Quote: headhunter "Super League clubs are being funded by the money that Sky pay to televise their matches. If the Championships had an equivalent TV deal, they would get equivalent funding. The fact that they don't isn't an 'artificial' problem, it's completely natural, obviously the lower leagues are never going to attract as much funding as the top league. Like I said, I'm not sure why Championship clubs feel like they should be given an equal share when they are clearly not equal in terms of how much money they bring into the sport. Once again, it comes down to the fact that certain Championship fans for some reason seem to think that the RFL are doing them an injustice by not giving money unconditionally to their clubs. It's just competely ridiculous and illogical.'"
How about the overall health of the sport?
The NFL have a salary cap and draft system that massively holds back the biggest teams. Why? For the overall good of the sport.
Furthermore, if we're only going to give out money to those clubs that are attracting it, then I'm afraid we'd only be paying around 6 clubs — in terms of attracting Sky to the game, the rest are simply making up the numbers. Some teams are being massively funded by the TV deal despite the fact that they bring next to nothing to the table. If it's ok for them, why not for other clubs?