Player Salaries

On the recent Flats & Shanks podcast, Dave Flatman said player salaries have taken a sharp leap upwards recently, which could lead to a crunch when next season's recruitment and re-signing gets underway.

He had no numbers, and stressed that he is sceptical of some figures bandied about in the press, but felt that good club players can now get salaries which might once have only been offered to top internationals. Tom Shanklin suggested such people can trade up for an extra £50-60,000 now, as opposed to £15-20,000 before.

Clearly, the higher cap and marquee player exemptions are contributing but Flatman feels that clubs might have gone straight to the limit, which leaves little room to offer extra money to players with contracts coming up next year. They will also want a bump to keep up with their peers. Flatman wonders whether teams will have to cut squad numbers, or else if salaries will have to come down to stay manageable.

I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Glaws' CEO, Stephen Vaughan, was interviewed last night on BBC Glos and one of the points he discussed was the salary cap. He suggested that most clubs had been sensible with regards to the recent hike in the cap and with the exception of a notable few, the remaining clubs have not used the full range of the cap. He explained Glaws pay up to the full standard cap, but have not utilised the various additional credits available, which adds c.£2m per annum; and this appears to be the situation of most clubs. As a result, the inflation of players' salaries may not be as large as is being reported and given the time of year may well just be the work of agents looking to get the best deals possible.

Rugby Fan wrote:
I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Why?

Because people are nosy.

Thats my conclusion too

Private companies have no obligation to disclose such information

Am i right in thinking all salaries in the NFL are made public?

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:
I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Why?

The league is operating a salary cap. Most of us have suspicions that the cap was broken before by one or more teams. If former professionals like Flatman are concerned the wage structure might become unsustainable only a short time after the cap was increased, then transparency could be a big help.

Players aren't stupid; they already know some of their team mates are paid different rates, so it's unlikely to lead to any ill-feeling. It would help stop people talking up salaries in an information vacuum, while also perhaps give a lift to the perennially underpaid.

More importantly, the league needs to be competitive. The cap is there to ensure it is, so there needs to be adequate oversight to confirm it's doing the job.

Rugby Fan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:
I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Why?

The league is operating a salary cap. Most of us have suspicions that the cap was broken before by one or more teams. If former professionals like Flatman are concerned the wage structure might become unsustainable only a short time after the cap was increased, then transparency could be a big help.

Players aren't stupid; they already know some of their team mates are paid different rates, so it's unlikely to lead to any ill-feeling. It would help stop people talking up salaries in an information vacuum, while also perhaps give a lift to the perennially underpaid.

More importantly, the league needs to be competitive. The cap is there to ensure it is, so there needs to be adequate oversight to confirm it's doing the job.

Im not sure you get what transparency and oversight are, there already exists oversight whether its adequate or not is mere speculation. Telling the public isn't transparency, the only people the clubs need to be transparent to are the taxman and those policing the cap.

Im not sure how going public provides oversight either

The way I see it if everyone is aware of what there fellow pros earn, it helps everyone.
Players can see what the "average " salary is for there ability
Stops agents whispering sweet words to there clients that they are worth more.
Allows teams to plan ahead financially as they have a good idea of what they will be offering/being asked for.
Everyone can see the teams are operating on a "level" playing feild

Want is driving salaries upwards to unsustainable levels?

Why are English clubs pursuing or trying to emulate Top 1§4 clubs in their deals and spending?

carpet baboon wrote:The way I see it if everyone is aware of what there fellow pros earn, it helps everyone.
Players can see what the "average " salary is for there ability
Stops agents whispering sweet words to there clients that they are worth more.
Allows teams to plan ahead financially as they have a good idea of what they will be offering/being asked for.
Everyone can see the teams are operating on a "level" playing feild

Your logic is seriously flawed, how does not knowing what someone else earns allow agents to say to players they are worth more? And who says the players themselves don't know what others are earning?

Making it public will just give agents examples of players earning more and they can say x is earning y, so you should be earning that or more

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:
I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Why?

The league is operating a salary cap. Most of us have suspicions that the cap was broken before by one or more teams. If former professionals like Flatman are concerned the wage structure might become unsustainable only a short time after the cap was increased, then transparency could be a big help.

Players aren't stupid; they already know some of their team mates are paid different rates, so it's unlikely to lead to any ill-feeling. It would help stop people talking up salaries in an information vacuum, while also perhaps give a lift to the perennially underpaid.

More importantly, the league needs to be competitive. The cap is there to ensure it is, so there needs to be adequate oversight to confirm it's doing the job.

