As of today, the Professional Footballers’ Association no longer has a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Football Federation Australia.
With the next season only five months away and negotiations starting today, the timeline for negotiating a new CBA is tight.
With the existing broadcast rights deal for the A-League set to expire on June 2013 and the new broadcast rights deal with Fox Sports and SBS set to take over, a clear view has been provided as to the revenue that will be pumped into football over the course of the next four years.
On November 1st 2012, the new Collective Bargaining Agreement was to be concluded as the contract ‘window’ would open for the 2013/14 season. Unfortunately, this would not be the case due to numerous issues that require resolving.
“Accordingly, players and clubs in the A-League when developing their contracts must have a clear idea of the quantum of money within the league, in order that negotiations between players and clubs, as well as the capacity of clubs to develop their lists, are not restricted,” said the PFA.
“This means that the FFA must commence and conclude negotiations concerning a new CBA as a matter of urgency.
“A failure to do so will place significant risk on clubs and the A-League that contracts for the coming seasons will not be completed consistent with the full employment standards which apply in the A-League.”
Confirmation as to whether or not the Collective Bargaining Agreement will commence today is yet to be determined as the A-League Collective Bargaining Facts Book indicates that the FFA and PFA were to begin negotiations in June of 2012.
Doing a bit of research it is quite clear there are numerous problems facing both parties.
In December 2012, Archie Thompson blasted the FFA over a pitched $2500-a-game fee for players participation in the East Asia Cup, whilst the Professional Footballers’ Association was after $3250, or half the $6500 agreed under the terms of the CBA.
Though, on the other hand, as reported by FourFourTwo’s Kathy Stone, “The Federal Government’s Smith Review – endorsed by the FFA – suggested footballers were overpaid and called for a reduction or freezing of the salary cap which is set at $2.5 million per club. FFA chairman Frank Lowy has already said there will be no increase.”
After such a successful season in terms of attendance, viewing, memberships, merchandise and social media usage, the players would surely be entitled to an increase in pay, or at least contractual security?
Now before the players receive a blasting or are branded to selfish and greedy, the players have continuously stood up for the game whilst agreeing to have caps placed on their wages to financially assist clubs to ensure a high degree of competitive balance can be maintained on the field.
The PFA have not even made an issue as of yet about whether or not a pay increase will occur – the PFA simply want player contracts to be honoured.
Despite the short history of the A-League, over 70 players have lost or risk losing over $2.5 million as a result of changes in club ownership or the loss of a license.
They believe the rights of players in Australia are under threat in six areas. These are:
1. Protection if you are injured
2. Contract security
3. Investment in PFA player development and well being programs
4. The CBA grievance procedure
5. A-League player payments
6. CBA implementation
These issues must be addressed if:
. World-class Socceroos are to continue to return to Australia to play in the A-League;
. The A-League is going to be an attractive career choice for Australian players;
. The A-League is to continue to attract top quality foreign professionals; and
. The A-League is to retain longer our next generation of developing professionals; future Socceroos.
It seems very clear the numerous issues that surround the CBA require a fair amount of diligence, patience and commitment to ensuring the Professional Footballers’ Association are satisfied and the players receive a “fair and equitable share” of the games revenue.
The matter of player payments is something the PFA clearly don’t mess around with.
With circumstances reminiscent to when in August 2011, players in Divisions 1 and 2 in Spain went on strike due to contractual issues, is there a chance we could be heading for the same fate?
Will the Collective Bargaining Agreement be reached before the commencement of the 2013-14 season? Can the FFA afford to fork out $100,000,000 in the form of a salary cap and possibly more?
Hopefully this matter can remain minor and behind closed doors to ensure the A-League continues the positive trends it has witnessed for the 2012-13 season.
Whatever is to eventuate, the players need to be accommodated for whilst ensuring the best intentions of the game are adhered to.
Cameron
Roar Guru
Nordster, Ultimately I believe that is inevitable if football continues to grow and grow well. The current processes used for equalisation can only last so long. Bigger clubs like Sydney fc and Victory have been able to rise above and grow beyond equalisation and with this process still in place their development is potentially being restricted. Though in the mean time if they can build whilst these processes are in place then sustainability may become more concrete
nordster
Guest
Just on the youth orientated club and what this would mean for football in that area....for a regional club i would suggest it is a positive. Especially when u think about it in the sense that its a choice between being able to afford a club well under an 85pc wage floor, or not being able to have one at all. Most areas regional areas cant meet this 85pc level without either centralised or owner subsidy. The other factor is that these areas are very parochial and provided the expectations are realistic for crowd support on a per capita basis, there would be comparable support there. FU touches on a key point for the future of our league...do we want a competition where we expect all teams to operate within a similar, narrow band...ie equalisation....or do we want a broader mix of clubs. From the super club, to the mid table up and comer, the development orientated small regional club. I think we need room for all these types of club....its a much healthier scenario....and also fits the future ambition for a multi division Aleague.
