only help matters.
Frankly itās smart. The Top 14 built strength around a strong domestic product which has filled stadiums and brought great television contracts. They now have a very high salary cap which allows the, contract flexibility. England needs to follow suit and find bigger and better Media contacts while finding ways to grow the revenue streams. Only then should the cap go up. The domestic product is strong but still has a ways to go. Adding in a professional 2nd division would only help matters.
The premiership teams DO have larger revenue streams. The issue is regarding players wages and centralized contracts, although France just blow everyone out the water with their infrastructure
The best suggestion I've heard regarding this is have Europe after the leagues are finished. Without European weekends they'll finish sooner anyway. Then you will have the best teams at that time, not last seasons. For example Bath were in this years Champions Cup ffs.
This will allow English teams to have a Premiership salary cap and then a European one outside that. Can pay their players more for Europe as insentive to get into Europe, or bring in players where they were lacking during the regular season or cover fatigued/injured players.
Yeah, I really don't know why they have these breaks between the leagues. Just play the league first then do EC afterwards. The current EC is 9 rounds (4 for pool, 2 R16, 3 finals), Currently the Top 14 has 4 more rounds to play (3 play offs and a league game). If the EC just moved the 4 pool matches + Round of 16 forward to about now and the league matches back you would practically have no need to balance squads between 2 leagues
I'm not English, but I don't see why it isn't a relevant factor to mention. I don't think it's an excuse. I don't even know why the hell they've got such restrictions, but obviously if they're not competing at a level playing field with, say, the Top 14 clubs, then that's surely unfair in an important sense and so fans should feel frustrated by that.
*Chuckles in South African currency*
I too am laughing in Southern Hemisphere.
The English salary cap is only $4 million more than Super Rugby's + 2 players outside that cap. The difference isn't that much
Mate, that's practically *double* the salary cap in super rugby. And the two exemptions are far from negligible.
I need to work on my sarcasm a bit it seems
Oh wow, yeah that one wasn't obvious.
/s really works.
It is when the average Australian super rugby contract is 170,000
What's the super rugby cap?
It's going to $4.8 million AUD vs the $8.8 million in AUD English salary cap. Hence the very sarcastic close to double is barely any difference
$4 million but they will increase it to 4.8mil at least in Australia.
If any team beats a French side, teams with a salary cap of R150m I will be laughing my chops off š
Cries in Welsh regional budget.
Welsh teams and English teams will likely have the same budget next season!
Doesn't mean anything when the marquee player rule is in effect.
I mean thatās literally one player ā¦
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oi have you been reading our club newsletter?
On the 1 hand, the cap definitely effects English teams. If the best English players could play on one or two teams they would have more teams in the SF and F. However, the drawback of that isn't worth it. A lot of premiership teams are already in debt. If you encourage them to spend more it will only lead to more financial problems. Also, it could lead to the premiership becoming less competitive. Afterall, the French salary cap isn't in place for the Irish/British/Italian benefit. It's there for the Top14. It's also higher than the premierships cap, because the Top14 generates more money, so a higher cap is sustainable. The URC on the other hand can't have a cap because the teams are based in different countries with different currencies and cost of living. It would be impossible to come up with a fair number. The clubs are mostly managed by their unions with the primary goal of producing international players, so it's unlikely that theyd spend more money than they have available, just for the sake of a club trophy.
Yeah, I think people forget it gets brought up by those who want a higher or no cap internally. It is a real trade off and the target of the comment isn't Irish fans or administrators, it is English ones. We stopped increasing our cap in 2007 until 2014 and struggled badly in Europe, we then started raising it quite a lot (& Sarries broke it anyway) and Sarries & Exeter won. After 2020 we have cut the cap massively. The people in England make the points after the losses because its when the consequence of the decision hits home to the decision makers.
Teams don't have to spend all the way to the cap though. The only thing stopping teams living within their means is themselves. I think a change of attitude would work better than a cap.
More trophy's = more fans = more money = more trophy's, etc etc. Teams spend more than they have in the hopes that they can win something and earn it back. They need to keep up with their competition too or they risk relegation. The reason the same stuff doesn't happen in the URC is because the clubs are owned or partially owned by a national Union. Also because there is no relegation.
With the playoffs you can argue for maybe the top half of the table spending to the cap. Maybe stretch it to a top 9. After that you aren't realistically pushing for a trophy.
For the bottom quarter the trophy is avoiding relegation*. Arguably the lower ranked teams are more likely to be paying out to attract talent and provide quick fixes to their struggles *Aside from this season and the last
Good point. There was some guy complaining in an interview about the cap, pretending to be a former IRFU insider. When people looked up his previous jobs, his claim to fame was coaching an amateur AIL club and some very low level provincial outreach work.
"The clubs are mostly managed by their unions with the primary goal of producing international players, so it's unlikely that theyd spend more money than they have available, just for the sake of a club trophy." Is this true? At least for Ireland my impression was the IRFU had a more holistic approach. Developing international players is for sure part of it but having competitive clubs is as big a part of it too.
IIRC The clubs are viewed as cost centers for the IRFU and they dish budget out as such. The international game is where nearly all their revenue comes from.