Im not sure you get what transparency and oversight are, there already exists oversight whether its adequate or not is mere speculation. Telling the public isn't transparency, the only people the clubs need to be transparent to are the taxman and those policing the cap.

Im not sure how going public provides oversight either

This is total transparency, American sport style:

NFL salaries by player:  
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/

NFL team salaries versus the salary cap:  
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

it has long been accepted as gospel by the people who run the professional leagues in major American sport that total transparency regarding the salary process is what drives adherence to the rules and competitive balance.  The salary rules, including the cap, are negotiated with the Player's Union/Association and therefore are legal documents, and any violation has legal consequences.  

It also simplifies the salary process for players/agents and the clubs/owners.  Everyone knows the current player salary, the available cap space at the clubs, the relative salary value of players in different positions, and so on.  Not exactly capitalism, but the system works.  The NFL owners, mostly successful billionaires, have long been called capitalists who run the NFL like socialists.  

But, I think the key point is the owners have been clear it is the openness is what enables them to trust each other.  This in addition to the independent auditing and registration of all contracts with the various league offices, and so on.  

This could work in England and France since the clubs are all independently owned.  However in all other major Rugby nations there are different business models which can make it more difficult.

We know that the governing body and the clubs are spineless with regard to policing the cap. So maybe it helps in that regard.

With extending the cap and adding a marquee player it isn't achieving the aims anyway. Clubs have vastly different budgets and some are unsustaniably unprofitable if not for investors who are willing to take the hit. It doesn't make a level playing field.

Even if it's policed properly clubs just provide non-salary benefits to recruit the talent.

doctor_grey wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:
I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Why?

The league is operating a salary cap. Most of us have suspicions that the cap was broken before by one or more teams. If former professionals like Flatman are concerned the wage structure might become unsustainable only a short time after the cap was increased, then transparency could be a big help.

Players aren't stupid; they already know some of their team mates are paid different rates, so it's unlikely to lead to any ill-feeling. It would help stop people talking up salaries in an information vacuum, while also perhaps give a lift to the perennially underpaid.

More importantly, the league needs to be competitive. The cap is there to ensure it is, so there needs to be adequate oversight to confirm it's doing the job.

Im not sure you get what transparency and oversight are, there already exists oversight whether its adequate or not is mere speculation. Telling the public isn't transparency, the only people the clubs need to be transparent to are the taxman and those policing the cap.

Im not sure how going public provides oversight either

This is total transparency, American sport style:

NFL salaries by player:  
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/

NFL team salaries versus the salary cap:  
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

it has long been accepted as gospel by the people who run the professional leagues in major American sport that total transparency regarding the salary process is what drives adherence to the rules and competitive balance.  The salary rules, including the cap, are negotiated with the Player's Union/Association and therefore are legal documents, and any violation has legal consequences.  

It also simplifies the salary process for players/agents and the clubs/owners.  Everyone knows the current player salary, the available cap space at the clubs, the relative salary value of players in different positions, and so on.  Not exactly capitalism, but the system works.  The NFL owners, mostly successful billionaires, have long been called capitalists who run the NFL like socialists.  

But, I think the key point is the owners have been clear it is the openness is what enables them to trust each other.  This in addition to the independent auditing and registration of all contracts with the various league offices, and so on.  

This could work in England and France since the clubs are all independently owned.  However in all other major Rugby nations there are different business models which can make it more difficult.

Its nothing to do with transparency its because the league is a not for profit and the law requires it

I don't know about the Premiership, but my mate used to work with a fiance of a Championship player and my friend used to craic with her and said that her partner was under 8 grand a year which just isn't liveable in most places. I suppose a prosaic guess would be that Premiership player are not on 'that' much more.

marty2086 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:
I have no idea but can't help thinking life might be a lot easier if all this information was public.

Why?

The league is operating a salary cap. Most of us have suspicions that the cap was broken before by one or more teams. If former professionals like Flatman are concerned the wage structure might become unsustainable only a short time after the cap was increased, then transparency could be a big help.

Players aren't stupid; they already know some of their team mates are paid different rates, so it's unlikely to lead to any ill-feeling. It would help stop people talking up salaries in an information vacuum, while also perhaps give a lift to the perennially underpaid.

More importantly, the league needs to be competitive. The cap is there to ensure it is, so there needs to be adequate oversight to confirm it's doing the job.

Im not sure you get what transparency and oversight are, there already exists oversight whether its adequate or not is mere speculation. Telling the public isn't transparency, the only people the clubs need to be transparent to are the taxman and those policing the cap.

