The NRL could be about to test this theory again - Paramatta Eels are in bother over 3rd party payments to some players, which seems an exact replica of the problems facing Salford. I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that the outcome will not be that the SC is an illegal clause, so NRL clubs can do what they like.

What is the mountain of evidence? Not the theory that it would, but the evidence that it has.

The way our seasons going I'm banking on you getting a big points deduction so we can scrap it out with Wakefield for that all important 10th spot

The way our seasons going I'm banking on you getting a big points deduction so we can scrap it out with Wakefield for that all important 10th spot

Pardon?

An unfair condition or contract term to be allowed to remain within a competition (or club or employment) which is the lifeblood and sole reason for your existance with respect to a rugby club playing rugby under the auspices of the RFL IS unlawful (if decreed such by a court/judge)
By playing and remaining in the 'club' it does not mean you agree with the conditions/contract terms but are essentially being subjected to a form of blackmail, agree or this will happen. What would happen is Salford (or any other club) would essentially no longer exist in its current and very long standing guise.

IMHO the salary cap as it has being kept IS a restriction in trade. If the SC had increased incrementally with inflation at the barest minimum from the outset we wouldn't be in this position of effectively reducing salaries.
Part of the problem of available monies into the sport to make an increased SC more sustainable is the failure of the RFL to get enough money from sponsors and TV into the game. Even sacrificing a million pounds (& in doing so totally devaluing the headline sponsorship value of the league competition at a stroke!) in an ill thought out deal.
Also given the huge strain/demands on SL players (especially over easter) the ability to maintain a squad of players to protect players welfare woild come under scrutiny. Players time and again play through injury have injections to get through a match because not only does the coach feel forced to play them due to quality but he may not have any other options due to lack of fit players. Yes you can play kids but that in itself can impact fulfilling fixtures lower down the order.
The SC restricts any possibility of expansion/improvement (& thus is reatrictive) not just across the country but alao in retaining/accquring players within the aport be that top end talent or younger players who can't be retained or even cannot afford to keep playing due to such small salaries and.move out the sport completely.

There are two main arguments at play here.
1. Is the SC a restriction of trade.
I would argue that it is not. Players who play in SL have made a clear choice to do so. Players are not forced to play in SL or restricted from earning a higher salary in the NRL or in rugby union, which are comparable jobs. The opportunity to earn a higher salary elsewhere using the same skills consequently means the SC in super league is not restricting their opportunity either to be employed elsewhere, or earn a higher salary doing so.

2. The SC is illegal and unenforceable.
Again, I would argue this is not the case. This is the difference between an illegal act and a breach of contract (ie the contract that a club enters into when it agrees to be involved in RFL competitions). Essentially, any club who breaks the SC breaches it's contract with the RFL. As a result, the RFL are entitled to take action (such as imposing fines and deducting points).

I often find analogies useful and have two that would fit this situation. The first is that of the disciplinary. Players can be fined and suspended (ie punished) for actions on the field of play, but these are not illegal. However, they are the rules imposed by the RFL and if players wish to continue in the RFL competition , they have to abide by them and accept sanctions when they break them. Nobody, in any sport, has ever argued that a player cannot be punished for an act against the laws of the game, even if the said act is not illegal. This is exactly the same. A club who breaks an agreed rule CAN be punished by the RFL, just as a player who does the same thing on the field is.

The second analogy is similar, but in a more day to day kind of way. Imagine you are holding a party at your home. You invite a friend who gets really drunk and throws up on your best armchair. Now, your friend hasn't done anything illegal. However, you have the right to throw him/her out of your house. The RFL are the house-owners. Choose to compete in their competition and they set the rules. Break them, and they can ask you to leave.

Well put fella.

Again the question wouldn't be whether it was a restraint of trade (it undoubtedly is, but many restraints of trade exist) but whether it is a reasonable one. Is it pro-competitive in theory and practice. Is the RL market better and more beneficial because of it

In some cases you could make a very strong argument that a salary cap does benefit the market. A good example of that would be the NFL which had huge growing revenues allowing them to pay huge growing wages. Those revenues are based on selling a close and competitive league which anyone one can win. Each side is asked in a large populous and each of them open a huge new market for the league as a whole where revenues are shared between teams and players. There is healthy competition for players and space for a differential between offers.

I don't think you can make the same arguments for RL. We don't have a close competitive competition we down have huge growing revenues and wages have been less than stagnant for 15 years. Each club and it's success do not open new markets and new revenues. They aren't shared between all parties. It is not under any objective judgement procompetititve for the market as the market for top players simply doesn't exist. The best talents in SL simply do not move clubs.

I think it would need to be a very very good argument that it isn't an unreasonable restraint of trade when there are two unarguable realities in SL since the introduction of the SC. Top players earn less and move less.

Which is all fine in technical terms - but I guess there is a reason the biggest sports in the US have a SC that has been judged to be exempt from anti-trust laws; because the players are represented through collective bargaining with their employers and the governing body. And because a SC creates pro-competitiveness and thus, maintains spectator interest. There's a lot of research around whether a SC actually does promote those things - with the contrary results typical of economists - but I really don't see a judge wading in to overturn a well-established precedent like the SC off the back of one club caught cheating.

There is a separate argument about whether the SC [ias implemented by the RFL [/iis effective in creating the things it sets out to create - and I certainly think it could be done better - but the way to achieve that is probably not through the courts; maybe an effective players union is the first step, together with some genuine digging into the actuality of the SC in its current form - because I would be willing to wager that half the clubs in SL are doing exactly what Salford are accused of doing, minus the giveaway of a brash owner who announces his intention to cheat, cheats, then upsets the people he colluded with to cheat, so they feel compelled to dob him in.

The opposite way to look at it is would an increase in salary cap, or the removal of the salary cap affect any of those issues you mention above. Without a salary cap at all players wouldn't move clubs either- because a handful of clubs would have all the money to spend whilst the rest had to make do with what was left (see Wigan circa 80s ). Would a higher or non existent salary cap encourage new players to play RL or in reality would we just be paying the same players more money. Would young British players be more likely to be involved in the sport or less likely whilst clubs bring in star names from the Southern Hemisphere or RU.
You could be right in that the salary cap doesn't promote those things-you mention above, close competition, new revenues etc etc but equally those things may not be promoted with no salary cap in place. It wasn't prior to.

Maybe so (I don't agree but....) but you do need to justify having a restraint of trade. You don't need to justify not having one.

The 1994 major league baseball players strike was because the owners wanted a salary cap that the players union refused to accept.
It ended after many court, Congress and even then president Clinton interventions with the owners being forced to withdraw the suggested salary cap and replace it with the luxury tax that still exists today.
In fact only NFL and NHL have a full salary cap in place the NBA use a mix of salary cap and luxury cap.
For those that don't know the luxury tax system basically it works by allowing clubs like the Yankees to spend over a set limit by however much they choose but for every 1$ over they add another $1 to a central fund that's divided amongst those clubs that can't spend up to the limit.

Their argument would be solvency- however......

That's not the full story though - the MLB also uses a revenue sharing system, which takes a % of net local revenue into a central pot, and divides it amongst all teams in the league. This is aimed at assisting those clubs who don't have a large local market, to stay competitive with those who do.

As I said - a SC in and of itself is unlikely to be ruled as unlawful; but the RFL could do a much better job of implementing their SC - and there are examples for them to work from if they were so minded.