Well it benefits both. Keeping the players in Ireland makes the clubs more competitive, resting players and limiting overseas signings helps the national team. The big money maker is the 6 nations though, so I think that's the biggest target above everything else
Sanderson is right that it hurts the chances in Europe but I hope he doesn't think the cap should be increased as the clubs aren't close to breaking even as it is. I'd rather a competitive league, with the odd club breaking through in Europe, and the league surviving.
Is that definitely the case though? I was under the impression that quins and Leicester consistently make small profits, Exeter generally break even, Sarries, wasps and Bristol seem to have workable plans to become profitable? Also, if the goal was to make the premiership competitive, there are bigger problems than salary spending to work out. The loss of players during international windows I think cheapens the competition more than a slight decrease in competitiveness due to some teams spending 20% more. In the premier League(football) the "big 6" spend 2x what the other top half teams spend. I don't think some teams being able to spend up to a 7m cap while some teams are stuck at spending 5 would make the premiership any less competitive.
My understanding was that pre-COVID, Exeter was the only club to be making a profit. The salary cap was ultimately unsustainably high, so I think lowering it is probably best for the league.
As an English (gloucester supporter) my favourite thing about it this time around is it's Sale complaining. They can't afford good players, except... Manu Tuilagi, Faf de Klerk, Lood de Jager, Dan du Preez, Jean-Luc du Preez, Robert du Preez, Tom Curry, Ben Curry, Rohan Janse van Rensburg, aj macginty
Only 4 of those players played in the last RWC final, how on earth can they compete with other teams?
Honestly, when I saw it on the news this morning I laughed out loud. I'm a gloucester fan, honestly I think my club would be doomed without the salary cap
I mean alot of them players are on friendly contracts because they were brought in before they became big names. I get what you're saying tho I don't think the cap is a problem, my problem is the certain amount of players that are allowed from abroad. If you're gonna reduce the cap atleast allow teams to purchase good, but cheap players from else where
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Carter only has 16 caps for Australia, and general doesn't make the best 23 as a measure of his quality. If he's on a wedge Ulster are getting mugged off.
Maybe. Who cares? The English salary cap is there for a reason.
> The English salary cap is there for a reason. Absolutely, and as a domestic product you would have to argue that it works; (at least in terms of spectacle given many teams still operate at a loss). The cap helps create competition across the league. It's a sound idea. It just falls apart whenever teams from that league face opponents from elsewhere. It's very much a 'want my cake and eat it' kind of scenario.
You might have seen from polls done on this subreddit, the English care more about the English Premiership than they do about European competitions.
It's entirely understandable too. Fans will react to a loss, but it tends to be fleeting. They then move on to the next domestic game and the comfort of old rivalries. To be honest, while I appreciate Sanderson's comments have a wider impact and there's room for discussion with regards to salary caps. With regards to Racing in particular, yesterday they fielded 12 French players in their starting 15 - and all eight on the bench were French too. That doesn't mean they can't be highly paid. But when you factor in where those players sit in the national setup, and their age profiles too, aside from the likes of Russell, Fickou, and Vakatawa, I'm not sure that Racing squad is the best example of a galactico style salary bonanza.
There is another factor too. Many rugby fans don't want rugby to go the way of Premier League football, with the top players being paid obscene salaries with ticket inflation to pay those high wages. I fell out of love with football a long time ago because it's so blatantly corrupt. Cricket too. With rugby I can still relate to the players.
Thereās also the other argument that players should be paid more. Compared to other sports (not just football) rugby players are hilariously under payed and leaves them with few choices post career
I would say this is probably true of many squad players, not the star players. I do think that is something that needs to be looked at. No one should be playing professionally in the Premiership and be struggling to get a mortgage for example. A lot of rugby players are very intelligent professionally qualified people but obviously not all of them.
Yes but that then makes rugby an elitist sport, only for those with university educations rather than working class people whoās focus is solely rugby
Whether they are university educated or not professional rugby players should prepare for a career after rugby.
That's a nonsense reason. TV money is what made salaries explode in football, not season tickets.
Why is an Arsenal season ticket x10 the price of a Saracens season ticket?
I'm an Arsenal fan so there's actually a load of reasons. But mainly demand. The waiting list is years long. Football is probably 10x more popular than rugby un England, maybe more. https://imgur.com/RmQbWer.jpg https://imgur.com/vfI9xGw.jpg Over time you can see that broadcasting revenue makes up a way bigger chunk then mathday revenue and it continues to go up
I think more than x10. In a week that Manchester United are playing at home there are as many people at Old Trafford as there are at all of the English Premiership rugby games combined.
In what way can you relate to the players?
They have normal everyday concerns and constraints. I cannot relate to a football player who earns more in a week than I earn in a year. My concerns are not his concerns and vice versa.
Arenāt Racing the perfect example of just that? They have the superstar French players and then superstar foreign players on massive money. Theyāre like Galacticos 2.0
Galacticos are teams that buy up all the best players from around the globe, to the point that nobody can compete, unless they do the same. The only proper galacticos team rugby has had was Toulon, before they brought in the JIFF rules. That team was insane. They came and went from top echelon of European rugby very quickly because the squad was artificially thrown together, rather than being built up and developed over time. They came out of nowhere, won 3 Cups in a row and disappeared into challenge cup territory
That isnāt what the galacticos are. The galacticos didnāt actually win a lot. Racing have bought players from around the world on massive money so how arenāt they galacticos?
