Necessary, or are the salary cuts to players of rugby players have had to swallow an instance of opportunism by the salary payers?
News has crossed our desk that the pay cuts are going to last well beyond the resumption of play.
The Times reported that the clubs in Premiership Rugby might never again pay their players at the level they were paid before the corona virus altered the rugby landscape and made it bumpier than Sydney Cricket Ground.
What impact does that have for New Zealand?
Thank you for that question.
The answer is that many of the Premiership clubs are homes to Kiwis who fled north to seek opportunities to be paid well above what they could earn Down Under.
The odd twist in it all is that while there is no football being played, zero, the pay cut was 25 percent.
Not much sympathy from those of us who have been cut by 75 percent, or further still.
Naturally, the move did receive a positive reaction from the players, but their resistance is reportedly not motivated by the cut in pay, but by the fact that they do not feel they were adequately involved in the process.
Players are also concerned, rightly, over the uncertainty of how long the salary trimming might persist.
In a perverse faction, this chain of events might prove beneficial to New Zealand rugby. It will not be quite as easy in the future for Premiership clubs like Saracens and Harlequins to poach New Zealand players.
It was only months ago that we took some delight in Sonny Bill Williams collecting a huge payday, $10 million for two years, to play for Toronto Wolfpack in English Super League.
Different leagues, we understand, but SBW could take a 25 percent cut while standing on his head.
What Williams, and some of the Kiwis who tried their fortune with Premiership, needs is something no one can give.