Rugby: Players dig in over Cup pay

Leading players are scrapping with the IRB because they want more money from the World Cup. Photo / Kenny Rodger

Players want more money from the Rugby World Cup and are not going to agree to play unless they get it.

The issue is not new - it has flared at the past two World Cups - but this time it has produced an unusual situation. Tickets are being sold; stadiums are being finished; and even Party Central has just about been sorted; but New Zealand's World Cup is in danger of not securing any players.

At the heart of the feud - as always - is money. Leading national unions want a bigger slice of the profits while the players want a bigger portion of funds directly allocated to them.

Leading nations dispute the draconian terms of the IRB's participation agreement and no player is going to sign it unless there is radical change. At the last two World Cups, the IRB was at war with the players right up to the deadline, only for the latter to cave in because they had no real choice.

Unlike other major World Cups such as football and cricket, the participating players in rugby are not directly rewarded. The participating unions are - and then it is up to them to determine how much they give the players.

In New Zealand's case, the collective agreement has been locked in at paying every All Black squad member $100,000 if they win. In comparison, the All Whites received, on average, between close to $100,000 for just getting to the Fifa World Cup, let alone winning it. Senior hands in the All Whites pocketed about $200,000.

There is a growing sense among rugby players in many countries that they are not being treated fairly; that their contribution towards the World Cup's continued commercial growth is not recognised.

The participation agreement suggests players should be content with the profile and prestige they gain from being there - leaving them no avenue to turn that exposure into income.

Some players end up out of pocket as a consequence of playing at the World Cup, as they are not paid by their clubs while they are away and receive little from their national union.

The various players' associations are pushing for the introduction of a payment that is assigned directly to those players involved.

This could be a participation fee, prize money or some form of revenue sharing agreement - something that better rewards those who help make the tournament what it is.

Predictably, the IRB are refusing to budge. They are in talks with the leading national unions and will no doubt argue that, if they assign more revenue to the tier one unions, then it will be up to them to make sure a greater share of that goes directly to the players.

In New Zealand's case, that will happen anyway. The collective agreement means that about 36 per cent of all NZRU revenue goes into the player payment pool.

But the players are believed to see this now as a point of principle - that they want acknowledgement of their contribution as much as they want financial reward.

Under the existing financial model, the IRB effectively uses the majority of its World Cup booty - the hosting fee of £48 million, broadcast and sponsorship rights - to fund development of the game.

Established unions such as New Zealand receive about $500,000 a year to help fund development programmes, about a $6 million handout in the year of the tournament and a token fee of between $300,000 and $650,000 depending on how far they proceed.

It might sound generous but it does little to offset the costs incurred. A rough estimate suggests New Zealand loses out on about $15 million of revenue every World Cup year. They have to give up hosting June internationals and also miss out on revenue-sharing games in the north later in the year.

The Tri Nations has to be truncated - which is factored into the broadcast deal - and while arguably an intangible cost, it does make it hard for local sponsors to commit to the domestic provincial competition in World Cup years.

Players also have to be paid for seven weeks at the World Cup, along with all associated costs.

"I don't think it is any secret that we [tier one] nations are talking to the IRB about this," says New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew.

"The money we receive is effectively to compensate us for loss of income but that gap is getting ever bigger.

"There is some work going on to determine the true cost of participating and we are asking whether the current financial model is the right one."

The national unions are the IRB and have an automatic seat at the negotiating table. The players don't. Their participation agreements don't have to be signed until the World Cup squads are named.

The battle continues.