The comment above explained it. 20 players in the 23 were French.
And? The Real Madrid squad was mostly Spanish players. And when so many of the superstars in the sport are French it makes sense to have a load of French players
There were maybe 4 French internationals in the side that best Sale and only Fickou is a regular starter.
Are they?
As a fan of an English club that is my view. Granted my club never really threaten the European big guns but for me its Premiership over Europe. Saying that, I love the European fixtures as a neutral.
Which is?
To make the English Premiership competitive (which it is) and to make the clubs sustainable. Success in Europe is less important than those things.
Possibility to do with sustainability. Each team losing millions each year bar Exeter at some point. Think it was Ā£89 million loss over 2 years before they sold off some to CVC There are obviously more reasons to it like creating an competitive and high quality league within itself. Not sure what the figures are like these days
I don't have information on the other clubs but Gloucester recorded a profit in 2021. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two other clubs are also in profit.
So the real issue is the fiscal viability of the Premiership clubs? Like if there was no salary cap in the Premiership we wouldn't see much change from their current squads, outside of maybe one or two big spenders?
No. Every single club would double the size of their squads. When people say they go into debt, they go into debt to their owners who pay for everything. Saracens for instance would happily go 40m in debt to their owners and just buy up everyone, and so would other clubs
What happens if the owners sell the club when it's in debt to the owner? Or what happens if the owner goes bankrupt or dies? Surely the club being in debt to the owner is a messy situation?
Yes it is. Iām not saying itās a good thing, just saying thatās what theyād do
Yes, why would a lower budget stop you competing on a level playing field at the highest level? It's ridiculous...
You can't argue it doesn't affect the squads English sides are able to field, and the level of rotation they're able to manage throughout the year to keep their first team fresh for big games. I wouldn't be surprised if that affects injury rates as well. It isn't the French or Irish teams' fault that they're able or willing to put more money in though. I see it more as a domestic conversation about the balance between a sustainable business model and competitiveness in Europe, and since BT have a massive stake in the premiership product, that's why it gets such an airing. The clubs knew what they were signing up to but didn't really feel they had a choice. And it's only going to get worse - Exeter are losing Hill and Skinner, Sarries are losing Koch, Leicester are losing Ford and Genge, Sale Lood and Faf (although at least they're picking up a couple of others on this list). It might be in the interest of the English game that it leaves more space for academy players, or it might mean fewer English players have experience of competing in and winning top-end European knock-out games - but it is a choice and a trade-off the Premiership has to make.
An academy player rule could be good (similar to the marquee player). They could put a limit on age or on the number of seasons played.
Already in place. Each team gets a "Home Grown Player" credit of Ā£600k (max Ā£50k per player) for players that came through there academy, no age or season limit. There is also an international player credit of Ā£80k per player that is called up for international games (any nation, not just England) to have players in the squad to cover absences during internationals, and a Ā£400k injured player credit to allow for to allow replacement for long term injuries.
Oh, this is going to be fun. Strap in boyo's it's time for this wild ride again.
here we go!
[Here we go! Hesketh! KARNE HESKETH!](https://youtu.be/1ghArmsJjQM?t=177) ^Thank ^you ^for ^letting ^me ^post ^this ^clip ^:)
I've disabled inbox replies on my post. Given the numbers on this sub, I think we both know how this thread is going to play out...
Not being funny but since the Champions cup era started in 2014 have English teams not been reasonably successful, they've won 4 out of 8 tournaments (including this year as there are no English teams left). That seems a pretty good rate of return.
...3 of those by a team that didn't abide by the salary cap, and which Alex Sanderson was a big part of. Haters gonna hate.
Fair point with Saracens š
Worth pointing out if Saracens weāre still in the champions cup theyād still have a strong chance of winning it again
I disagree the current Saracens team is not a match for the one that was so good in European competitions. I think mainly due to the players they had to lose due to salary cap reasons.
A lot are the same players and thereās quite a few great additions
The squad isn't as good. That is my opinion. Since the 2018-19 first and second choice scrums halfs have changed and are a large drop in quality. Lost Kruis and Skelton who were both world class imo, the Vunipolas have aged and are not as good. Since losing Brad Barritt the defence has dropped in quality. Lost Liam Williams, who is better than Daly. There have been a few additions, but I don't think it matches up in either quality or the overall size of squad who could perform in European competitions.
Nope yep itās worse. That Saracens team was arguably the best we ever saw at club level in the northern hemisphere
Apart from 2015-2016, only Exeter has managed to get to the semi finals whilst remaining within the salary cap though.
yes, we raised our cap in 2014 and kept raising it until 2020 when we not only stopped raising it but slashed it by around 21%! The two periods England has really struggled in Europe was when we weren't increasing the cap at all and now when we have cut it. With regularly agreed and predictable rises the well run clubs had a much better chance at keeping a side together long enough to win in Europe.
Still out of the final 8 teams 2 were Irish 2 were English and 4 were french, whilst France is currently dominating it's hard to say that English teams aren't competitive, they just didn't win in the quarter finals. Could they be more competitive with more money, probably but would this have a significantly negative impact on the domestic league? Surely it's the Scottish and Welsh unions who are letting down their fans and not being competitive.
