I don't think it was ever intended to actually improve the rugby, just level out the playing field so we didn't have another 10 years of dominance from one club.

The cap is primarily to save the clubs. People on this thread have said thats wrong as clubs turnover a lot more than the cap limit. Yet they all lose money, so raising the cap would only further increase those losses.

The sport doesn't have enough money, it's as simple as that.

It hasn't brought Super League into profit but it has prevented many clubs from going t*ts up!

I believe it is legal because it is part of a "league arrangement / agreement" as opposed to the governing body having it as a rule; it is therefore an agreement between the clubs that participate in SL. The other thing to bear in mind is that there is no limit on what a club can play a player. In thoery a club could pay all its salary cap to one player and have the rest of the squad on no money.

So there is a limit.
As PK says it would never stand up in court of law.

Let me guess, you don't have a degree in logical thinking?

The club could pay a player £100M if it wanted to, but it would be subject to fines and points deduction etc from SL.
Its nothing at all to do with a players contract; so no limit on that contract.
Limit is club's not players limit.
Limit is SL's not RFL's.
Of course it would stand up in a court of law - why wouldn't it? The club pays the player what it can afford and what it thinks the player is worth. End of.
Nada to do with players contract.

there is no limit on what a player can earn though.

any club can pay any player upto £1.6m per annum, plus an unlimited amount extra through 3rd party agreements such as that used by Gillette/Saints for Scully.

why has no-one challenged it in a court of law then???

Only if that third party is not linked to the club.

good debate this but i would say that those who are putting the theory a club could pay a particular player any amount they want arent using a lot of reason - lets keep it in proportion

i cant believe a gentlemans/clubs agreement has full legal status in any jurisdiction if its against the general rule of restricting an individuals earning capacity- a governing body might say that its acting for the good of the sport but all member clubs are trading organisations in their own right , and they are not dependent for 100 per cent of their income from the governing body- so surely must be free to decide all aspects of their expenditure " without interference" from other parties

A salary cap decided by a third party even if its put that the clubs reps/ directors have voted for it , is surely an imposition on what an employee can negotiate directly with who pays them - in this case the club and must therefore constitute restriction of trade

i dont work under a salary cap and im sure that those contributors on here who are in full or even part time employment arent restricted either- so why should RL players be

well done.

how can a player prove they are missing out on higher earnings, unless he has an offer on the table from a club of more than £1.6m per annum, without any third party earnings included?

again, there is no theoretical limit on what any player can earn in the sport of rugby league.

I think the essence of it is that the players arnt restricted on what they can earn, the clubs have agreed to stick to a level, this is voluntary, so no laws are broken

Well summed up.

The SC for me is a good thing. Its undoubtedly stopped more clubs going bust since its inception, even if it hasn't stopped every such event.

Without analysing too deeply, I would be more of a fan of the (original?) SC which varied based on a clubs income, [sizeas long as it couldn't be manipulated using payments from associated companies etc.[/size

There simply isn't enough interest/money/infrastrucutres available for us to be letting clubs take silly risks, its not like football where there'll be another established club to step in a plug the gap.

I like the cap when used in conjunction with the tightening quota rules. I feel like we are seeing more British talent coming through, not just at Saints but accross the board. It might not be World Beating talent but its as good as Aussie journeymen.

I don't think anyone can argue the limt as it is is the 'right' thing for the sport long term. It's too low for a team to have 13 top players, let alone 17 like they have in the NRL. BUT at the moment there aren't enough quality players in the sport.

Raising the cap would be good, but the sport doesn't have the finances to do it.