Cameron
Roar Guru
Football United, As Nordster said "... having some clubs operate below it as a means of promoting a youth development ethos at some of the (supposedly) ‘struggling’ clubs." And what you've added do provide food for thought and based on the culture of the club this could be seen being done. The problem with this though is despite developing the youth, what does it do to develop the overall aspect of the game, especially in Gosford? The salary cap once finalised should serve to financially help club owners and cut costs that may have been incurred by a possible $500,000 - $1,000,000. Now with that said the Mariners can continue development and afford to pay players and provide the A-league with competitive football. Let's not forget we have a brand to sell even more next year..
Football United
Roar Pro
agree nordster, clubs trading within their means and paying what they afford is a far superior model everyone having to operate at the same level. CCM should be allowed to have a squad of 18-21 youngsters on youth wages or if they want to, it would be there choice to chase a trophy or continue to build a young squad. It would allow them to concentrate on what they do best which is build up youth and then sell them.
Cameron
Roar Guru
Unless we want an EPL style system used in relation to our clubs to ensure financial gains then the salary cap is a must. Surely if the salary cap floor was abolished we may see teams like Mariners become more financially viable but they too may become less competitive and then teams like Sydney and Victory may prosper even further. The fact the whole salary cap will more than likely be covered by the FFA means it isnt coming out of the Mariners pockets despite other costs associated with running a club not being covered. I'm sure if we can get through the next four years then though another four years with hopefully a better tv deal, then this may be an option and open the door for expansion to occur again??
Cameron
Roar Guru
Good point Fuss, I didnt pick up on that when reading the Archie Thompson example. I saw PFA in the Archie example and thought that the two go together. Regardless of this example not being able to be associated with CBA there are other examples within the CBA that surely do help and in some ways may paint a different picture that requires a more serious approach from both parties to ensure a mutual agreement is made for the betterment of the game.
Cameron
Roar Guru
Midfielder, If there was to be a small increase on the salary cap, would it be the same set amount for each of the four years or would there be an annual increase per year, possibly 5%?? If that were to be the case and a 5% increase were to occur per season on a CBA that would mean: Year 1 - $26,250,00 split between 10 clubs Year 2 - $27,562,500 split between 10 clubs Year 3 - $28,940,625 split between 10 clubs Year 4 - $30,387,656.25 split between 10 clubs Thus totaling an expenditure on salary of: $113,140,781.25 over four years. That's out of a total of $160,000,000 on the latest tv deal, but this does not take into consideration any other money the FFA may garner through other deals. I am not saying the cap won't be reached, I am saying there is enough there to suggest concerns can be raised as to the smoothness of the arrangement. The CBA is vital to ensuring the A-League clubs stay strong as we can not afford to live without a salary cap. What are you thoughts Mid?
Midfielder
Guest
The PFA is not stupid the clubs lost 20 million last year .... me thinks there will be a small increase in the salary cap .... I cannot see the an agreement not being reached and like Fuss I see what is being requested being reasonable and in principal already agreed by FFA... the only real question is what the new salary cap will be and how many players per side for the A-League and youth league...
nordster
Guest
If there's one thing all parties *should* agree on as a means of ensuring clubs dont go under, is abolishing the salary cap floor. But then yes that does go against the 'level playing field' thinking...but then surely fans in regional areas would rather at least have a club without the wage floor, then not have one with it. There is significant upside imo to having some clubs operate below it as a means of promoting a youth development ethos at some of the (supposedly) 'struggling' clubs. Imo regional clubs struggle because the bar is set too high for most of them to have a viable, self-sustaining Aleague club.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
One initial observation - the comment attributed to Archie Thompson should not be included in any discussion about the A-League CBA. I'm currently reading: 1. Document titled: 2011/2012 PFA A-League Collective Bargaining Facts Book, A-league Player Rights, Wellbeing & Contract Security; and 2. Hyundai A-League & National Youth League Player Contract Regulations These documents are focused purely on the A-League (& NYL) and have nothing to do with contractual obligations & rights between the FFA & AUS NT members. This is a very complex issue & I certainly do not have sufficient knowledge on the subject. Having said that, the 6 items (which you have listed) and which the PFA has asked that "the FFA must, as a matter of urgency ensure" .. seem reasonable to me.
Cameron
Roar Guru
The problem with having 10 distint EBAs is that the A-League (FFA) want it be a level playing field. Now clearly on-field and off-field this is not represented but with time, diligence, patience and a commitment to developing the quality of the A-League it may be realistic that the A-League can operate off a CBA. The problem in the mean time is planning for the future which I believe most of us feel a need to address. Putting money aside for projects such as expansion and ensuring clubs dont go under are vital and the FFA have been in the process of ensuring this doesnt occur. REcently DG came out saying if anyone needs help they will most likely get it. Consolidating what we have over the next four years and building on it will be fundamental to another 4 years on top of now to ensure growth continues.
