Read: Ranking NZ rugby’s 30 most influential power brokers
New Zealand Rugby’s (NZR) policy around who can play for the All Blacks is built entirely on the basis it can’t compete financially against the predatory instincts and unstable decision-making of Japanese and French clubs, and its only defence is to make players choose between big money contracts offshore or stay home but potentially win test caps.
The story is not quite true, though; little old New Zealand is not as impoverished as it likes everyone to think and for the top echelon of players, the money that can be made by signing a four-year contract to stay at home is usually comparable, if not better, than the equivalent remuneration of signing a deal of similar length to play offshore.
Maybe NZR doesn’t want the world to know this, but the senior All Blacks who commit to staying at home for most of their careers can get crazy rich.
Much gets made publicly about the value of contracts players sign to play in Japan, with reports frequently highlighting Richie Mo’unga’s three-year agreement is worth around $2.2 million a year.
That’s take-home, but in fact, those senior players such as Sam Cane, Beauden Barrett, Brodie Retallick and Ardie Savea – who signed repeat long-term deals to stay in New Zealand – will have banked considerably more, because NZR puts incredible agreements in front of those who have proven themselves on the international stage.
A four-year contract that comes with a sabbatical clause for a senior player on the highest pay band is estimated to be worth a total of between $6.5m to $7m.
The money breaks down like this: they are paid a Super Rugby Pacific retainer of $195,000 (some may be paid more via third-party agreements) and about another $800,000 as their NZR retainer.
When they are picked for the All Blacks, they bank another $7500 a week and typically that brings in about another $120,000 a year.
A one-season (sabbatical) contract with a Japanese club can be worth anything between $1m and $2m depending on the club and the player, and so when everything is added up, the big-money deals, it seems, are in New Zealand and not overseas.
The kicker for those who stay loyal is that they effectively get paid twice when they take a sabbatical.
They won’t be paid their Super Rugby retainer while they are playing overseas, but they will pocket their NZR retainer and match fees – assuming they are picked. This means some players who have had a season in Japan and then returned to play for the All Blacks from July have earned about $3m in a calendar year.
There is huge money to be made in New Zealand and those players who have signed back-to-back, long-term contracts – committed to stay for eight years – have probably banked in the vicinity of $12m to $14m in wages alone over that period.
That’s before endorsement deals are considered and this is another reason why staying in New Zealand is considerably more lucrative than the wider narrative suggests.
The high-profile players with seniority and a strong personal brand can pick up sponsorship, ambassadorial roles and other third-party agreements that are worth, in total, anything from $50,000 to $500,000 a year.
There’s no real opportunity for New Zealand’s players to win separate sponsorships when they are overseas as they don’t, typically, have the profile or recognition to interest consumer brands.
There is some truth to the poor New Zealand story – a truth that those who don’t sit in the top tier of talent have keenly felt over the years.
When so much is spent on the elite talent, there isn’t enough left to throw at those who have played five or six Super seasons and have maybe won a couple of test caps along the way.
These are the sorts of players – A.J. Lam, Du Plessis Kirifi, Braydon Ennor – who could double their money overseas, because Japanese clubs would pay them as much as $600,000 to $800,000 a season, whereas they would be earning maybe half that amount by staying in New Zealand.
But the point is, New Zealand is a place where the best players can earn incredible amounts of money, and when total remuneration is looked at across eight years rather than on the annual contract amounts, the $2.2m a year offered to Mo’unga is suddenly not the big-money deal it is presented as.
