To vary a contract both signatories need to agree, since neither the NRL or the RLPA are parties in player contracts then they can say all they like, agree on Cap reductions etc. Until the contract parties agree, that’s the player and the club, then existing contracts are enforceable at law. If I was a player and his manager and the club wanted to reduce my existing contract from, say, $350k (around the NRL players average) for next year to $250k I’d be telling them to fark off. Why should my family suffer because the NRL stuffed up their finances hugely due to their years of incompetence.
This year is somewhat different having a reduced number of games (22 rounds versus 25), as a result the already agreed 20% pay cut for the rest of the season is more palpable. But next year it’s the full 25 rounds, so that justification doesn’t exist.
Also related, if the NRL wants to reduce the cap then shouldn’t the 30 registered players requirement also be reduced? This is important for us because we already have 2 players gone. Hence down to 28, which may well mean that we are closer to the reduced for 2021 cap than other clubs stuck with 30 players registered.
In summary, just because the Salary Cap is reduced for next year doesn’t mean that every single player has to take a pay cut. A club can manage its salary cap however it likes, just as long as it complies. Obviously the more “valuable” players are in a stronger negotiating position and more able to maintain their contract value. They are more “valuable” to other clubs which is their bargaining advantage. My guess is the top 4 or 5 players at each club won’t be copping the same % reduction (if any reduction at all) as the less “valuable” players.
Go Dogs