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.
