That's not all it sets out to do - far from it; it also seeks to create an even competition, safeguard the financial viability of clubs and maintain the interest of spectators. On that basis, I can't see that it could be judged as anything other than a reasonable restraint.

Has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged?

And there we have the crucial word "reasonable".

Those may be by products of it. They may even be a defence of it (they probably would) but they aren't what the SC sets out to do. Which is cap salaries.

I think you would have a hard time arguing that the competition is particularly even, that clubs under the SC have been financially safeguarded by it, or that the interest of spectators has been maintained by it.

The reasonableness tests of those are also in relation to the player. All those things may very well be reasonable to a club owner. But if they materially disadvantage a player with no pay back. That isn't reasonable.

Which is why I asked - has the NRL salary cap been successfully challenged? They've had one in place for longer and whilst it's had some demonstrable failures in terms of the intent not translating to reality, I don't think there's been any legal ruling that found the restriction to be unreasonable. One would assume, if it was deemed to be unreasonable in law, that an NRL superstar would have a ruling in his favour by now.

I'm no expert by the way - I think you're wrong, but that's only based on a layman's understanding of the legal issues.

Although called the salary cap, it's not about capping an individual salary, juts the total spend on the salaries of a certain group and it was brought in to prevent clubs "doing a Wigan".

As others have posted, it wont prevent a top player earning a decent wedge (Sam Tomkins and Chase are good examples) it's all about total spend.
(I know that you know this already but, maybe others don't)

The total spend v individual player thing is a red herring. It has the effect of capping a players wages, it has the effect of depressing their market value and although people keep claiming it doesnt cap an individual salary, it does in both practice and theory.

the nrl operate under different laws. Also the NRL salary cap is agreed in conjunction with the players union as part of a CBA. It should offend everyone in our game that our Salary Cap isnt agreed with the players, it is imposed on them.

Derek's playing it nicely how do get salary cap raised,piece in the paper,let the rfl get in a flap and cap raised its illegal to restrict someone's pay similar prior to bosmon in football

He hasn't asked to have the salary cap raised - he wants to ignore it altogether.
Hardly original when the NRL and rugby union clubs have discussed the salary cap very recently.
The RFL seem to ask the Super League clubs to discuss it - Leigh,as you know,are NOT in Super League.
The salary cap discussions are not new - rlStoryrl

Heres the thing. They are not restricting anybodys pay; The official company that employs the Leigh players can pay them a million pounds each if they would like to without punishment.
However the operational rules of the RFL say that in order to be a member of the RFL and participate in the their competitions you must register your players and their disclose their salary.
You can pay them whatever you like, but you can only register up to 2 million pounds worth of talent with the RFL to play in the competition. That is why this is not a restriction of trade. The RFL have lawyers too.

No, they cant. The official company that employs Leighs players cannot pay them a million pounds each without punishment.

The RFL had lawyers when they implemented a quota system that fell down like a pack of cards.

UEFA had some pretty expensive lawyers when Jean-Marc Bosman took them to court. They had even more expensive ones when they went to court to defend FFP before it was exposed as a paper tiger.

Premiership Rugby had some pretty expensive lawyers annd they are seeing the same issue we are.

......just like Marwan eh?

It's Dumb and Dumber without the intelligence.

The salary cap is different to eligibility in the sense that for a player to prove they individually are being restrained by the cap they'd have to show that a club was willing to pay them more but that the club wouldn't as it was entirely down to the cap. Its not restraint of trade if that same player could get what they want at another club. It would be very difficult for a player to successfully attack the cap on their own as there are lots of other moving parts (other players wages, payments by other clubs to players, financial ability to pay more by the club etc etc). Unless a club was willing to show that it would pay all its players amounts that would blow the cap ceiling its hard to imagine a successful outcome in court, especially if individually each player could get more elsewhere.

As for a club challenging the cap, I thought one of the most basic rules of being a member of most sporting bodies was signing up to agree to abide by the rules of that body. Don't know about the RFL, but in some cases taking the body to court would result in immediate suspension from competition.

In the end its bluster, and actually making a mockery of some very important questions - should there be a cap, how should it be set and managed, how can you set a cap to allow an ambitious championship team to compete in the Middle 8s, etc.

Quote: SmokeyTA "No, they cant. The official company that employs Leigh's players cannot pay them a million pounds each without punishment. The RFL had lawyers when they implemented a quota system that fell down like a pack of cards. UEFA had some pretty expensive lawyers when Jean-Marc Bosman took them to court. They had even more expensive ones when they went to court to defend FFP before it was exposed as a paper tiger. Premiership Rugby had some pretty expensive lawyers annd they are seeing the same issue we are.'" The relevant sections of the operational rules are very clear. Quote: SmokeyTA "A1 Quote: SmokeyTA "A3 Quote: SmokeyTA "1.4.2 to submit to the authority of the RFL and any member of the Compliance Team to adopt, apply, monitor and enforce the Regulations; '" Quote: SmokeyTA "A Club must ensure that, at any time during the Salary Cap Year, its Aggregate Liability does not exceed Leigh agreed to these rules when they joined the competition. This is Leigh, the employer, taking legal action against the RFL. Not a player or players union. Important distinction. Find me something in the rules that says anything about what an employer can pay their employees.... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules

Quote: SmokeyTA "No, they cant. The official company that employs Leigh's players cannot pay them a million pounds each without punishment. The RFL had lawyers when they implemented a quota system that fell down like a pack of cards. UEFA had some pretty expensive lawyers when Jean-Marc Bosman took them to court. They had even more expensive ones when they went to court to defend FFP before it was exposed as a paper tiger. Premiership Rugby had some pretty expensive lawyers annd they are seeing the same issue we are.'" The relevant sections of the operational rules are very clear. Quote: SmokeyTA "A1 Quote: SmokeyTA "A3 Quote: SmokeyTA "1.4.2 to submit to the authority of the RFL and any member of the Compliance Team to adopt, apply, monitor and enforce the Regulations; '" Quote: SmokeyTA "A Club must ensure that, at any time during the Salary Cap Year, its Aggregate Liability does not exceed Leigh agreed to these rules when they joined the competition. This is Leigh, the employer, taking legal action against the RFL. Not a player or players union. Important distinction. Find me something in the rules that says anything about what an employer can pay their employees.... www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules

There you go Derek just announced chase,Patterson,Hansen and maitua for next season,seems is lawyers gave him the green light