Interesting [url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Price-fixing+between+horizontal+competitors+in+the+English+Super...-a0212546229article[/url in the International Sports Law Journal.

It criticizes the salary cap for being an anti-concurrence price fixing scheme which could be challenged by European regulation on competition (though the specificity of sport clause could apply).

Interestingly it mentions that the idea that more even competitions increase crowds and viewing figures has been studied by several research studies, and that the results are a bit inconclusive:
"Economic research which considers the uncertainty of outcome hypothesis has produced mixed results. Of twenty two studies which sought to confirm the uncertainty of outcome hypothesis across different sports between 1974 and 2002: ten offered clear support for the theory; seven offered weak support; and five contradicted the theory. As Szymanski comments, 'even quite unbalanced matches, championships and leagues can be attractive to consumers'. Additionally, Szymanski notes that there are other reasons why the hypothesis needs to be treated with caution:
[i'First, while balance can be exciting, so can a contest between a Goliath and a David. Even if David seldom wins, the realisation of the completely unexpected can generate enormous satisfaction. Second, the performance of a perpetually successful team can also provide extra interest, either among those who support the dynasty, or among those who are rooting for it to fail ... third, even if it were true that a completely predictable contest would be unattractive, it is hard to say what the effect of a small change in balance would be, starting from a given distribution of wins.[/i' "

Precision: due to a publication bias in science (studies finding an effect are more likely to be published), these numbers raise doubt over the validity of the idea that even competition increase viewings (meaning that for 5 studies contradicting the idea, there may be many more who have been conducted but who have not been published).

It is true that the Premiership, the Liga or the Champions League are very uneven, they however attract the highest crowd. In a Championship if some teams overly dominate (like Leeds/St Helens in SL) they increase their supporters. The supporters of lower teams often keep being interested because the challenge to beat these legendary teams attract the interest (like for the first Crusaders match).

In addition, the authors mention that the economic advantage of the cap is dubious:
- The only clear winners if any are the clubs who can make some profit by decreasing their wage bill.
- There is no evidence that these profits lead to a decrease in ticket prices for supporters
- It limits ideal matching between teams and players, which is bad for the show displayed for supporters and for players
- Players are the most affected as their earning and their mobility is restrained. This may be problematic in the long-term as it could affect choices of young players to go in RL instead of going to RU for instance.

Interesting piece which challenge the common view on the salary cap.

You're saying the RFL punished them for not breaching the salary cap? When the RFL said they breached the salary they meant something else?



It's not particularly ambiguous, is it?

Possibly because you (like Wigan) have failed to come up with any explanation as to how deferring a payment changes what that payment is for.

unless I start Shi77ing £20 notes Quins RL will never be able to AFFORD to spend the full cap...

Because, as Wigan argued and would have appealed. The payment wasnt for playing in 2006 but 2007 as per the contracts stipulation.

Whilst you (and the RFL) may wish to assume that Wigan payments in 2007 were actually for 2006 there is no evidence that is the case. The fact is that the RFL hadnt got rules in place to stop that and relied on vague and spurious reasoning to 'send out a message' hence the fact the actually punishment was completely arbitrary and not as per the rules set down. That is also why the RFL didnt fine Wigan as there is no way Whelan would have paid it and the RFL would have been laughed at by whatever arbiter they found

They didn't appeal. Presumably because they knew an appeal was unlikely to succeed.



It's not complicated. The payments for 2006 that they deferred were still for 2006 when they were eventually made. It is highly unlikely an arbiter would rule otherwise hence the lack of any appeal.