I'm making the point that if the only function of the salary cap is to save the owners money, then an owner deciding to overspend the salary cap is logically absurd.
More specifically - clearly owners want to spend money and are prevented from doing so (or retrospectively punishes for it). So at the very least some of the owners do not want to save money. Like, if they wanted to, why would they own a premiership rugby club? They are basically black holes for cash.
Plus, there are many other stated benefits which are demonstrably true
So yeah, my point is that your argument is at the very least overly simplistic and ignores many other factors, or more likely it's completely wrong.
your logic is that if one member of a group does something contrary to the mission of a group, then that can't be the mission of the group. If that was true then no one would ever break a treaty and there would never be in-fighting in partnerships of joint ventures.
The point of the salary caps are that the majority of owners want to save owners so they use their majority to force owners who would want to spend as much money as they want to limit their spending. The minority owners aren't really given a choice, they can either own a club in top-flight competition or they can **** off.
For why they would want to own a premiership rugby club? Because it's something they want to do. They want to keep their costs down so they form a cartel with owners to put in an arbitrary salary cap. This allows them to keep money in their pocket. Is this something that all owners want? Clearly not. But a majority do and they can force the hand of owners who do not want it.
As for the other stated benefits being "demonstrably true". Do you believe everything the rich say to justify their actions? If parity was really their aim, why isn't there a salary floor? Why does the salary cap not extend to facility upgrades, coaches, executives, and other staff? As for their stated benefits, may I direct you to actual research?
https://search.proquest.com/docview/2007938557?pq-origsite=summon
Study that compares the competitive balance between the Premiership and Top 14. Both have similar long term competitive balance since 2004/2005. Conclusion is that salary cap has short-term benefits but then teams adjust to how they can use their resources in a legal way.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/fu...m_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider
Parity has more to do with the game itself rather than salary cap, and really parity just means randomness. Basketball has a high number of occurrences per game so the law of averages means you are more likely to approach the expected result. American football has a single game playoff compared to other american sports that have 7 game series so it appears to have more parity when in reality it is more random.
http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/
Again, the structure of the sport is more important than a salary cap. NFL and MLB have very similar levels of Parity even though one has a hard salary cap and the other has a soft salary cap that few teams even come close to. MLB, with the soft cap, has a lot less randomness than the NFL due to more games and longer series in the knockout stages yet has similar competitive balance.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00181-015-0968-1
Much more economicy, but essentially NFL and MLB have similar levels of competitive balance.
I dont know for sure no one does bar sarries and the people involved in it all im just speculating based on if they were over and all investment count averaged over the contracts then they must be especially with the new signings as i doubt daly was cheap.
Obviously as i said it is speculation. Why do you think they arnt over?(if that is your opinion) and if not what are your thoughts?
Mostly I'm just sick of reckless speculation. I think they are probably under cause they let some players go that were part of the era of overspending. I imagine Bosch was on a stupid amount of money and in general the names they lost were bigger than the names they brought in (Daly being the obvious exception). If they are over the cap, which definitely could be true, then they should get punished again and the EPR should have some type of repeater clause in the punishments.
My issue is with people saying that because they were over the cap last year than they must be this year. That's like saying that because it rained yesterday it is going to rain today. Yes, it is more informed prediction than randomly guessing, but it's still a **** way to predict the weather.
