Why I have changed my mind on Prem’s salary cap


Sir James Dyson’s purchase of 50 per cent of Bath gives fresh impetus to co-owner Bruce Craig’s ambition of ending wage limits

The news that Sir James Dyson has bought a 50 per cent stake in Bath will delight the club’s fans, but it will send a shiver down the spines of many other Prem Rugby followers. In association with co-owner Bruce Craig, Dyson now presents a formidable monetary presence behind the club, which should embolden its ambitions for the foreseeable future. The ramifications for professional rugby in England are uncertain – they might be positive and negative – but nobody should doubt that this alliance will have considerable influence.

Before looking at possible league-wide effects, we should make an observation that Bath fans should support. Dyson is said to be a long-time fan of Bath but, as other sporting organisations now know, when a fan puts money into their club, especially a large amount, there has been a ruinous tendency to think they should extend their power to influence affairs on-field as well as in the management and coaching teams. You cannot really stop an owner wielding this power, but it rarely ends well. There are numerous examples of wealthy businessmen making this mistake and few have the humility or good judgment to admit this failing. I’m with the late, great Sir Brian Clough on this one: the job of owners should be to concentrate on the financial side of a sporting club.

So what of the wide imports for the Premiership? First among these is that the long-time ambition of Craig to get rid of the league’s salary cap might be given fresh impetus. Several other owners and directors of club rugby have told me about his aim and for years I have argued against it. I always did so because looking at the evidence from other sports you can, subject to anomalies, broadly correlate a club’s final league table position according to their salary spending. Does the Premiership want to lock-in that sort of advantage?

Against all my natural inclinations, I now think this risk is a price that Prem Rugby might have to bear, if it wants to improve its financial condition. Having no salary cap would increase the risk of clubs going bankrupt and it would put more pressure on other clubs to increase their expenditure to keep up with leading spenders, but several clubs went bankrupt with the cap, so that in itself appears to be of limited use anyway.

Without other reforms, like reducing the number of substitutions, which would allow significant reductions in squad numbers, I fear clubs are bound to repeat the first 30 years of professionalism and expect different results, which some would say is not wise.

It is understandable that players and their agents would support this initiative; however, increasing wages without corresponding improvements in performance or the acquisition of higher quality players is an issue that prudent business management should address effectively. In this sort of field Dyson ought to be able to help Bath directly; business measurement metrics must be an area within his expertise.

The temptation to buy the best and most expensive talent from overseas would also increase, but this can be tempered by constant vigilance over the England-qualified players (EQPs) stipulation in the Prem rules. It is crucial not to endanger the principle behind the current rule of an average of 15 EQPs per match-day squad. That number should take account of the national team’s requirements and should be adjusted over time and when necessary.

The RFU and the Prem should also keep a note of the number of games and minutes played by EQPs in a season. English rugby’s cause is not properly served if nearly half a club’s EQPs are on the bench and not getting game time or not doing so in meaningful matches.

Now that the Prem’s franchise model has been passed by 51 votes to four, the top flight of club rugby needs to continue its innovative outlook. Not least to provide a deterrent to projects like R360 which, ironically, also involves former Bath figures like Mike Tindall and Stuart Hooper, their former director of rugby. The presence of brands like Red Bull and figures like Dyson must work against the sort of hijacking proposed by such disruptor brands.

Rugby is going to go through difficult and debatable changes in the short and medium term, but ducking out of financial decisions will not save it. The romantics who have the luxury of comment without consequences, have to finally stop being dishonest about what is the most fundamental issue in rugby: how are you going to make this work?

Opine all you like, but critics should not be allowed to get away with issuing platitudes of principle if they cannot specify how those are going to be paid for.

Saw a post on facebook....ticket sales amazingly look thin on the ground.

CCS appears to be in Bali. Good for him, but doesn’t hugely seem like the best time for it….

Does the CVC investment show that CVC believe there is possibility of growth, or did they simply think it was underpriced?

And these 12 million fans, where are they?
Not buying tickets, and I am not sure if they even watch rugby on TV - I thought the ratings for England matches were roughly half those numbers.

CVC are making about 5%, not stunning but sufficient nobody is getting sacked.