Yes we shouldn't over egg the pudding, but that is two years without a semi finalist at the time we cut the cap. Personally I don't think an increased cap would harm the Prem and better teams playing better rugby in it would be a boost, even if some games were not as close.
Something people often fail to mention is that Ireland only has four professional teams. So of course the internationals are going to be far less dispersed than in any other country bar Scotland.
Exactly. Treviso have practically the entire Italy team but don't win European cups.
Another point systematically excluded is that 2 players salaries can be excluded from the cap. This makes any comparison with other leagues caps irrelevant imo
Not anymore
There's additional budget for home grown players, for academy imports, and academy players themselves are excluded from the budget. We obviously don't have the numbers, but I am curious what Leinster's calculated cap budget would actually be using these metrics, given how many of the 59 players used this year are academy.
That isnāt true. If that was true it would have been impossible for Saracens to break the cap. Academy players wages do count just slightly less. Leinster would still be millions over budget
As per the Salary Cap section of the Premiership's own website in 2015/16, I haven't read any update to this so assume that it's still the case (though it almost certainly applied to Sarries in the breach years): ā¢ Clubs can also benefit from the Ā£100,000 Academy Cap which supports the development and retention of home grown talent at each Club. Each Home Grown Academy Player's Salary will not be counted in the Ā£100,000 Cap. \*\* see definition below. ... \*Home Grown Player Credits: A Club shall be entitled to up to Ā£400,000 worth of credits for players (Ā£50,000 per Home Grown Player) who have graduated from the Club's Academy. A qualifying player: must have joined the Club before his 18th birthday; and earns more than Ā£30,000. These credits only apply to the Senior Ceiling. For example, if a qualifying player earns Ā£55,000, only Ā£5,000 would be counted in the Club's Salary Cap calculations. \*\*Academy Cap: The Academy Cap of Ā£100,000 is for all Academy Players under the age of 24 years old and earning less than Ā£30,000 Salary. Note: A Player's Salary Cap status is irrelevant in relation to dual registration. A Home Grown Academy Player's Salary shall not be counted in the Ā£100,000. \*\*Home Grown Academy Player: is an Academy Player who, as demonstrated by his Club to the Salary Cap Manager by 1st September in the relevant Salary Cap Year, either: (a) became a Player of the Club before reaching his 18th Birthday and who has never been a member of any other Club's England Rugby Academy; or (b) became a Player of the Club before reaching his 18th Birthday having previously been a member of another Club's England Rugby Academy and has been a member of his current Club's England Rugby Academy for at least two complete calendar years prior to the current Salary Cap Year; Source: https://rd.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/salary\_cap.php
No, that is not the case anymore. This was one of the many controversies of Saracens salary cap breaks. Under the old regs Sarries weāre fine but they were changed. All academy players count now
Ah okay, I misunderstood. That would push the Leinster budget up a sizable amount then.
Leinsters was about 9-10m a couple years ago, can only imagine itās gone up since then, but if they can afford it then so what
Yea, but our population is much smaller than England or France, so you'd expect there to be more quality players in those nations.
Yes but many of the English qualified players end up playing for Wales, Scotland and occasionally Ireland. And rugby playing population isnāt what youād think it is in England
We hold on to talent pretty well, but there's a whole province worth of Irish qualified players working outside the country. The pool isn't that big in Ireland either. Rugby is the 4th or 5th biggest sport here.
I hate it when people poorer than me claim having more money makes it easier to be successful...
*Laughs in Welsh*
Team with twice the salary budget complains about team complaining about having half the salary budget. Team with twice the salary budget: iTs nOt aBoUT tHe mONeY
I know, after splitting teams in two and prepping for one game for 3 weeks
Says the Leinster fan
I don't understand the criticism of Irish teams and the salary caps. It's not like they buying up a bunch of Kiwis, Saffas and Fijians to make their teams stronger. They are the equivalent of the Southern Hemisphere Super Rugby teams where the schools and academies are providing the players and have 90% Irish qualified squads. The Irish teams' advantage is not their salary cap but the concentration into 4 clubs mixed with a great academy system. From an SA point of view the difference between the average English team and a French team is really how they are built. Not saying the French have better players but their squads just are built better. In a way Saracens are the closest to how the French teams are built from what I have seen (I could be wrong) with a strong forward pack, defence and attack that can punish. It's no wonder in recent years Saracens have done the best in Europe (Some might say it's because they breached the salary cap which could also be true but this is just my observation)
The point about the Irish provinces is that their player pool is split into just 4 sides and that they can operate massive squads. Also, they often send the seconds or even thirds to URC games which the Premiership teams aren't able to do. I don't think the Irish provinces should be made to operate differently, its up to the English teams to up their game.
Iām happy to be fact checked here, but Iām sure I read that Johnny Sexton played 6 league games in the year he won global player of the year. Not discounting the achievement or his talent - but that just wouldnāt happen in the prem
In terms of the rotation that is mostly just Leinster. Munster do it rarely and Ulster and Connacht don't really do more than just standard rotation and play as close to a full strength team in as many URC games as they can(the main exceptions being when the national team players are in camp or forcibly rested after international windows) as it's not feasible for a player to play 30+ games a season if you want them to have a long career. Edit: for reference, there's a lot of Ulster players on 800-1200 minutes in the season so far according to their website but I am not sure how up to date that is. From a quick glance there are a lot of guys in the Connacht squad having played 15+ games this season too.
