Celery Cap Scrap

This is the oft-repeated refrain of players and agents.

It has a grain of truth but is not the whole picture either.

Punditry seems to be a good career after playing. Along with coaching at various levels or even proper commenfary like the Aussie Cricketers do. So many choices these days.

For every Zelic there is an equal and opposite de Jong.

Ah hah. Some sense at last. Someone seeking the full picture instead of envy, jealousy, ignorance and conjecture.  

Here's a suggestion that would shine a light on what is so far concealed:

 Make wages of NRL, AFL, A-League stars public, says players' association boss | smh.com.au

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/make-...

Don't cast aspersions on people just because they disagree with you. I don't see how any of the points used to challenge you can be classified as any of those things. Market value, opportunity cost, the ability to study part-time while playing, etc. are all valid arguments. You are also right that the time invested in developing as a footballer should be rewarded, but that doesn't mean players should necessarily get what they want here. I'm not even too concerned about whether the players deserve what the PFA is asking for, because I'm far more concerned about whether the A-League as a whole can afford it. This is something like the classic $10 now or $100 in a year dilemma, and the PFA are doing what most people do and asking for the $10 now. Or maybe more accurately, they're asking for $30 now and the rest of the $100 in installments. They're betting that the next TV deal will be large enough for the clubs to absorb the losses over the next two seasons, but if they get that wrong then they're adding to the already shaky financial footing of most of the clubs. It doesn't matter if they're worth more or deserve more than they're getting right now if it's all that the league can afford to give them.

I'm just going to go over this one more time because I can't see how you're getting envy, jealously, ignorance and conjecture out of this. For a start I'll say I'm in favour of collective bargaining and unions and the players are entitled to ask for more money if they feel they aren't adequately paid, just to get that clear. In this case it seems like those demands are unreasonable due to the financial situations of many of the clubs. However, I admit that most of the information coming out has been from the employer's side and as such we might not be getting the full picture about the negotiations. I'm only commenting on what's made it into public.

As I see it there are 2 key issues here - issue one is how much is a professional footballer's labour worth? The most simplistic answer is that they are worth however much someone is willing to pay. That's not entirely accurate in this case though. For a start, the labour market for Australian (and New Zealand) professional footballers is not entirely "free". Restrictions on foreign players in other pro football labour markets like Europe or Asia mean that the value of Aussie players in those markets is less - because an Australian player of equal skill to an English player  is a less attractive option for an English football club. Still, this doesn't count for every A League player - Thomas Broich could go back to Germany if he thought he'd get paid more there, for instance. Also, the salary cap in the A League puts an artificial limit on how much clubs here can pay players (marquees excluded). That cuts both ways though because the collective agreement also stipulates minimum salaries too. So if we accept that the labour market for pro footballers from Australia isn't free, it is possible that they aren't paid fairly. I'll grant you that - although I think it would still be pretty close to fair though. And the broader labour market in Australia is reasonably fair, so if a professional footballer decided they could make more money as say, an investment banker, they could walk away from football and pursue that career.

The second issue is where does the money come from? If we accept that A League players are underpaid, who should pay them more? The money comes from fans consuming either the A League as a product itself, or from sponsors who believe that endorsing the A League or individual clubs is worth it. If clubs are struggling financially now, then increasing player's salaries does not seem like an obvious thing to do. It could be though - if the extra money attracts better players and improves the quality of the league so more people start watching it. Of course, clubs folding because they are not economically sustainable would have the opposite impact on the quality of the league and sponsors' willingness to associate themselves with it. I think financial prudence is reasonable in this case but I see an argument the other way.

Either way, I just fail to see how the length of a playing career can be used to argue that players should be paid more. Like I said, they make the choice to follow this career path. You see it with young kiwi players quite often where they choose to not pursue a pro career relentlessly, but instead take a scholarship to a US college so they have other options. Those guys are making a tough call - but they're also proof that you can be a good young footballer and choose to do something else with your life. No one is forcing you to follow this path.

I personally spent a fair chunk of my 20s working for 50c an hour more than minimum wage in a CD store. I knew that there was zero chance of career progression and that I could earn more money if I went and got an office job, but I loved the job I was doing, I was mates with the boss,  I had really good hours and 3 day weekends and I was happy to do it. Eventually I decided I wanted more financial security and to think about my future and I went back to uni, finished my qualifications and now earn way more than  I did in retail. How was me deciding that I'd rather work in a CD store for less pay and no long-term career opportunities any different to a young guy deciding he wants a pro football career even though he knows it'll only be 10 or 15 years long and then he'll have to start over? Should I have demanded more money from my employer because I could have earned more in a different industry?

