Postie delivers a big deal for rugby
A coffee and a chat with dual-code international turned player agent Craig Innes, and a closer look at NZC's historic agreement for pay parity for women.
It was one of the more under-the-radar rugby stories of the year, but the sale of talent management company Esportif, which has strong New Zealand connections, to US giants Wasserman could have profound implications for the sport.
While the sale of equity in the national game to private equity giants Silver Lake was seen as the biggest signal that the game was ready for commercialisation in the US, Wasserman Media Group, a company whose tentacles reaches deep into the heart of the American sports and entertainment complex, was, with less fanfare, last month taking its own stake in the sport.
Esportif has a big book of rugby talent in both codes across the world, including Richie Mo’unga, Will Jordan, Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, Rieko Ioane, Reece Walsh, Tadhg Furlong, Ellis Genge, Taniela Tupou and Alun Wyn Jones.
They were, says Innes, trucking along quite happily “until Wasserman knocked on our door”.
While Esportif was a big player in the world of rugby - New Zealand’s premier talent is largely divided up between it and Halo, owned by Japanese marketing giant Dentsu - Wasserman is a big player, full stop.
(In effect, most of NZ’s rugby talent is now managed by companies owned in rugby’s two most prized “growth” markets.)
“It’s promotional puff says it “partners to the world’s most iconic athletes, artists, brands, properties, coaches, sports executives, broadcasters and influencers”, among montages of figures as diverse as Russell Westbrook, Ed Sheeran, Jamie Vardy and Billie Eilish.
They have baseballers, footballers, basketballers, Olympians, rock stars and big brands. They have Kiwis, too, like golfer Ryan Fox, Memphis Grizzlies’ Steven Adams and snowboard queen Zoi Sadowski-Synnott.
What they didn’t have was any presence in rugby. That might not have been a problem for a predominantly US-based organisation, but as Innes says, things are changing rapidly stateside.
“There are the men’s and women’s rugby world cups going to the States in 2031 and 2033,” he says. “I don’t see any reason why rugby really won’t take hold in the US.
“If you look at Japan, the game was poised to really take off on the back of the World Cup but Covid set them back there. They’re still building something strong there but probably not as fast as they would have liked.”
At the time of the deal, Fahri Ecvet, chief operating officer and executive vice president of Wasserman, said: “The launch of Wasserman Rugby is another milestone in Wasserman’s strategic global growth.”
The US is World Rugby’s Everest, but efforts to establish a meaningful presence there have not got the sport to base camp.
With the partially successful establishment of Major League Rugby, they at least have the gear in place to begin the trek to the foot of the mountain1.
Innes said MLR was already having a very real effect on his job, with a tier of players looking to the US as a genuine playing option.
“Definitely,” he says. “It’s already happening. Despite what people think, the player movement market for marquee players is actually tiny, but the US is attractive for those who are on the fringes of Super Rugby but can’t quite crack it.”
If you look at the MLR teams, they are chock full of players like Tomas Aoake and Joe Walsh (both Seattle Seawolves, losing finalist to Rugby New York) who sound familiar from the New Zealand game but you can’t quite put your finger on why.
That stripping out of players who are losing hope in their Super Rugby dream “could have a real effect on rugby here,” Innes says.
I’m intrigued by another thing he said. For years we’ve been warned of the threats of a player exodus to the moneyed leagues of Europe, particularly France, which has 28 professional rugby clubs, and England.
“The market’s not that big for marquee players, and some positions are hard to shift at all,” he says, citing hooker as the most obvious.
Props, once an easily tradable commodity, have become more difficult to find jobs for as scrummaging techniques between Europe and the south diverge, but Innes says there is still a healthy market for big locks and for No10s who can play fullback.
If there was any thought Innes would use the sale to cash-in, put his feet up and watch rugby from luxury suites for the rest of his days, think again. The 52 year old said it was apparent early that Wasserman didn’t just want their book, but the expertise of the likes of himself, Bruce Sharrock and Duncan Sandlant, co-founders of Esportif, as well as the staff in offices around the rugby playing world.
That’s going to be necessary when, as Innes says, the global domestic and international seasons become aligned with a new structure that will involve a global competition below test level.
“That’s going to happen sooner than people might think, I believe,” he says, saying the concept of global club and international leagues was still very much on the table pointing to the likes of CVC and Silver lake’s investment in the sport.