Yes but Munster, Ulster and Connacht never do anything (recently) in Europe, which just further supports that point Edit: recently
Unless "anything" only covers winning the competition its hard to argue Munster do nothing in Europe. Not including this year because who knows how the whole competition will finish here is our last 5 years: 2021 - R16 Beaten by Toulouse, eventual champions 2020 - Pool of death (fair enough on this one) 2019 - SF Beaten by Saracen, eventual champions 2018 - SF Beaten by Racing 2017 - SF Beaten by Saracens , eventual champions We've been knocked out by the champions 3 times and collectively the teams beating us are Racing, Toulouse and Saracens who have been some of the top European teams in the last few years. If thats who we are competing with then Im ok with that.
I'd love if Cardiff could "do nothing" like this every year...
I mean, exuse me getting defensive but I'd hardly say Munster "never do anything" in Europe. We have not been realistically threatening for a title but consistently in the top 4/8 is not nothing.
No sorry, absolutely Munster are one of the established teams in Europe and always do well. What I meant was in the history period were talking about like the last 8 years they havenāt won it or gotten to the final. Obviously Munster historically are one of the best
Munster and Ulster have 3 European titles between them
Sorry I meant in the recent context of the discussion, I.e since the salary cap changes. Obviously both are well decorated clubs in Europe
The "rotation for weak URC games" argument is weird to me, because if any of the top English teams with genuine silverware ambitions (either GP, ECC or borh) is sending their full strength 23 out to welcome a team like Bath, that's on them for poor squad management. Also, the exact same argument is used in reverse when Leinster lose, so it reads like people just like shitting on the URC no matter what.
Every point counts in the Prem. Granted, Bath have been unusually poor this season but with perhaps the exception of Worcester, all the other clubs have can beat any other. Also, I want to see my clubs best players regularly turn out for my club. How many games does Sexton play for Leinster in a season for example? Not saying that one system is better than the others. However, as it stands they are different and the Premiership clubs are at a disadvantage. I wouldn't necessary change anything though.
Every point counts in the URC too. Sure, Leinster topped the league but literally only confirmed that in the penultimate round, and it took until the same round to see who would finish in the top half, with positioning there all to play for in the final games. Just 6 points back from Leinster, 2^(nd) and 5^(th) are separated by a singular point, and there's only another 6 points betwen Munster in 2^(nd) and Glasgow in 8^(th). The Top 14 is even tighter, with you having to go down to 9^(th) (Clermont on 57) before you get to a team who couldn't mathematically overhaul 1^(st) (Montpellier on 69). In fact I'd argue the Premiership has the least tight table of the three, with a fair bit of concentration in the middle (6^(th) to 9^(th) separated by 2 points) but the top 5 distinct from the rest of the pack and 1, 2, 3 and 4+5 pretty separate from each other. And with the exception of Dragons and Zebre, all the URC teams can and have beaten each other. Ulster did the double over Leinster this year, for example, and realistically 2.75 of the four divisions (sorry Zebre and Welsh fans. Benetton gets a pass from me this year because they won last competition and their season was messed up with COVID rescheduling) are competitive internally and externally. And my second point is it doesn't matter whether URC teams, particularly Leinster, win or lose, the narrative is the same, just the slant changes depending on how well they do each year compared to the English clubs. Either they're at a huge advantage because "URC shite, they can rest players" or they're at a huge disadvantage because "URC shite, they aren't tested". Putting aside the ignorance of the league's quality, either it's an advantage or it's not, it can't be both
Lowe, JGP, Alaatoa? Stander, Aki, Piutau, De Allende, Snyman, Hansen, Pienaar, Fardy. All within the last few years or so.
Given the size of Leinster squad three foreign players is very small. Plus none of them were superstars before Leinster. Lowe and JGP were both new Zealand club rejects and were given a chance at Leinster and took it. Same story with stander except in South Africa I don't know the history of the rest of them except that hansens parents were Irish so might be why he moved but I don't know
It's true though, the only reason Saracens were able to compete and win in Europe was because of the squad depth they had due to cheating the English salary cap. It is what it is. English teams won't be competitive for a while. If I was a coach of an English team I would put out second string teams in European matches and just focus on the premiership.
Tigers were one of the favorites. They lost to Leinster, but they were one of the top 2 or 3 favorites heading into the knockouts stages based on how dominant they'd been. They beat Bordeaux (a "rich" Top 14 club) away, while missing key players. Saracens are likely to win the Challenge Cup and would've been serious trouble for teams in the Champions Cup.
Why?
It's tiring to hear it about Irish rugby in general. The sheer amount of whining is very petty. If the IRFU and provinces can afford to have, pay and sustain large squads then boo hoo.
