If the stars don’t play, the spectators won’t pay to=20 watch the games — and that means less money all round
RUGBY: Jon Swift
IT IS ironic that the flashpoint between the Transvaal=20 rugby players and the province’s management should come=20 in the middle of Wimbledon.
For, at the root of the impasse between the men who=20 play the game and those who administer it, is the same=20 problem which faced the All England Lawn Tennis and=20 Croquet Club a quarter of a century ago … money.
In both instances, the mistake was to treat the players=20 as cyphers rather than people. In the case of world=20 tennis it took the shrewd marketing brain of Jack=20 Kramer to figure out that the players weren’t getting a=20 fair look at the bottom of the purse.
He started the first professional tour, taking the big=20 names — like Pancho Gonzales, Lew Hoad and Ken=20 Rosewall — and putting them on the road for a share of=20 the profits.
They played on municipal courts and even gave=20 exhibitions in the streets. It was not easy, but it=20 worked. Slowly the crowds started following the=20 professionals. They realised that the best players=20 weren’t necessarily playing the traditional=20
It culminated in Wimbledon banning the pros. The=20 players held out. Wimbledon became a pale shadow of a=20 tournament and finally had to bend the knee. It was a=20 player-inspired coup the game of tennis, as it had=20 been, was never to recover from.
And given the number of marketing men who wore the=20 green and gold with such distinction during the Rugby=20 World Cup victory — fully a third among the 28 this=20 country used over six weeks — the same was certain to=20 happen to rugby. It is only the traditions of=20 amateurism — and the ingrained mental flatulence of=20 the administrators, to paraphrase England captain Will=20 Carling — which has left rugby so far behind.
The issue of fully recompensing players for bringing=20 the hundreds of thousands through the turnstiles and=20 attracting the millions on the box each winter season,=20 is to be fully discussed at next month’s meeting of the=20 International Rugby Board (IRB).
It is about time. And it is too late to trot out the=20 old phrases about no-one being bigger than the game.=20 The very direction in which rugby has headed –=20 building ever bigger stadiums and accepting the mega- millions the TV stations have to offer — has rendered=20 this thinking obsolete. The exposure this has generated=20 has spawned a new form of rugby player, the superstar.=20 David Campese is a case in point and Jonah Lomu is=20
People want to watch the players play, not the=20 administrators administrate. And, more important, they=20 want to watch the players at the top of the heap=20 strutting their stuff.
The baseball players in the United States proved this – – up to a point — by staging a walk-out which ruined=20 the last season of America’s national game. The impasse=20 which left the bleachers bare was graphic indication=20 that the players are important.
In a rugby context, Transvaal can ban as many players=20 as they like. This is the prerogative of the province’s=20 clipboard cowboys. But they aren’t going to get the=20 massive crowds they have become used to watching a=20 mixture of players from Alberton seconds and Wanderers=20
It is also no use saying that the Transvaal Rugby Union=20 cannot afford the R7-million a year the demands from=20 the players would cost. At present building prices, the=20 parking for Transvaal officials behind the main stand=20 at Ellis Park alone must be worth that.
Nor is it really an arguement to say that the money=20 which goes to the top players will have to come out of=20 the development budget. That is patently nonsense.
Without the gates generated by the stars, there is no=20 development budget. It is as simple a financial=20 equation as that. And added into this equation are two=20 very important sets of individuals who cannot be fooled=20 by the moral blackmail.
The first is the player. You cannot expect them not to=20 calculate the percentages of a TV deal which is worth=20 close to R 2 000-million over a 10-year period without=20 coming up with the inexcapable fact that there is a=20 mountain of money whihc shrinks to a molehill by the=20 time it gets to player level.
Given that the the IRB stipulates that players get Stg=20 24 — an indication of the thinkng in the use of the=20 Imperial currency when all the rest of the sporting=20 world deals in dollars — as a per diem during a=20 tournament like the World Cup, even the shakiest=20 accounting throws up some interesting anomalies.
It would mean that the Springboks each earned around=20 R12 000 in direct payments over the six weeks; about R2=20 000 a week. Not to be sniffed at, but hardly top wage=20 in a tournament expected to earn Rugby World Cup=20 Limited — the Channel Island-based compay which runs=20 the tournament — around R200-million in profits.
All the sinecure jobs in the world, all the free cars,=20 boot money and other cash incentives which are general=20 currency of top rugby players don’t even begin to dent=20 that kind of cash pile.
Carling and Campese are both millionaires, although it=20 should be said that neither made his money in direct=20 payments from the game. But Lomu is a different story.=20 There has to be a huge incentive to turn down the=20 multi-million offers he has to change to the paid game=20 and stay with the “amateur” code. Even a simpleton can=20 see that.
All three are worth every cent. On ability and=20 charisma, they have brought hundreds of thousands of=20 people — and millions of dollars — into the game. The=20 faces of the superstars have become the face of the=20 game. And they — like all players of any game — only=20 have a limited career in which to operate.
Which leads directly to the next group of individuals,=20 the paying and watching public. For even if they never=20 put a foot near Newlands, Ellis Park, Cardiff Arms or=20 Twickenham, simply watching the game on the box puts up=20 the asking price for TV rights.
Try and fob them off with a team without the stars and=20 they will stay away or switch to another channel. It is=20 something the toffee noses with the tightly-knotted=20 club ties at Wimbledon were made to face some 25 years=20 ago. They solved their impasse by scrapping the=20 distinction between professionals and amateurs … as=20 cricket had done years before.
The simple and logical solution was to put up the cash=20 and if the individual player was good enough to earn=20 it, well and good. If not, tough takkie.
It is something the administrators in the game of rugby=20 will have to realise. For someone has to get out there=20 and do the things which earn the money for the drinks=20 in the long room worldwide.
And, surprisingly its not the rugby officials. No-one=20 is going to pay money to come and watch them.
THE shadow of Max Brito hung over the face of South=20 African rugby this week, a countenance bloodied by=20 accusation and counter-claim, fingerpointing and=20
The tragic accident which left the young Ivory Coast=20 threequarter a paraplegic after the World Cup game=20 against Tonga has brought home starkly to the world’s=20 top players that the game is both potentially dangerous=20 and fleeting at international level.
Francois Pienaar and the Springbok “rebels” claim to=20 speak for all the players. They probably do in the=20 things they seek. These include the type of safeguards=20 anyone in a hazardous occupation would demand — and=20 you must believe that, in the short time they are at=20 the top, this is a full-time job.
The player proposals fall into three distinct=20 categories and, on the face of it, none of them=20 entirely unreasonable. First they want protection; a=20 medical fund, a pension fund and a disability benefit=20 fund. These should have been instituted ages ago.
Secondly, the players want an increase in expense=20 money, more clearly defined player contracts, and the=20 reconstitution of the players’ trust. This is clearly=20 an area for debate only after the International Rugby=20 Board rules on player payment next month.
Thirdly, they have personal demands: a grievance=20 mechanism, the appointment of an independent person to=20 handle these complaints, better tickets and treatment=20 for wives and girlfriends, and season tickets for=20 retired players. Again, this should have been done=20 years ago.
One gets the feeling that, at this stage, both sides=20 are fudging the figures. But clearly, no matter what=20 the cost — and much of it can be covered by insurance=20 — the players have the moral high grouned.