Should the NRL use the ‘Parra Papers’ to push for further regime change at the Eels? Fans of other clubs who have been punished for infractions would give a resounding ‘no’.

One of things we heard from supporters in 2002 with Canterbury and again in 2010 with Melbourne – along with all of the less spectacular breaches since – and we are hearing again now is “why should the players be punished?”.

But the principles upon which these things are enforced see only 16 players – the 16 clubs. After all, the players don’t get to climb the competition table on their own each week, do they? The board doesn’t put out its own merchandise. The supporters didn’t join the comp in 1947 and then look for a team to follow.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

Lots of things get affected when one of these entities have misfortune – sponsors, fans, individuals, bank balances. But when you invest your time and emotions in a sporting team, that’s what you sign up for.

There are plenty of other pursuits if you can’t stomach your own destiny being in someone else’s hands. All for one, one for all. Individuals, frankly, don’t matter.

The NRL might deal with individuals as it investigates but in the end it has to treat a cheating club like a runner who got a lift on a motorcycle halfway through a marathon. Fans, players and sponsors are just that runner’s fingers and toes.

Here’s where it gets interesting, though.

Can the NRL be treading this well-worn philosophical path and at the same time selectively target individuals in handing down punishment? I don’t think so.

You are either blind to the individual or you are not. You can’t pick and choose. If we’re dealing with the club as a whole, then it’s up to the club to deal with individuals.



If the NRL starts trying to oust individuals then all the other individuals who did nothing wrong then can claim they have been unfairly treated. Suddenly the argument in the second paragraph becomes valid.

“If you want him out, then get him out and leave the rest of us – and our competition points – alone.”

To labour my earlier metaphor to breaking point, you might say many runners in this marathon are getting a lift on a motorcycle when no-one is looking. But from some of the reports about the Eels, they stopped running, stood on the side of the road and held up a giant sign saying “Finish line or bust!”.

When you’re enforcing rules of any sort, anywhere, you have to punish the ones you catch in the hope of discouraging others from doing the wrong thing. Once you have handed down your punishment, it is up to the entity to respond as it sees fit.

I want to draw an important distinction at this point in the argument: of course the NRL has the right to sanction individuals who have acted dishonestly. But the punishment meted out to the club should not be contingent on action taken against individuals. They should be completely separate.

Melbourne were punished as a whole. Canterbury were punished as a hole. In 20 years time no-one will remember who Scott Seward or Steve Sharp were. They’ll just remember the Eels lost X points.

The NRL’s responsibility as it wraps up this investigation over the coming week is to the current competition’s integrity and the sport’s history – not to short-term administrative objectives.