Im not sure how going public provides oversight either

This is total transparency, American sport style:

NFL salaries by player:  
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/

NFL team salaries versus the salary cap:  
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

it has long been accepted as gospel by the people who run the professional leagues in major American sport that total transparency regarding the salary process is what drives adherence to the rules and competitive balance.  The salary rules, including the cap, are negotiated with the Player's Union/Association and therefore are legal documents, and any violation has legal consequences.  

It also simplifies the salary process for players/agents and the clubs/owners.  Everyone knows the current player salary, the available cap space at the clubs, the relative salary value of players in different positions, and so on.  Not exactly capitalism, but the system works.  The NFL owners, mostly successful billionaires, have long been called capitalists who run the NFL like socialists.  

But, I think the key point is the owners have been clear it is the openness is what enables them to trust each other.  This in addition to the independent auditing and registration of all contracts with the various league offices, and so on.  

This could work in England and France since the clubs are all independently owned.  However in all other major Rugby nations there are different business models which can make it more difficult.

Its nothing to do with transparency its because the league is a not for profit and the law requires it

The premiership is not for profit? How does that impact this? If the transparency keeps everyone honest, how can it be the wrong thing to do?  What is the benefit of hiding this kind of information?

marty2086 wrote:

Its nothing to do with transparency its because the league is a not for profit and the law requires it

I didn't know that, so I Googled it and found this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/04/28/nfl-tax-exempt-status-roger-goodell-drop-salary/26543647/

I'm not sure that supports your claim, Martyn, or am I misunderstanding?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Its nothing to do with transparency its because the league is a not for profit and the law requires it

I didn't know that, so I Googled it and found this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/04/28/nfl-tax-exempt-status-roger-goodell-drop-salary/26543647/

I'm not sure that supports your claim, Martyn, or am I misunderstanding?

How does it not?

But on actually looking into it, it turns out the league don't release the details of player salaries its actually the players union as part of their Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NFL because players get salary guarantees etc

I think that you've answered your own question on why it doesn't support your claim.

a) the tax status of the league has changed yet salaries are still published, so your claim doesn't follow
b) it isn't the league, by your own admission, publishing the salaries, so your claim doesn't follow.

So your claim of 'the league is a not for profit and the law requires it' is contradicted by that article and your subsequent post.

That's right, isn't it?

PhilBB wrote:I think that you've answered your own question on why it doesn't support your claim.

a) the tax status of the league has changed yet salaries are still published, so your claim doesn't follow
b) it isn't the league, by your own admission, publishing the salaries, so your claim doesn't follow.

So your claim of 'the league is a not for profit and the law requires it' is contradicted by that article and your subsequent post.

That's right, isn't it?

Well considering your article mentioned nothing of the players it didn't address the issue did it? It also didn't mention that they still had to publish salaries up until last year as it covered the tax exempt period

But we can play your silly games but you can play with yourself

The article I linked to showed your claim of it being a legal requirement for a not for profit was incorrect. So it did address the issue. How did you miss that?

Do you stand by: "Its nothing to do with transparency its because the league is a not for profit and the law requires it"?

PhilBB wrote:The article I linked to showed your claim of it being a legal requirement for a not for profit was incorrect. So it did address the issue. How did you miss that?

Do you stand by: "Its nothing to do with transparency its because the league is a not for profit and the law requires it"?

I notice you looked to find out if I was wrong rather than find the actual reason, nice to know 'stop being a petty idiot' wasn't a new years resolution for you

But don't worry

Oh, I see. So I sought clarification on your point as I was unaware of it, I found it to be wrong, showed where it was wrong so sought clarification from you to ensure it was wrong, only for you to call me a 'petty idiot' rather than just write 'Yep, it looks like I got that wrong'.

The first thing I read from you in weeks and it was wrong. As ever, you can't just write 'Yep, it looks like I got that wrong'.

Tax glorious Tax.

Welcome 2017. Back to the important things in life after the turkey and auld lang syne.

PhilBB wrote:Oh, I see. So I sought clarification on your point as I was unaware of it, I found it to be wrong, showed where it was wrong so sought clarification from you to ensure it was wrong, only for you to call me a 'petty idiot' rather than just write 'Yep, it looks like I got that wrong'.

The first thing I read from you in weeks and it was wrong. As ever, you can't just write 'Yep, it looks like I got that wrong'.

No you didn't seek to offer anything to the debate, just your usual your are wrong bs

I sought to offer only the evidence to prove that your claim was wrong. In that, I have succeeded.

If you are going to make such claims, in such a manner, you really should try to be accurate, Martyn.