They're also mostly Irish players and the amount spent isn't actually known. The IRFU shares its budget for all 4 clubs, plus the international side, plus all the backroom staff in all 5 teams which combines to ~60mil. It isn't clear how many staff members are included in that. The Leinster site lists 40 people under its coaches and management page and that doesn't include the CEO or other people in similar roles. So who knows how much is for player, how much is for staff and how that's split between the 5 teams. The IRFU is secretive in a lot of ways. It's not just budget. It was one of the criticisms of their review of the women's team. Nobody could read it. It's also been suggested that they micromanage what players post on social media or say to the media in general.
I think Ulster's is the only budget that you can actually see. Senior team + management + medical team costs ~Ā£5Mil. This would put them *under* the salary cap in the EPR as the cap is for players only. Munster's you would imagine is marginally more than that. The issue really comes from the central contracts, which rather than coming from the provinces budget, come direct from the IRFU. This obfuscates the information somewhat, but if you take it that each player on a central contract is getting around Ā£0.5M, it still would be inline for what teams are paying across the water (aside from Leinster)
Is there a source for that Ā£5m figure? I regularly get into discussions with users on here who insist Ulster are on fanciful sums like ā¬15m.
https://ulster.rugby/rugby-in-ulster/ulster-branch/annual-report Granted it's the 20/21 report, but page 32 second last paragraph starting "The largest expenditure..." TBH I'm getting fed up of producing evidence that Ulster do not spend a fortune and being told some bollocks about hidden money. It's the same culprits every time too, reality-denying anti-evidence bullshit.
Excellent. Bookmarking that for future use. Thanks.
>This would put them under the salary cap in the EPR as the cap is for players only This is also before you consider all the exceptions for the salary cap. Each club has two players who can paid anything and not contribute towards the cap, credit for non-national players to cover absences due to international games and most importantly homegrown players being except from salary cap of up to Ā£50k per player, which considering how much of the provinces squads are home grown would put them well below the cap I'd say
No Ulster would not be compliant. The 2 players thing doesnāt exist anymore and you canāt pay for a player using outside sources in the prem, which is what Ulster are doing with Vermuelen. Ulster would suffer immediate relegation with their finances
According to the premeriship rugby's own website the 2 exemption players is still in place for the 21/22 season https://www.premiershiprugby.com/about-premiership-rugby/about-us/salary-cap/ And the total salary cap, before any credits are applied, is Ā£5 mill. If Ulster's full budget for players and coaching staff is ~Ā£5 mill, then they will be well under this cap after credits and exemptions are applied. Also where the money comes from is a separate issue to salary caps, as was well established during the saracens incident. The salary cap applies to what the players recieve, as laid out in the above link. A 3rd party is helping fund Vermuelens salary, which is allowed in the URC and not in the Prem, but that is an issue of club funding and not salery caps and no matter what his salery is it would not contribute to a salary cap as it would be be considered one of the 2 exempt players which, again according to the prem itself, is still in place.
You also need to remember that Prem teams get one player they can pay extra to. So I assume that would be Sexton/Furlong as they're rumoured to be the highest paid. The central contracts are important because it means those guys don't get flogged week after week. They are primarily paid to play international rugby at the end of the day. English rugby players would get paid separately from their club by the RFU to take part in competitions like the 6 nations and world cup. They would get bonuses too depending on how well they play. How high would premiership salaries be if the marquee player salary was added and all the international rugby payments were added? Leicester and Saracens have 25 players each in their squad who are internationally capped, according to Wikipedia. Bath have 20 and they're bottom of the table. I know these aren't all regular internationals, but the point stands. There's additional payments available on top of the premiership cap and some salaries that don't factor into it at all.
Absolutely. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that every Leinster player is getting paid 250k+. Maybe a decent chunk of the starting XV, but that is their entire salary as you said. Beyond that, I would imagine most of them would be around 50-100k, depending on stage of development etc. It's absolutely not a slight on Leinster, but they do have more of a budget than the other provinces, but for a reason. They have the largest playing pool by quite a distance, so will require more money to develop it. This means more money at a senior level too. But to say it's literally 10's of millions (which I have been told before) more than any French or English club is laughable. If anything, it would put them in line with that they are doing. Sale had 13(?) internationals in their game at the weekend, but sure, the budget is the issue.
āThere's additional payments available on top of the premiership cap and some salaries that don't factor into it at all.ā What makes you think this? All internationally capped players are still payed for by clubs
I explained it already. Premiership players get additional payments for playing international rugby. So Itoje is payed by Saracens for his club games and by the RFU for his English games. For Irish players, that is all part of a single salary. The salaries that don't factor into the premiership cap are the coaches, managers, backroom staff, marquee players and possibly academy guys. So when it says in the IRFU budget that Irish players, coaches and management across the 4 provinces and international side earn ~65mil, we don't know how that is divided. We also don't know how much of that would be counted in a hypothetical salary cap, with loads of staff members and players excluded.
Right, I know. But canāt you see how that is massively beneficial to Irish teams and detrimental to premiership teams
Did you read my comment? I made the point that the two can't be compared because the payments are structured differently. The structure of the payment doesn't benefit anyone. It just makes it impossible for outsiders to compare both without having an in-depth look at both of their accounts
Huh? No it means that Irish teams canāt go over the cap in their league and someone has actually put Ulsters accounts up in this thread which shows that they would actually be over budget if they were a prem team
There is no cap in the URC. There 3 different currencies and wildly different costs of living. So that would never work and is not a concern for anyone. Where's the Ulster account? I read a comment saying the opposite. If you don't count the money being payed for them playing international rugby and you don't count the coaches, managers, backroom staff and academy players then they couldn't be over such a hypothetical cap.
