Features

Rugby Rugby columnist Jon Harris takes a look at the controversial '26-week' contract clause which has seen Dafydd James and Simon Maling's contracts torn up by the Scarlets - asking, can you really blame the clubs?

Recently the Scarlets terminated the contract of Welsh wing Dafydd James citing and invoking a clause in his contract which allows them to do so if he is injured for more than 26 weeks. Kiwis Simon Maling and Daniel Braid have also had their contracts cancelled on the basis of injuries.

James' exit appears to be shrouded in controversy. The player, who has represented his country 48 times, has been injured for a length of time. The region and the player had been in negotiations for an extension to the contract, and it appears as if James was unhappy with what the Scarlets regarded as a reasonable offer.

There have been accusations and counter accusations and it seems the region has invoked a clause in the contract wherein the player's contract may be terminated if he is unavailable for 26 weeks of play.

The player has countered by saying he was available and chosen but was in fact turned away when reporting to the team coach for travel to a fixture. Kiwi Simon Maling too has also fallen prey to the '26-week clause', standard in professional rugby. This clause states that if a player is unavailable for a cumulative 26 weeks in a year, his contract may be concluded.
 
Daniel Braid, the All Black flank who this year represented the Queensland Reds in the Super 14 has ruptured his Achilles tendon and will be out of action for up to six months. Quite understandably, his contract has been terminated.

The Scarlets admit that tough business decisions needed to be made in order to remain competitive. It is hard on the player, it is his income and places him at a disadvantage when re-entering the job market. Prospective employers will be circumspect about appointing someone with a perceived ongoing injury problem, and the players may find themselves unemployed for some time.

Is the employer, be it club or region, at fault when making these harsh business decisions? Should they approach the problem with more compassion considering that it is a contact sport which places the employee's body and future at risk? Or is it the entire responsibility of the player to cover himself for the event of prolonged injury leading to loss of employment?

Daniel Carter's injury at Perpignan reportedly cost neither party any financial loss. Both were well covered by insurance. However, one can only assume that such insurance is dear and cannot be taken out on all players.

To be fair and realistic, the club/region cannot be expected to carry the can for a player's future. It is a competitive environment, fraught with risks and injuries are a real danger. Using Football as a reference, it is a high risk high reward system. Be on top of the game and you will benefit handsomely, but there is no room for sentimentality.

The impression one gets is that Rugby Union clubs are not quite as callous as some of their football counterparts. It appears that a player is given more than a fair period to recover fully from serious injury before his contract is placed in jeopardy. While it is human nature for us to favour an individual in comparison to an entity, we also have to realise that in order for that entity to remain viable and competitive, it needs to look after its financial interests as well. Being compassionate and honouring the contract for Braid for example, who will probably miss the first half of next season is commendable but it does not pay the bills.

Conversely, the Dafydd James saga involves implied skulduggery. He claims to have been available for a number of fixtures since March but was prevented from playing. He claims this was done so that the 26 week clause could be invoked. If that is the case, one has to have sympathy for the player.

Whichever way we look at it, to be unavailable for in excess of 26 weeks in a year is a substantial length of absence. Perhaps if a player is in that zone, the termination cannot be totally unexpected. Also, if during the times that the player is fit, he produces performances of such high standard that the employer dares not consider termination of his contract, then he is ensuring his security at the club. By association one then assumes that the value of the player as an employee has waned for more reasons that just availability and the decision to part ways was inevitable anyway.

by Jon Harris