I do feel for them from the point of view that they are all home grown talent and I have for a long time believed that the NRL should be providing some benfit to those clubs who develop talent.
My own club St George is one of those who has been a major player developer and we dont seem to gain any real advantage when i reckon we should.
But how to achieve that and also try to create an even competition? I dont have an answer.
Was there reeally such a problem 20 years ago before the salary cap? I didnt think so.
Is there a such thing as a salary cap in the USA sports?
There are salary caps in USA sports (thinking of the big ones = American Football, Basketball, and Baseball). Football does not have a player development system per se, they simply inherit the talent from the collegiate ranks without evaluating or investing in the player's training until they become professional. Baseball and Basketball do have 'minor leagues' where a club has lower division affiliates in which to develop their own talented players. That said, the salary cap has effectively killed any sense of 'home' players. Once someone becomes of professional level, they
may play for their top club team, but it is highly unlikely. More often, the top club then makes business decisions on paying this recently brought up rookie versus an older known professional, with the decision hanging primarily on length of contract and the dollars involved.
Looking at baseball - There are penalties for teams that exceed the salary cap, most notably is the (in)famous New York Yankees who are so well funded by the owner that they knowingly exceed the cap and hire the best players for the most money....and often win because of it. The penalty? Paying fines back to the league which is then redistributed to the other teams in a way of helping those other teams buy more competitive players. But fewer and fewer teams are run as a sport (associated with 'home' and 'fun'), and are instead run as businesses by the owners. At the opposite end of the spectrum there are a few teams that remain at the bottom end of the payroll spectrum every year. Why? Because the league redistributes money from the wealthier teams (penalty fines, revenue sharing) to the cheaper teams....the owners of the cheap teams pocket the difference, keep cheap (poor performance, rookie, etc) players on the field and don't care about attendance, happy to get more attendance when the 'big boys' come through during the season
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Basketball has a development league, but the players are viewed as dollars and potential wins as opposed to persons
More than baseball, these players are simply traded to stay under the salary caps. As I mentioned on football, there isn't really a development league, they get the college players (here college sports are MUCH more of an industry than in other countries, and the football programs alone typically generate the funding to support most of the other school sports), and getting a guy fresh out of college is like picking him up off the street - he comes from nowhere, goes anywhere, and is a poker chip used in the salary cap negotiations based on dollars and potential.
There is a sense of 'home pride' associated to teams for the local residents, and they are proud when their team wins, and they do cheer for the players. But your favorite player could end up on your rival's roster next season, or your star for this season have come from another squad across the country that you never followed....or even another nationality (now that baseball and basketball are taking players from europe and asia). Fans end up supporting teams more, players less (though there is affection for those that came from local colleges, or managed to stay on a club for extended periods of time). Players change teams every 2-5 yrs, coaches nearly every 2-3 yrs....the only thing a fan can follow and cheer for is the club name itself; provided you aren't suffering a shit team at the hands of a business minded owner putting crap quality on the field.
To the other question on life before the salary cap? Well, even with the cap things are ridiculous (multi-million dollar signing bonuses and multi-year contracts....often on an unproven player...that are part of 'the deal' when they get traded before the contract is up), but before the caps and after there hasn't been a whole lot of 'under the table' wage earning; there simply hasn't been a need for it. Before the cap, anything went - buy the best team, try to win, and owners tended to be more sentimental and personable, keeping players longer rather than running it as a business. But with the cap, it's about who you can buy for the next few years as a player, and will they work for the system run by whatever coach you have for the next few years.
Sorry, hadn't cranked out a tl;dr in several days
