CONTRACT KILLERS
NEW ZEALAND RUGBY HAD AN IMMEDIATE CHOICE TO MAKE IN 1996. SHOULD THEY PRIVATISE THE GAME OR RETAIN OWNERSHIP THEMSELVES? THEY CHOSE THE LATTER AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE A SMART DECISION.
When the game turned professional in 1996 New Zealand opted to keep control of the players. It turned out to be an inspired move.
When the game turned professional in 1996, there were significant decisions for every national union to make. The biggest of all was determining under whose ownership players would fall.
In England and France, where there was an established awareness and understanding of professional sports, the chosen model was privatisation. In other words, the national unions opened up the game to private investors and said they could buy clubs and with it, they would own player contracts. It made sense, up to a point.
There were plenty of wealthy benefactors willing to pump cash into the game – to flood clubs with money so they could pay players and build the necessary infrastructure. Neither the French nor English unions had the money to do that.
But the problem with privatisation was that it created tension and conflict with the international game. The national unions needed their players for tests and this became a source of endless fighting.
The clubs were all about winning and the here and now. Investors wanted to make money and they needed bums on seats. Coaches had to stay in a job and needed victories and there was only short-term thinking.
No one was considering the welfare of the players and the clubs came to see individuals as commodities to be bought and sold. If they wanted to pick a test player a week before a major test, they would. If they wanted to pick a No 8 at lock, they would – even if the national selectors begged them not to.
The fighting was endless. National coaches wanted players released for training camps. Clubs would say no. National unions wanted players to be rested at times. Clubs would say no.
There was no coordination of training programmes and skill development between clubs and national unions. Players could be pulled in different directions – asked to do things one way for their club, then a different way for their country.
It was a functioning shambles and in stark contrast to the path New Zealand chose.
The New Zealand Rugby Union opted to reject private investment and instead fund the professional game themselves and
own the players.
The risk was that their pockets were nowhere near as deep as the European sugar daddies and they would be vulnerable to losing good players to big-money offshore offers.
Inevitably, every year, there would be one or two All Blacks lured overseas. New Zealand couldn’t keep them all, which wasn’t ideal but the price was relatively inexpensive in the overall scheme of things.
By owning the entirety of their players’ contracts, the NZRU could act in the best interests of the individual. They could ensure there was no conflict between club and country and that players didn’t end up feeling like the meat in a sandwich.
It turned out to be a remarkably good system. The best players were never seen as commodities. They were never given mixed messages and the coordination of training and skills development programmes was a further critical advantage.
Super Rugby clubs are autonomous but every year they make agreements with the national selectors about the workload of leading players. There are protocols in place about when All Blacks who toured at the end of the year should return to Super Rugby.
Those agreements stretch to when they should start training, when they are available to play and how many minutes they should be given so they can make a graduated return to play.
Welfare is taken deadly seriously and Super Rugby coaches make sensible decisions about how much game time to give leading All Blacks.
The system is set up to give the All Blacks the best chance of being a winning team.
The strings are all being pulled in one direction and players feel the coordinated environment allows them to get the best out of themselves.
“Centralisation is one of our big advantages,” All Blacks coach Steve Hansen said. “We recognise it’s one of our strengths. In business you’d be very silly to give away one of your strengths.
“It’s a massive advantage to us and one that we should always keep, regardless of who the coach is. We are working hard at the relationships with Super Rugby coaches and hard on player welfare.”
Centralisation is one of our big advantages. We recognise it’s one of our strengths. In business you’d be very silly to give away one of your strengths.’ STEVE HANSEN
Rugby has become a brutally, physical game. In the last 10 years, the amount of contact has jumped to extreme levels. The players take a frightful pounding. Their bodies are subjected to a lot – some would say too much and many struggle with injury, while plenty of others don’t manage to stretch their career out for as long as they thought they might.
The situation in Europe has been particularly bad. The club season has been extended. There are more games than there have ever been.
Broadcasters want more and more and club owners have been happy to oblige. National unions have wanted to play more tests and the demands being made of the players are extreme.