A-League player wages are all in a pretty concentrated band, so I'm not sure making individual wages public would do anything except satisfy curiosity.

The reality is that most A-League players earn good six-figure wages, way above the national median wage. They also have fabulous lifestyles.

The quid pro quo (as you pointed out) is that their careers are often short-lived. 

I don't have a huge amount of time for the "kids give up everything for a shot at it, so they should get a massive payoff when they make it" argument. Because it's not true. Kids don't have to give up schooling to try to be a professional player. They just need to be dedicated enough to do both. 

The "your career can be ended by injury" argument is also not as valid in the A-League where all players are covered by generous insurance (paid for by the league don't forget) that protects their income in the case of injury. Jimmy Downey is, as I understand it, still being paid six figures as a professional footballer for example. Not a terrible outcome for his short A-League career. 

Wrapping all of that up and bringing it back to the facts of this pay dispute I think the PFA is being short sighted and greedy and is out of touch with the needs of the league and the sentiments of most fans.

And despite what you may be offered in the A-League your more likely than not to actually get paid which is more than you can say for half the leagues in europe, unless of course you play for the Roar atm.

100% - literally hundreds of millions of people round the world pay to watch them play.  If not the players, who deserves that money more?  Owners?  Management?  Tax man?  Do you object to movie stars getting paid mega-bucks?

The argument in the A-League is different because some clubs/owners aren't making money but it's also difficult to assess from the outside.  Why are clubs losing money - there are multiple reasons for that but I think it's fair to say that not all of it is linked to overpaying for players.  And which clubs in the league are actually losing money - it's hard to say because details aren't published in all cases.

Players wages are restricted in a way that no-one else's at a club are.  There's no manager salary cap, no CEO salary cap, so you have to be very careful about blaming the players for clubs losing money.

Fair point. Footballers are the best kind of entertainers (alongside writers, in my view) - I love football and I am not blaming only the players for the clubs losing money but I do believe their requests are unreasonable at this time.

I do object to movie stars and the like getting paid mega bucks, absolutely. I think, like any job where you need both talent and to study/train/specialize/dedicate yourself wholly for many years, you deserve to be paid very well.

But I just hate it how an actor on a successful TV series (say Friends, which I love very much) gets paid $1M per episode while most of us are getting what, $60,000 or so per year? Say, if Joey Trebbiani gets $10M per year and we get $60,000, are his skills, talent, charisma worth over 160 times more than the average folk? I think not. The same applies for football players, although I admit that few salaries in the A-League even compare to those numbers. Still, a lot of these guys do quite well for themselves and should recognize that, right now isn't really the time to ask for more money.

I also think the present demands are unsustainable, but surely a person is worth the Revenue they bring to the Table. Think of Matt le Blanc and co horts (including the shows writers etc)  as a salesmen / woman. They bring massive income to NBC (or whoever it was) in the form of direct advertising and sales of the show world wide, therefore they are worth that sort of money to NBC otherwise they will be off to CBS or Fox etc. Likewise in my job, if I started bringing in Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in sales, I would be kicking the bosses door down with my hand out looking for a bigger share of the pie.

At this stage I think the PFA are looking for a bigger share of a pie that that has not grown and the owners are already having to add ingredients from their own Larder to make the pie the size that it is.

mmmmmm pie

I guess my feeling is that the players, whether or not they get a good deal or a bad deal playing in the A-League, have agreed to restrict their salaries.  Think about that, there is a cap to the amount they can earn even if someone wants to pay them more.  Now there is literally no other industry in NZ or Australia (other than the NRL) where people agree to that. 

And no-one else at the club, or at the A-League administration, or working for Fox, or for the FFA is in that boat. 

Now that salary cap brings with it benefits for players in the league, but it is also effectively a limit on the growth of the game so you have to be very careful how that salary cap is applied.  If the cap doesn't increase year on year then players are getting paid less each year. 

Simple comparison is the NRL; player wages are a reflection on the revenue the total game provides - tv, merchandise, gate - players should be paid accordingly. 