Cameron
Roar Guru
Cheers Fuss. Once you absord a little more, I would love to see your input.
nordster
Guest
I think the inherent problem with the CBA is its centralised nature. It treats the league as one business, whereas imo the trend should be in the other direction. Treat it as 10 distinct businesses. Perhaps the (flawed imo) compromise is an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement approach. So 10 EBAs to replace one CBA. Or at least some sort of gutted version of the CBA...gutted of all the wage distorting mechanisms. Thats the bit i take issue with.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Nice work, kellett_1992. I haven't had a chance to fully absorb all the data, but I'm very impressed. Keep it up!
Cameron
Roar Guru
You've replied in fair detail Nordster whilst addressing some finer issues. The major concerns for the PFA is the matter of contractual issues being ironed out to ensure contractual security. This shouldn't be an issue unless money is a concern, thus the need to look into finances the FFA have pocketed. This will aid not just us as fans, but the PFA in terms of what is there to achieve a CBA. Without a CBA the matter of player payments becomes more diluted with problems. It's best the PFA do what is required to best serve the players whilst maintaining the games best interest at heart. That is the message conveyed in the 'A-League Collective Bargaining Facts Book' They may not seek a pay increase but if they do the question of how the FFA could afford this needs to be asked as a potential $100,000,000-$110,000,000 out of $160,000,000 can be spent on players. That doesn't look like it will serve the best interests of our growing league.
nordster
Guest
The whole area of collective bargaining agreements are fraught in concept alone. Why the need to centrally define any labour market terms in relation to wage levels? Its a complete distortion. I see the point on some player welfare issues perhaps. As for going for a wage increase just as a matter of "doing whats best for members" ...this would be short sighted as it may only end up jeopardising the very industry footballers work in. But this is a downside of the centralised approach. It ignores that wage increases can really only be made at an enterprise or club by club level. Applying it across the board is quite dangerous for struggling clubs. Its really damaging to the idea that the game needs to allow each club to spend according to their capacity to do so. More flexibility would be the key to sustainability for small to medium size clubs. Removing the wage floor and the minimum wage level would allow for more scaleable clubs which will aid expansion in the future and make regional clubs more viable. Young players especially would be better off without any defined minimum wage. The one thing an up and coming player has as a competitive advantage in a labour market over an older player is their willingness to work for peanuts to get a start. A positive of this is the competition this creates within a squad and improved performances that go with it. Once the young player impresses they can then negotiate a better deal. I had always assumed it would be the PFA thats the roadblock to some sweeping deregulation of the player market here. Quite likely though it is also the FFA itself and perhaps the very notion of 'equalisation'. It would be interesting to hear more from the folks involved about the sticking points and potential for reform in this area. Unless some of the 'pro free market' noises u here from PFA folks is just window dressing. Maybe they can be the ones to lead some open, market based reform?
Cameron
Roar Guru
To be honest Johnno I don't know if they can push for any more than what they've currently got. They may have to wait till other deals are signed to offset the costs for the ladies. Just in relation to the A-league: If each cap was to operate off $2,500,000 then that's $25,000,000 per season. Over the course of four seasons that equates to $100,000,000. That leaves $60,000,000 for the FFA to splash around, but... $12,000,000 has been allocated to other means. Therefore we are now left with $48,000,000. Minimum wage isn't the problem the PFA feel as though they're facing it's contractual issues. They want security and not issues is Jason Culina or the Mariners playing group. It's could be a strenuous process but I don't see it at all being easy. I'm not sure how it operated 100% in the 80's and 90's and if they played the panda then that's their fault, but in saying that was SOCKAH ever strong like it is today?
Johnno
Guest
Kellet_1992 not much happened in the 80's and 90's , when i was growing up supporting sokah. Put it that way. And same old same old it seems. The PFA should be pushing for a minimum wage , in there enterprising bargaining agreements, the NRL player's association have now put one in place. Also work out a health insurance plan for all players either the club or FFA cover those costs, no shark player managers, all have to be recognised by the FFA, and all must be accredited. Also state league clubs should at least get full private health insurance, it's simple as that. Plus the Matilda's kellet_1992 our ladies also deserve a minimum wage. So a central contract for our top Matilda's player's, plus health insurance . Just little things our ladies deserve kellet_1992. So they are recognised and inclusive. But a minimum wage should be the 1st goal kicked.
Cameron
Roar Guru
Johnno, you'll have to divulge a little further. I don't know much about Foz's time or Paul Wades time?
Johnno
Guest
Kellet_1992, same old same old PFA, going back to Foz's time, and Paul Wade's time. They have done nothing in OZ. Always been weak, the panda to there clubs first, then the NSL and now the A-league. In oz soccer, your on your own, nothings changed.