Trouble with the bit in bold is that the game in England is going to lose its best players. The discussion on Sky alluded to the fact when there was speculation about a whole England squad being based in the NRL before too long. While that would probably be good for the England team it doesn't do much for the selling of Super League in its own market.
There is a league competition for those clubs that want a lower operating budget, and that is the Championship.
The argument goes that the game is going to lose it's best players anyway.
If clubs then simply raised the wages of existing pro players, and brought in players on pro-contracts that could not get a pro-contract before then the clubs would be creating a form of wage inflation.
I haven't a clue how many players will go in time, but there is something to be said for an adjustment of the cap down if the best players go in significant numbers.
Exactly what I dunno, but there's a fair principle in there.
As you intimate if the fans sense the best players have gone abroad, and crowds drop there's another reason to look at the cap.
Isn't the principle here that we cannot afford (due to the cap)to pay the wages that would keep the best players here unless we allowed anyone rich enough to break the cap considerably.
Then what - a two or three team uncompetitive league?