Love the Salary cap, it evens the playing field. Apart from my doubts about Victory rorting the system it appears to be working.

I just want to say, really enjoying this discussion so far. Lots of different point of views and very good points being made (doesn't happen that much on YF does it ahahaah) :)

There are some restrictions around the movement of players, this does mean some HAL players are likely to be limited to the HAL and under the cap, not able to move easily to other leagues with higher wages, while others benefit because they may not likely pick up a contract if there were no restrictions on player movement. If the HAL increases the amount of clubs and keeps the visa restrictions, it should increase the bargaining power of players.

The salary cap is not just, but is mainly, about the financial stability of each individual club but the health of the league as a whole in that it keeps each club relatively competitive. I'm not sure how the long term future of the league would be if there was no salary cap (or floor), some clubs would be paying well above the cap now and dominating the league while others could possibly be paying less than the current salary minimum.

If we accept that the crux of the issue is this: The biggest difficulty for the FFA is the CBA’s expiration coming two years before a broadcast deal is due to be renewed. It’s understood salary cap increases are proposed in year three of FFA’s six-year deal, contingent on a new broadcast deal being reached - from The Guardian article.

then…

Gallop only has himself to blame for the PFA holding out for a better deal now. He has been publicly talking about possibly breaking the existing TV deal early because he believes he can get a better new deal now (on the back of Asian Cup success). In hindsight he would have been smarter to keep to negotiations behind closed doors.


In re-reading this entire thread, I believe people’s views (including mine!) are coloured by some or all of the following:

• a lack of factual information across the 10 clubs. Knowing a few players who “aren’t skint” doesn’t cut it for me in terms of a representative sample; and I would like to see evidence for the assertion that “player wages are all in a pretty concentrated band”, presumably above 6 figures with fabulous lifestyles. Hmm. Representative evidence for me please.

• one’s own philosophical view on collective bargaining

• a hook line and sinker swallow of FFA’s posturing that the whole league is in jeopardy because the players are asking for more money, through comments like “if you knew your company was going through a rough patch, would you still ask for a pay rise, or even possibly go on strike if you don't get one?”

• thinking that disregards the precarious nature of becoming and then staying a professional player. While there are some protections in place the reality is you can be sacked, let go, contact not renewed on a whim.

As Australian cricket administration found out when Kerry Packer came along, it is THE PLAYERS who earn the revenue for ALL the salaries in the game - not just the players. Every administrator in every club would do well to keep this top of mind. The players pay the staff’s wages.

Pursuing a pro career is a choice and shark does come with the territory, but it is far more exposed than most other industries. You cannot, for example, just take your services to another market at the same skill level, due to player quota restrictions.

As for the “do both” argument - be a pro player and get a college education, I’m not so sure on that. These days, it is far less common than a decade or so ago. We’re not likely to see another Elliott or Nelsen graduate to pro football from US college. Plenty of examples of Euro or Japanese or American college graduates making pro in their own country but not Kiwis. Not recently. Not in any country (I’m sure someone will find someone, but I’d be surprised if they could find 5 in the last 5 years, to show that it is a consistently successful approach).

As for public disclosure of player payments, they would help provide evidence to ascertain: 

• are the lowest paid players earning “enough”, given the precarious nature of their choice?

• what is a fair distribution of income, based on the revenue that the players raise?

Smithy thinks the “PFA is being short sighted and greedy and is out of touch with the needs of the league and the sentiments of most fans.” Perhaps, but without representative transparency, we'll never really know.

To me this stoush is a hint at what is by far the the bigger picture, a question about the future model of the A league. Is it the USA model - centrally controlled league whereby the administrators tightly control the clubs and their activities, but if that's the case MUST be transparent; or is it a private model where anything goes, good, bad and indifferent.

Nonsense JD. They are in no different position to anyone operating under a collective bargaining agreement.

Not one single player in the A-League has a contract that says "you cannot earn more than X". Like us all it just has a salary figure.

Their position is no different to civil servants (as an example) whose salaries are set in fixed bands based on experience (value) and seniority.

You've said:

1. Here are my views of what everyone else is thinking. Nobody has facts.

2. Smithy says this.

3. But we'll never know.

4. But I think this anyway.

This is some fairly pathetic argument-making. You can't have your "we'll never know" cake and eat it too.