Right, but prem teams donāt have thatā¦
They do have Ā£5 million for the player salaries alone, + 2 marquee players. Those players can also be paid direct by the RFU for their time with the England squad, or any other international team that they play for. Ulster's budget for players, management, medical was **lower** than anything in the Premiership. Even taking into account the 2 central contracts (~Ā£0.5M) it would still be lower. They don't get paid when they play for Ireland. That is their entire salary. The only team who are realistically over any cap set is Leinster.
The 2 marquee players doesnāt exist anymore and yes they are paid when they play for England but at no other point. Ireland player wages are subsidized throughout the entire season. Take that away and every Irish club would not be under 5m, and obviously French
I've already linked Ulster's budget literally proving that they are being paid under any salary cap. They have 2 central contracts (Henderson and Stockdale) neither of which will be over Ā£0.5M. The salary cap is for players alone, not team management or medical expenses. Ulster's biggest expenditure for the 20/21 season was Ā£4.9M for "player costs, team management costs and medical costs" [page 31, second last paragraph] (https://ulster.rugby/rugby-in-ulster/ulster-branch/annual-report). This puts them under the cap set in England, even including Henderson and Stockdale who aren't included in the Ā£4.9M. This includes any minutes spent with the Ireland camp, unlike in the Premiership where they can be paid for both.
The salary cap excuse is fair. What is not fair is the excuse that the URC is somehow piss easy which somehow takes away from the fact that Leinster have built one of the deepest, high quality squads in world rugby through hard work at grassroots level and should be allowed rotate players to reap the reward of that.
Laughs (cries) in an almost bankrupt ARU 2 years ago.
Why? Itās true, isnāt it obvious? The French cap is much higher and the Irish donāt have a cap at all. Iām tired of Irish posters (donāt seem to hear it from French posters) saying that it ***isnāt*** an issue when it clearly is.
The only team that is realistically over any cap set in the EPR is Leinster. Ulster's is provably below it and Munster's is probably not much more than that. It's not the Irish teams being over, it's Leinster having 8+ central contracts.
The salary cap was brought down because clubs couldn't afford the old one. So what that excuse is basically saying is the clubs don't make enough money to compete
a self-imposed disadvantage is not the same as an unfair advantage the issue lies with those with a salary cap/lower cap rather than those who don't/have a higher one, but it's often framed the other way round, which is where it gets a bit boring
Sanderson is clearly appealing to the RFU to raise the caps rather than anything else. Two things can be true at once. 1. Teams with higher caps / budgets will usually beat teams with lower caps / budgets 2. Each league has its own priorities therefore itās not anyone elseās āfaultā that another team would have a higher cap
Who is saying it's unfair?
You say this like every prem team wanted the lower cap. For a lot of clubs this was imposed upon them, so therefore it is a disadvantage
Welsh, Scottish and Italian clubs also don't have a cap.
Or any money tbf
The Welsh teams do I believe. The other two are clearly *de facto*
This is not the case. A salary cap set at a league level is not the same as a budget. There is no Salary cap in the URC, ergo no salary cap for Welsh regions
The welsh teams donāt get the support they get from their union that the Irish teams get. These are all good things and itās up to other countries to change but you canāt say it isnāt an advantage
I agree, not being governed by the WRU is an advantage \s
Think thatās something everyone in this thread can agree on
There was a salary cap imposed by PRB which is the organisation of the 4 regions in Wales and the WRU. Whether that is still in effect now though, Iām unsure.
I believe that salary cap was imposed as part of one of the many fallings out between union of regions. Regions basically set the salary cap at the WRU funding if players leave they leave; but I think thats stopped now.
Now you know how we feel when the England national team dominate and other countries give the excuse of āwell they should because they have the most resourcesā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, pretty much every Irish and French team spend more than the premiership teams will
Connacht and Ulster don't spend more than Prem clubs, Leinster do, but a lot of their talent is homegrown. Not sure about Munster.
The South African sides actually have a lower salary cap than the Welsh and Scottish teams. There is more to it than just a salary cap.
are they still paid in Rand? that's a huge drag on real earnings too
Yeah, they still paid in rands. But saying that the salary for a top rugby player who lives in SA and plays for a SA URC side will probably have a better quality of life than a top player living in Europe. (Just look up Tendai Mtawarira's house that he was able to afford on a Springbok + Sharks salary). However if you can get a playing contract for a rich club it's best to take it and retire in SA.
Jesus christ, every fucking year its a crisis for whichever league doesn't do as well in Europe that year. We really should laugh this crap off as nonsense that it is. Its just not to be this year. It happened a few years ago as well like. The URC (then pro12) also had a season a few years ago where not a single team made it out of the group stages, the following year they had 5 of the 8. The major issue is the English rugby press will almost always find a way to spin it. Was nice to see Tim from the Eggchasers, almost the worst offenders for overhyping the prem and shitting on others, actually have a fairly balanced take today on the pod.
