Thread by @rugbyandthelaw

Having read and digested Lord Myners’ review of the Premiership Rugby Salary Cap, here is a thread on what I consider to be the main talking points.

The full report can be read here: media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/4c20e3b1-ed1c-…

1) It is incredibly well-written and perfectly appreciates its own context. Lord Myners clearly understands the sport and, in particular, the English rugby landscape.

The report makes for good reading and I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in rugby or #sportslaw.

2) It is scathing of the lack of transparency that has plagued the salary cap since its inception, and of the interference of the clubs in its processes.

The recommendations on improving transparency and independence are absolutely right and I would endorse them wholeheartedly.

3) Lord Myners was mindful of the need to improve the trust that everyone has in the Premiership and in rugby, and adopting his recommendations would certainly go a long way to doing that.

This should be taken as a pivotal moment by the clubs & PRL to restore some integrity.

4) He was keen to stress the need for clubs to buy into the salary cap as a matter of principle. If clubs/individuals tries to use the exact terminology he employs to get around the clear intentions of the recommendations “they have entirely missed the point of this exercise”.

5) He is not wholly critical of the current regs. Lord Myners praised the annual auditor-led review of the clubs (an “unusually rigorous standard”) and the robustness of the existing disciplinary process. Their withstanding of a legal challenge also reflects their “solidity”.

6) Of particular interest is the recommended introduction of stronger sporting sanctions such as relegation, title-stripping, prize-money stripping and suspension.

These seem entirely appropriate and will strengthen the regs substantially.

7) Similarly, the increased financial sanctions for non-cooperation & more minor breaches are to be welcomed.

Increasing the starting point and upper level for points sanctions is also a positive step, for deterrence.

8) He recommends greater discretion for the panel determining sanction. This will make the process somewhat less predictable but will ensure the punishment truly fits the crime.

The suggestions that sanctions can be doubled for intent/reckless breaches will also strengthen regs.

9) The recommendation of player accountability will be seen as controversial by some, but seems appropriate to me - in line with added responsibility for agents and club officials, too.

What will be key now is ensuring that players are properly advised and informed.

10) The suggestion that a player could be banned for an entire season and fined up to £250k reflects the importance of these obligations.

However, I am not convinced that such a long ban is necessarily appropriate, particularly if there is strong financial punishment.

11) It is clear that there will need to be cooperation between PRL & the RFU to ensure the enforceability of sporting sanctions against individuals - players, agents and club officials.

Financial penalties ought to apply to club officials if they apply to players.

12) There is a notable focus on compliance within clubs, which seems both obvious and necessary.

A requirement to nominate a ‘Salary Cap Officer’ seems eminently sensible, to bear responsibility for compliance and to encourage good practice.

13) Increasing the powers of the Salary Cap Manager to conduct random mini audits/spot checks, and to have greater access to club information will also further the enforceability of the regulations.

Comparisons with anti-doping regimes were clear throughout and seem appropriate.

14) Perhaps the most interesting part of the report deals with the definition of salary and the drafting of the regs.

Lord Myners recommends notes the abuse of the ‘loan exemption’ and recommends tightening it - though it is not entirely clear how he recommends doing this.

15) Generally, he encourages greater dialogue between clubs & SCM, which was clearly lacking in Saracens case.

He suggests prohibiting co-investments altogether, widening the definition of ‘connected parties’ & classing all transactions as salary subject to narrow exceptions.

16) Prohibiting co-investments gets around the difficulties of valuing such transactions, but prohibiting co-investments with the wider category of connected parties may unreasonably limit players’ commercial endeavours.

I feel more nuance is needed here.

17) The suggestion of expanding ‘connected parties’ is not necessarily a bad one but there is a lack of clarity in the approach recommended by Lord Myners. This is an area that perhaps needs another look.

The biggest issue, for me, relates to player sponsorship.

18) Lord Myners recommends that any club sponsor be prohibited from sponsoring players of that club, and that any such existing deals be classified as salary until they expire.

Nike sponsors Saracens. Nike also sponsors Owen Farrell, for example.

19) With sports brands in particular (e.g. Adidas & Nike) this could create some tension, and could cause problems for players. Greater nuance needed, for me.

The general requirement for all exceptional transactions (inc sponsorship) to be approved by the SCM seems sensible.

20) Lord Myners also recommends a review of the marquee player and a simplication of the credits system.

Removing the marquee players would not be easy by any means (as discussed in an earlier thread). Player revolt, employment law and overseas markets the big problems there.

21) Overall, though, the report is thorough and well reasoned. Arguably, a greater review of PRL’s governance is needed but, within his remit, Lord Myners has done a very good job.

But nothing has changed yet - it’s over to PRL & the clubs to implement these recommendations.

22) A majority of 10/13 Prem clubs (inc Newcastle) will be needed to approve new regulations. The plan was to have them ready in time for next season.

With such drastic changes on the table, it will be interesting to see if they can achieve that.

23) One remaining legal question is whether the stronger regulations can still be justified under competition law/restraint of trade without a collective bargaining agreement - ie without the players (and others) explicitly consenting to them.

Article on all the above next week.