The Traditionalists One and Only Good Idea of Transfer Fees

The Traditionalist has stated that South African football clubs make money selling players overseas.

Perhaps SARU and the regional unions could come up with a dual contract for young players. Players are going overseas at a younger and younger age nowadays - so why invest time and effort in them for overseas clubs and national teams to reap the benefits.

If a player is signed from the age of 16-18, and stays at a union until they are 22- then leave overseas-  it is then a bad investment for South African Rugby. They are paying more than they are getting back.....

This money (a national transfer fee) could then be reinvested in SARU- with proceeds going to the club (e.g. The Cheetas, or Bulls) for new players or retaining existing quality players from a higher salary. 

If SARU could have a national contract signed on top of the regional contract, a player that leaves overseas would have to be bought out the national contract by the English, Japanese or French club. It would be like exporting a product. 

A young player could move to another SA SuperXV/CurryCup team in SA without a national transfer fee, but any overseas move would involve paying SARU. This would allow more investment in players to stay in South Africa- hopefully, the better ones- and export the dud carthorse overseas. (e.g. Jonny Koetze, Jaco Taute). 

I think it works in South Africa's favour. Foreign teams are training and conditioning our players and we get to bring more players into circulation at home increasing our player pool. The real losers are the countries buying our players. 

I see national teams. Well, a think many players would go abroad anyway and give up international rugby for money and safety anyway. South Africa doesn't have much time left and white players aren't wanted. So why be hampered by a contract to a nation that isn't catered for you? Whether in ZA or not it doesn't really matter, well, they receive better coaching abroad and have access to more modern methods and equipment and better trained staff. These foreign teams are not purchasing duds but our best. Like I said before it hurts their player pool not ours. It expands our player pool a lot. And at least gives us more role players that can fill a position in times of need. Some more depth. 

Been advocating for years that the NH should either pay a fee based on how long or how much  input from home unions or local teams has accrued a player .

Why should SAANZAR unions  pay to nurture players for the NH bastards ? If they were to pay the conditions and pay would improve and stop the drain of talent.

I cant think of any NZ player who has been imrp oved by playing in the NH ,quite the opposite.

Open market.

The Traditionalist has stated that South African football clubs make money selling players overseas.

Never stated that. Because SA football is extremelly poor and nobody is interested in buying SA football players.

SA football is poor because SA favoured rugby over football. Which is a misallocation of resources.

It was stated that football could have offered potentially a way to a profitable economy in SA: training players and selling them abroad.

Rugby does not offer the same opportunity, no matter what.

Now, SA football does not train any good player. Because the main stream of resources were allocated to rugby that does not provide a player market.

If SA had had the guts of opting for the highly competitive football sector instead of looking for shelter in the low competition rugby sector, today, SA could have had a profitable football market.

With players bought from SA for €10 M, then resold for €50M (this leading to downfalls) etc

It is not what happened. SA football is like SA rugby, it is crap. It makes no money.