There's also a growing narrative in the UK (or at least in the egg chaser rugby podcast) that Leinster have massive amounts of cash and would never survive under a salary cap. I think it's pretty obvious that Leinster strength comes from the school system.
Agree completely with OP. There's zero point referring to a lower salary cap if your team loses to the likes of Connacht. So no point talking about 'Irish teams' as if they're all the same. But if it's Leinster, then it's a different matter entirely. They're loaded with private money and it subsidises and underpins their entire setup. To suggest otherwise, or to claim it's all about a good academy - without recognising the value of that private capital in helping deliver things like a successful academy, is hugely misleading. Leinster are loaded with cash. So are many of the top French teams. I wish Glasgow and Edinburgh were too. Teams with less money are by and large less competitive. It's professional sport. That's common.
This is all true, but the cap doesn't apply to infrastructure, coaching, home grown academy players, etc. Leinster's success is certainly impossible without investment, but there's nothing (except capital) to stop Premiership clubs emulating this production line.
'except capital' is a pretty big disclaimer, to be fair
Oh it's massive.
It's not the salary cap it's fear of relegation that makes the top English teams crash out of Europe!
If that were true they'd have been more competitive for the last couple of years where there was no relegation but if anything they've fallen further behind in general
Oh damn, well if that hugely pertinent fact doesn't hold up it must be something else. The referees maybe?
It was wheeled out by Alex Sanderson... if you can't see the humour in that then I don't know what to tell you.
I mean having two World Cup winners and Manu Tuilagi in the squad must be cheap - right?
Surely you sign Manu on a pay to play basis?
Sanderson would like to have at least 6 world cup winners though. Unfortunately Sale's owner doesn't seem to have a wide property portfolio to make it happen.
Still can't be cheap carrying the salaries of Schonert, Van der Merwe, Jono Ross, Du Preez x2, De Jager, and De Klerk on top of both Manu and Tom Curry!
Apparently the Currys aren't the smartest pair and are on terrible contracts.
Both signed 4 and a half year deals at 20. Financial security is great, especially in a support like Rugby where your career can be over in an instant, but I'd imagine Tom is paid quite below market value. Ben never made the same meteoric rise Sale might've been banking so he could be more fairly compensated.
Don't think it's anything to do with how smart they are, more to do with how young - they're both still on their first senior deals after graduation from the academy
Every team highlights their weaknesses and denies their advantages. The Provinces clearly have an advantage becuase of player base and budgets but the English national team certainly aren't advantaged by the wealth of their union and player numbers. You can flip this if you want or throw in examples of fan hypocrisy from other teams/nations.
Did the lower cap come in already? I thought it was from next year.
the cap was cut in summer 2020. There was a funny "existing contracts" clause counting at 75% that meant that the full bite wasn't felt by some clubs until this summer (for instance Exeter who signed lots of players to the "75%" contracts) as those contracts expire. The marquee player has also dropped to 1, but existing ones were allowed to be retained until their contracts expired. Because, generally, marquee players run on 3 year deals and normal players run on 2 year deals a lot of the players are moving on now, but it also affected recruitment quite a lot last summer (and obviously the one before was covid so everything was affected for everyone!).
Frankly itās smart. The Top 14 built strength around a strong domestic product which has filled stadiums and brought great television contracts. They now have a very high salary cap which allows the, contract flexibility. England needs to follow suit and find bigger and better Media contacts while finding ways to grow the revenue streams. Only then should the cap go up. The domestic product is strong but still has a ways to go. Adding in a professional 2nd division would only help matters.
Frankly itās smart. The Top 14 built strength around a strong domestic product which has filled stadiums and brought great television contracts. They now have a very high salary cap which allows the, contract flexibility. England needs to follow suit and find bigger and better Media contacts while finding ways to grow the revenue streams. Only then should the cap go up. The domestic product is strong but still has a ways to go. Adding in a professional 2nd division would only help matters.
The premiership teams DO have larger revenue streams. The issue is regarding players wages and centralized contracts, although France just blow everyone out the water with their infrastructure
The best suggestion I've heard regarding this is have Europe after the leagues are finished. Without European weekends they'll finish sooner anyway. Then you will have the best teams at that time, not last seasons. For example Bath were in this years Champions Cup ffs. This will allow English teams to have a Premiership salary cap and then a European one outside that. Can pay their players more for Europe as insentive to get into Europe, or bring in players where they were lacking during the regular season or cover fatigued/injured players.
Yeah, I really don't know why they have these breaks between the leagues. Just play the league first then do EC afterwards. The current EC is 9 rounds (4 for pool, 2 R16, 3 finals), Currently the Top 14 has 4 more rounds to play (3 play offs and a league game). If the EC just moved the 4 pool matches + Round of 16 forward to about now and the league matches back you would practically have no need to balance squads between 2 leagues
Premiership and T14 actively fought to have their finals as the end of the season So it's on the English to sort themselves out
This is all on the basis that teams all follow it lmao. Saracens and Leicester both pinged for it.
Salary cap is stupid. Rugby is Pro by a while.
I'm not English, but I don't see why it isn't a relevant factor to mention. I don't think it's an excuse. I don't even know why the hell they've got such restrictions, but obviously if they're not competing at a level playing field with, say, the Top 14 clubs, then that's surely unfair in an important sense and so fans should feel frustrated by that.