Weird escape clause could rock SA Rugby
• Worrying time for franchises as they wait to find out which players they may be losing as the cut-off date looms
The local franchises will be spending a nervous week building up to Thursday, the cut-off day of the 21-day escape clause to players that is unique in world rugby, as they wait to find out which players they may be losing — and SA Rugby should be equally stressed.
It appears Western Province/ Stormers are confident that Pieter-Steph du Toit, the World Rugby Player of the Year, will remain in SA. There is equal confidence that the rest of their World Cup-winning Springboks will remain in the Cape.
The Sharks, who like the Stormers are led by a coach that promotes a happy environment, will probably hold on to most of their top players, such as Makazole Mapimpie, too.
But no-one will know for sure until Thursday. For as is the case with employees in any business, players who are leaving will ensure they are paid until cut-off day by delaying their notice of departure until the last minute.
Why is there an escape clause in SA whereas there isn’t anywhere else in the rugbyplaying world?
I’m still struggling to get my mind around it, and the published opinion of Eugene Henning, CEO of player union
MyPlayers, has not made me any less confused. Henning told a website it is to be viewed in the context of SA rugby’s greatest priority during the Covid-19driven suspension of play, which is to reduce costs.
He acknowledged the risk of the escape clause, which is the possible loss of highprofile players.
He said the purpose of the exercise is to “reduce our [the industry’s] costs at all costs, it is not to retain our marquee players — you can’t do the two together”.
I’ve never done a business degree, so perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but I can’t get how facilitating the loss of your prime assets is a clever move if you want to have a viable business to work with post-Covid-19.
Particularly not at this time, when the immediate way forward during and immediately after Covid looks likely to be domestic rugby.
If we are going to see any rugby in 2020, it will probably be in the Currie Cup, or equivalent of that, starting in August or September. It is likely to be played behind closed doors, which after two or three games might pose interesting questions about the attraction for viewers.
Which in turn poses challenges for sponsors and wouldbe sponsors.
Now take away the few marquee players remaining in SA — just 14 of the 33-man World Cup-winning squad are playing locally — and do you have to sell what could be the only rugby event in the country this year?
Which is why SA Rugby should be as nervous as the franchises about a potential exodus on Thursday.
A team list made up of people who might as well be called Jan Alleman and Joe Average will not attract viewers to games that may be played in empty, atmosphere-deprived stadiums.
Games featuring a smattering of World Cup winners just might. Our rugby will be in sore need of a big, hyped-up competition to get the sport going again, and for that you need the big names. It is true that these are desperate times, and desperate times require desperate measures and so on, but that doesn’t explain why the franchises have had their hands tied behind their backs regarding players that are approached by overseas clubs.
If there are players who announce on Thursday that they are leaving, they are losses that might have been avoided had the franchises been given the right to make counter-offers by approaching third parties, as has been done in the past.
It could also have been avoided by making deals with the players whereby they agree to make up salary cut-induced losses in future.
But by the terms of the collective agreement, they are not allowed to do any of that.
While the players’ union has succeeded in what should be their primary task of getting agreement for a bottom-line minimum wage, or in this case minimum percentage cut, it has also managed to create a payment ceiling.
The argument is that the collective agreements protect the players by preventing them from having to fend for themselves individually.
But if I were a player of ability who backed himself and who just needed a little bit more money or another kind of assurance to stay put, I’d prefer to do it individually rather than submit to a situation in which there is no space for negotiation.
And if I were SA Rugby I would welcome whatever alternative route a franchise might be able to find to keep a marquee player here. Yes, you need to cut costs to survive, but if that means you lose your primary assets, the business you are left with might not be worth much.