With two rival factions competing for the players’ services, no one has been looking at the big picture and thinking about the welfare of the athlete.
New Zealand has moved miles ahead in this regard and the players here know it. They have it good and not only are their workloads strictly managed and monitored, but they have an employer who has been willing to take radical steps to look after them.
In 2008, star player Daniel Carter was offered a sabbatical clause in his contract. That meant he was allowed to sign a three-year extension with the NZRU, but take a six-month leave of absence to play in France during the term of his deal.
In time, sabbatical clauses came to be modified so they were more of a nonplaying nature and this breakthrough was hugely important. Hard-working, loyal players such as Richie McCaw and Conrad Smith were given the opportunity to take an extended break from the game to recuperate both mentally and physically.
For McCaw, that was a career saver. He had been an All Black from the age of 20 and had hammered himself for 12 seasons straight through to the end of 2012. He had played at a World Cup with a broken foot and had spent much of 2011 and 2012 being subjected to ferocious cheap shots that took chunks out of him.
The NZRU, aware that McCaw had signed through to 2015, offered him a six-month break and encouraged him to miss the 2013 Super Rugby season. They felt he wouldn’t make it to the end of his contract if he kept flogging himself the way he was.
It was a major risk as it meant that McCaw would also miss the June series against France that year. But better to lose the battle to win the war and McCaw knew it. He knew his body and mind needed a rest and he was eternally grateful that he was part of a system that understood and embraced that.
“I think I would have struggled had I not taken one [sabbatical],” he said. “With my foot injury and so on I’ve always been rushed. I wanted to not only have a break but also have a chance to get myself in good shape, which I have done.
“At the start of 2008 when we had good time off after the World Cup, that was the last chance to get a good bit of running in and get a base there and in the gym.
“The season is tough to manage at the best of times without having an outside influence. We are lucky that the hierarchy is that the All Blacks are most important to New Zealand rugby and it works down. That’s the way it should be and we are very lucky we have a balance and understanding between everyone.
“The key is who is running the cutter. The coaches are going to want the best out
I think I would have struggled had I not taken one [sabbatical]. With my foot injury and so on I’ve always been rushed. I wanted to not only have a break but also have a chance to get myself in good shape, which I have done.’ RICHIE McCAW
of their players. The clubs in Europe worry just about what’s happening and I guess that’s what you get with private ownership. But the coaches [in New Zealand] understand they can’t afford to hammer guys if they want them right at the business end of the season.
“With test matches in between, they know unless they are managed through that period they will end up with guys who are just buggered. You might get away with it for one year, but the following year that’s when the cumulative [fatigue] comes in.”
McCaw wasn’t sure in July 2013, when he returned to action, whether his extended break would be enough to see him through to 2015.
It turned out that it most definitely was. He reached the last year of his contract in the form of his life. He was as good in his final All Blacks test as he was in his first, and the fact he had been so well managed was a huge factor in that.
There he was at 35, playing his 148th test as an openside. That was as much down to the New Zealand contracting system as it was to his freakish ability as an athlete. The centralised contracting system more than played its part in allowing McCaw to be the player he was.
And the same could be said of other carefully managed veterans such as Carter, Smith, Ma’a Nonu, Tony Woodcock and Keven Mealamu. Into that bracket will come Kieran Read and Jerome Kaino who are both still thundering around in their thirties because they have been treated well.
“The big thing we have going for us at home is that we have quality people and quality administrators making good decisions,” said Hansen. “The franchises are driven well and those coaches are striving to be better all the time. You can go right down to schools level where they’re trying to produce players that go on and become professionals. It’s a breeding ground for good players.
“The golden goose is our central contracting system because when you have good administrators at the top in control of contracts, then everyone has to work together because you only have one paymaster.
“There are no other people with other agendas. Our only agenda is to win matches and produce quality players. There is a lot of work that goes both up and down.”
The franchises are driven well and those coaches are striving to be better all the time. You can go right down to schools level where they’re trying to produce players that go on and become professionals.’ STEVE HANSEN