You've accurately quoted me, and that's just my view based on the info I have to hand. 

Incidentally, salaries must be concentrated in a band, because there is a minimum salary (and that, JD, is peculiar) and there is a maximum pool of salary money. So everyone's money must even out in a reasonably tight band. 

And the education thing is also a straightforward fact. Players in the A-League have a welfare officer and are encouraged to continue with or do further study. Many of the Nix players are in training for future careers (Manny is a plumber!). 

Leave Tyler out of this!

I agree that there's a lot of speculation going on about the specific details of the negotiations - but RE: "FFA’s posturing that the whole league is in jeopardy because the players are asking for more money" - the dodgy financial situation of multiple clubs in the league is a fact, not speculation; and an increased  salary cap (without an increase in funding from the TV deal)  is an added cost. Whether the whole league would be put in jeopardy by an increased cap is an open question, I'll grant that. But the timing of asking for a payrise is unfortunate at the least.

And, yes, the life of pro-footballer is precarious but that is part of the deal. I know that sounds harsh, but that's the reality. If you go and be a teacher or social worker, you know you will get paid less than a doctor or pilot. If you go and become a dairy farmer or a baker you know you will have to get up at some awful early hour. If you go and become a Hollywood star or politician your private life might get dragged into public. If you go and work in the civil service you know your job could be restructured away on a whim at any point. If you go and become a pro footballer you know you're going to be training hard and might be out of a job at the drop of a hat, and that your career will be short.

I also just fundamentally disagree that if you put a lot of effort into getting good at something you are passionate at you deserve to be rewarded financially -which seems to be part of your argument (correct me if I'm wrong,but you keep going on about how much work pro-footballers put in). Heaps of people have no spare time because they have a passion outside of their job which takes up all their time - even amateur sportspeople who compete at World Champs and stuff like that. I guess (I know, speculation) that most pro-footballers are passionate about football and want to be as good as they can be at it. There's also a lot of passionate amateur footballers (or at best semi-pro) who train all the time and hold down day jobs, and who would trade their day job for a pro-football job if you asked them. Do they deserve to be paid for all the spare time they put into training? If pro footballers aren't passionate about playing football and are unhappy at the effort they have to put in to play it, maybe they should pursue another career.

But that's the whole point of the thread Global.

I think the PFA's position is bad. I don't agree with it. That's not speculation, that's just my opinion. 

Why not? They can afford to pay for their education, Wellington for instance has two universities, they also have a fair bit of down time during the day even if they are doing double sessions. They may have to choose papers that dont get in the way of their training sessions, and they might take a few years longer than normal but its definitely doable.

Now you're talking things I can get on board with!

If there was a new TV deal (and maybe there is a draft one behind the scenes?) then the PFA would be well within their rights to grab their piece of that pie.

If they were granted that 30%, every single one of the clubs would go bankrupt within a year.

Exhibit A:

Ten plus Foxtel

One deal in the short term could be A-League football. Already covered by Fox Sports, Football Federation Australia want a free-to-air partner to take over from SBS. Ten could be the solution.

Slightly off topic but provides some context to the debate: Rumours of Google interest in AFL/NRL rights

Patrick, probably end up like here, ask for 30% across the board pay increase, end up with a generous 1.5% one instead.

I'd happily take 1.5% pay increase for the work I do on this website. Even though 1.5% of $0 is $0.

You are worth every cent.

you left out the "tada booosh"

This all seems an inevitable part of the growing pains of professional football in Australia.

Australia has only had a fully professional league since 2005.

The PFA has only been around since 1993.

Both are really still in their infancy.

Very much so compared to the 126 years of professional football in England and the 108 year history of the English PFA.

So, some conflict and mistakes from both parties in Australia seem inevitable.

Asking for 30% of a club's revenue to be put aside for players, for example, seems unrealistic.  

The current stand-off exists in a historical context.

Interestingly there was a major NZ connection in the early attempts to form a players' union in Australia - former All Whites goalkeeper Richard Wilson of the Road to Spain 1982 fame was the major figure behind an attempt in the mid 1980's to establish Australia's first players' union. Richard's father was a prominent trade unionist and sports administrator in Christchurch. This makes fascinating reading with the Kiwi angle involved on the Aussie player scene:

http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/ASSH%20Bulle...