While he enjoyed Super Rugby Pacific, he doesn’t believe a competition involving primarily New Zealand and Australian teams is sustainable in the long term.
“Losing the South African sides to Europe was not a good thing,” he says.
When the change does come and rugby becomes more global, management agencies will be on the ground floor.
Ironically, Innes, a dual-code international, played without an agent. When he made the switch from amateur rugby to league following the 1991 World Cup, he did so only with the help of Ponsonby Rugby Club life member Grant McCurrach. When he returned to New Zealand and now professional rugby after stints at Leeds and Manly, he saw a gap in the emerging player-management market.
He and Sharrock dreamed up their agency “around his kitchen table”. Sandlant, who was based in Jersey in the Channel islands, introduced the company to Peter Kenyon, the former Chelsea and Manchester United CEO, who advised the group to “stick to their knitting” as they contemplated a move into football talent management.
Kenyon also stuck around as non-executive director as their book continued to grow.
Wasserman might own the book now, but there’s more work to be done.
New Zealand Cricket’s new Master Agreement which binds the national body, its six major associations and the Players’ Association over the next five years, is a good piece of business, too.
You can read all the details here, but the standout feature is equal match-fees. Given that New Zealand women do not have a test programme or a domestic red-ball format, the pay parity only applies to one-day and T20 internationals, the Super Smash, and the Hallyburton Johnstone Shield is now brought in line with the Ford Trophy.
Schedule of match fees:
Tests: $10,250
ODIs: $4,000
T20Is: $2,500
Plunket Shield: $1,750
Ford Trophy/Hallyburton Johnstone Shield: $800
Super Smash: $575
The deal is to be celebrated, and there will be significant leaps in remuneration and resourcing for the country’s best female players.
The highest-ranked White Fern (almost certainly Sophie Devine) would be able to receive a maximum of $163,246 a year (up from $83,432), the ninth-ranked, $148,946 ($66,266), and the 17th-ranked $142,346 ($62,833). The top-ranked women’s domestic players in each major association would be able to receive a maximum of $19,146 (up from $3,423), the sixth-ranked $18,646 ($3,423), and the 12th-ranked $18,146 ($3,423).
The best men’s players can earn significantly more, but this is a huge step in the right direction. At this point in time the women’s game brings in slightly less than 5% of NZC’s revenue and they’re taking 20% out of the Player Payment Pool.
You could carp about this imbalance but it only goes some way to redressing the historic under-funding and resourcing of the women’s game. It also points to a future where the increased profile of the women’s game will start to bring in more revenue (just look at Australia for evidence of that).
The hidden victory comes in the message it sends: cricket is a viable career for the best female athletes.
Where they might have automatically looked at netball, rugby or Olympic sports post-school, girls now can see pathways to a future in cricket.
There is some concern that MLR is already diluting its talent too thinly as the it is a business model where owners, at this point, can only make money by selling more franchises.
Postie was a real loss for NZR; followed his playing career with interest after he left but competition between him, Frank and Walter would have interesting to watch, although he could have fitted in on the wing. Interesting comments on positions in demand; I note SA forward players are very plentiful in the pro NH clubs; suspect that that’s where we are missing out - competition with them (SA) at club/franchise level, especially in our forward play (and exposing our players to that style of play/competition). Will never know the commercial imperative that led the decision makers at NZR to split but from a competitor/sport point of view, in my opinion, a strategic mistake.
Hi Dylan - the NZC pay agreement interests me. Is there devil in the detail with it only applying to “match fees” (i.e. obscures the fact that retainers and more game time will still see men’s players paid much more)? You note that only 5% of NZC revenue is fetched by the women’s game, that’s interesting too - I knew it wouldn’t be much but that’s gobsmacking. On those numbers it must be a hugely loss making venture. How much of this can be attributed to “underinvestment” versus the natural market? It would be worth looking into this, because commercially just proceeding on the feel good factor would be very unwise unless the coffers are overflowing. My own perception of the women’s game is that it’s an average product, especially in NZ. Some of the Aussie girls are very handy, but they’re maybe 5% of the show on offer at best. Im all for promoting and building the female game - I used to coach it - but I would judge the standard of the women’s international game for instance at about 3rd grade Auckland men. It has improved and will continue to with the money being poured it, but it’s off a very low base. Compared to say women’s tennis, athletics, netball etc it’s just not a great product.