Welcome to the world of SKY

Surely they would only need to prove a player couldn’t earn whatever it is a club was prepared to offer because of the salary cap.

If a club was prepared to offer me £300k but couldn’t because of the salary cap, it matters not that is because other people are paid other amounts, it is my ability to earn my market worth that is impacted, not to mention it unfairly restricts my market value to start with.

That doesnt apply to players though, nor does it disgraced directors who have been banned for 7 years.

But the director has not been impacted by the salary cap since his wage does not count so I would imagine he would not be able to sue the RFL over the salary cap itself. He could, presumably, attempt to sue them with regards to his own personal punishment and protest it was too harsh but again that is not really suing the RFL over the salary cap as restrain of trade but over not applying appropriate punishment in his eyes.

As you say it doesn't apply to players, but it would take a very brave/stupid player to try it since it would cost them a lot in the short term and there's still no guarantee he'd win since the salary cap is at £1.6m and he might have to try and prove he was worth more than that and could command a wage of more than that were there no salary cap in place. I note your reply to Codead but I don't think that's strictly true since nothing is stopping Wigan, for instance, allocating all their salary cap to Sam Tomkins and paying him £1.6m, they simply made a choice it wasnt worth having only 1 senior player compared to 25 on lower wages.

Well it does on two counts, firstly it is a cartel conspiring to keep the market value artificially low, which in and of itself could be challenged regardless of any player proving anything at all. Secondly it is unreasonable for a professional sports team to pay only one player, there is no chance that any team could, by the laws of the RFL, pay only one player. Sam Tomkins cant take to the field on his own and there are restrictions on amateur players playing in SL. All a player would need to prove is that his wage was restricted by the SC. There is plenty stopping Wigan paying Sam Tomkins £1.65m, just as there is plenty stopping Sam Tomkins earning £500k. The fact the reason for that is that they have paid more to other players isn’t really relevant, there is a restriction on how much Sam Tomkins can earn.

There would likely be no argument over whether it is a restraint of trade by anybody (since it clearly is) though there could be an argument over whether or not it is reasonable. Though as the players get nothing in return for this sacrifice im not sure how anyone could argue it was.

A swear jar from Tim Howard would at least be a start though.