Richard is also a good example of how a player can forge a successful career post his playing days, having established himself as a leading graphic designer, design teacher (CPIT Christchurch 1990's and in Australia) and exhibiting painter, while being actively involved in coaching football in his home town Christchurch in the 1990's (Avon United, Rangers, Woolston).

Before 2005, Australian footballers lived in the murky twilight world of "semi-professional" football (with no union to represent them until 1993) and had an indeterminate identity which was neither sanctioned as fully professional nor fully amateur.

There's still a legacy of bad feeling amongst players and former players from the pre A-League days when players had few rights and were sometimes treated appallingly by clubs and national and state administrators.

Australian clubs had inherited the "retain and tranfer system" from English football whereby a club held a player's registration indefinately until they agreed to release him - even if his contract had expired. They could also demand a transfer fee even if a player's contract had expired.

"In England....from the start of the 1893-94 season onwards, once a player was registered with a Football League club, he could not be registered with any other club, even in subsequent seasons, without the permission of the club he was registered with. It applied even if the player's annual contract with the club holding his registration was not renewed after it expired. The club were not obliged to play him and, without a contract, the player was not entitled to receive a salary. Nevertheless, if the club refused to release his registration, the player could not play for any other Football League club."

The English High Court abolished the ability of clubs to retain a player's registration against his wishes in 1963. Clubs could still demand a tranfer fee for players whose contract had expired until the Bosman Ruling in 1995.

.In Australia the PFA only over-turned the right of clubs to retain a player's registration and demand a transfer / compensation fee, even if no longer under contract, in 1995:

. http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/public-e...

Brendan Schwab, former Chairman of Aussie PFA and a leading figure today on international pro athlete bodies:

"First, we campaigned hard through the media and within the game. A Four Corners program into player related transfer corruption in Australian soccer prompted the then Australian Soccer Federation to call an independent inquiry to be chaired by the Hon Donald Stewart, a former NSW Supreme Court judge and head of the National Crime Authority. His report famously quoted Shakespeare’s The Tempest and that only a “sea change” could save Australian soccer. He found that the culture of corruption within the game started with the view that players were the property of clubs, to be bought and sold accordingly. He recommended that soccer’s compensation fee system be abolished within two years. 

Second, our legal action involved a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, where we could meet our own costs and not be responsible for those of the Federation and the clubs. We applied for an industrial award to abolish the compensation system. On 9 June 1995, the Commission found that the system should be abolished by the end of 1996 and ordered the parties to negotiate on all terms and conditions of employment. In so finding, the Commission acknowledged the objectives behind the system (competitive balance and encouraging the training and development of young players) were objectives shared by the players. However, the system: “operates in many instances unfairly towards players, has little or anything to do with the training and development of a player…treats players as if they were the property of their club …(and impinges) on the freedom to choose one’s employer…The system in its present form should be abolished…” 

Third, we organised the players. By being willing to negotiate, we secured a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement for all NSL players that addressed all aspects of their employment. 

Fourth, we campaigned hard politically. A Senate Committee had stronger reservations about the compensation fee system than even Stewart and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and recommended the system’s immediate abolition...."

Not really the same though is it?  It's total remuneration across the entire industry (excluding Auckland City) - people in the public sector can work elsewhere and public and private sector will benchmark against each other so there is some competitive pressure.  For footballers, yes they could go overseas but there's not that option available for everyone.

It is not total remuneration across the entire industry - as you say yourself, they can go overseas.

Yes that option isn't available for everyone, just like it isn't available for every government worker to get a higher paying job in the private sector. If they're not very good at their job, then they're not going to get a higher paying one unless they interview very well and have some bogus references. And that is basically the football equivalent of having a decent agent and making some nice youtube videos. 

Some government jobs also have no direct equivalent in the private sector too - diplomats for instance. Another industry you would say is similar to the A League situation is the military - you could go work for a PMC in Iraq or Afghanistan but if you want to be a soldier in NZ there is only one employer.

I agree. My analogy wasn't right either. But there is only a very notional cap on earnings, not really different to the effective caps that apply to all of us in our own workplaces and careers.

Yep. I'm a pinko commie leftie but as far as I'm concerned the players should get a fair share of the total income the game generates. They certainly shouldn't be guilted into playing for the average wage while administrators etc. cream off the top.