Quote: Andy Gilder "In what way is the player's trade being restrained, other than that they cannot possibly earn more than the cap? How a club chooses to allocate its salary cap is not determined by the rules. There is no maximum spend per player, nor is there a limit on the outside earnings a player can make from endorsements etc generated by being a professional rugby league player.
Even if there were, by signing a contract as a professional rugby league player is that player not accepting the potential restraint and the consideration that comes with it in terms of earnings?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would say you'd have a very weak case if you accepted the terms of a contract you said were restraining your trade then tried to argue that was an illegal restraint in a court of law. Given the contract is between the employer and the employee, rather than between the employee and the RFL, would any case for restraint of trade not have to be brought against the club anyway?'"
there is a maximum spend per player, both in theory and in practice. There are limits on players earnings from endorsements and money generated by being a professional rugby league player. It is a fact that a company, say Caddick Construction, could not sponsor a player, say Zak Hardaker, without it effecting the amount Leeds Rhinos are able to spend on the cap. That is a ludicrous state of affairs.
The point which should attract real ire, is exactly as you have spelt out here. A player, who gets no say in the agreement of the cap, is forced to abide by it if he is to practice his trade. Not only that he cannot sign agreements with outside companies who arent under the jurisdiction of the RFL, if he is to practice his trade.
If Hardaker were to be sponsored by Caddick Construction for say £100k, a figure which isnt unachievable for a player such as himself, his registration as a player of RL would be refused as it would break an agreement between Leeds Rhinos and the other SL clubs.
That is just idiotic, but it is the state of affairs we have. The legality of that is actually secondary to the idiotic nature of it.
As for who the player could bring a case against, well the say Club A offered you a contract of £400k a year, you signed and accepted that, you wouldnt have a case for anything against the employer, you wouldnt have any need to bring one. The issue would then arise when the RFL refused to accept your registration.
As i say, i dont think there would be any arguments about whether or not a Salary Cap is a restriction, and as has been said such a restriction in and of itself isnt illegal. There has long been accepted that certain sports specific restrictions are necessary. However there are many markets, parties, and different laws and principles these need to be balanced against. In principle a Salary Cap is not different to how the Football Transfer market worked prior to the bosman ruling. It was a principle, agreed between clubs and associations, imposed on players. Football still has a transfer system because they can find a way to balance the respective rights, privileges, laws, and principles for the different markets and parties and as a whole.
My argument would not be that these things can't be balanced or that a Salary Cap cannot be justified or fair or suffice every doctrine it needs to. My argument is that ours quite clearly doesnt.
