Australia’s female cricketers have to sign a clause stating they are not pregnant at the time of signing – an indicator of the overall inequality lurking in the sport.
It’s 2016 and women’s cricket is on the rise. The Southern Stars are the world’s best female side with a number of their players ranked among the very best in the women’s game. In fact, they’ve largely outperformed their male equivalents recently. The second edition of the Women’s Big Bash League is lighting up our screens as the game goes from strength to strength.
However, the practitioners of this burgeoning sport are still subjected to treatment inferior to that of their male counterparts. A revelation by The Australian this week shed light on a clause inserted into Cricket Australia’s female contracts which requires signatories to pledge they aren’t – to the best of their knowledge – pregnant.
The clause is a clear representation of the ongoing battle for equal rights within sport and more specifically, cricket. Do men have to sign a similar clause, ensuring that they haven’t impregnated anyone? No. In fact, not even female officials and employees of Cricket Australia are forced to sign this clause.
It is a pure indication that in the Australian sporting world, men and women are not equal. That’s something that players of both sexes have acknowledged and acted upon. The Australian Cricketers Association (ACA), who act on behalf of the sport’s professionals, have claimed women are being treated as ‘second-class citizens’ by the sport’s governing body.
The ACA has only just recently involved its female members in their collective bargaining negotiations and is striving to gain more rights for the underappreciated and underpaid practitioners of the sport.
A proposal, accompanied by a letter signed by Southern Stars Meg Lanning and Alex Blackwell, has been made by the ACA for one agreement for both men and women, and has been endorsed by men’s captain and vice-captain Steve Smith and David Warner.
This proposal seeks to level the playing field for men and women and create a gender neutral agreement which benefits all players of the game. This pregnancy issue seems small in stature, however it points to a larger issue.
The contract inequalities run exceedingly deep and the numbers are, frankly, rather shocking. The minimum pay packet collected by a male from Cricket Australia currently stands at $270,000, according to a submission by the ACA. Their female equivalents rake in a miserly $40,000, including superannuation. This points to an overarching failure of acknowledgement and essentially ignorance towards the value and rights of Australian female cricketers.
Men are offered multi-year contracts as standards while women are often only entitled to single-year contracts.
Financials aside, there are other facets of the contract that simply don’t make for comfortable reading. Female cricketers are not even assured a medical professional at each of their matches, while males are accompanied by an entire medical team.
This now becomes a safety issue which really shouldn’t be overlooked by a body the size and stature of Cricket Australia.
Further, Australian female cricketers are not entitled to a single day of parental leave. Not one. If they wish to go and have a child, they have to do so on an unpaid basis. Female staff who work at Cricket Australia are afforded 4-12 weeks of paid parental leave.
The conditions which these professional athletes are subjected to are simply ludicrous. These are women who are training day upon day to reach the peak of their game in order to represent their country on the cricket field. And they’re basically being told they don’t deserve the big bucks because of their genetic composition – of which they have no control.
And to top it off, they would actually achieve better conditions by abandoning their love and passion for cricket and assuming a humdrum desk job at Cricket Australia headquarters. What kind of a message is that to send to young girls and women who are growing up as aspiring cricketers and sportspeople?
We are in an age where these issues can be resolved – Cricket Australia should get with the times before they irreparably damage their reputation.
Other cricketing bodies have done so in recent times byy upgrading their pay structures to ensure they are in line with standards. Cricket NSW almost doubled the pay of its state cricketers in order to actually get their wages in line with the legal minimum wage!
The maximum rate for a Women’s Big Bash player has recently been lifted over $100,000 as we continue to, very slowly, shift towards much-needed reform in the equality between male and female sportspeople and, more specifically, cricketers.
The future is now, and Cricket Australia should be pressured until they put themselves into hyperspeed and get with the times. A revenue-sharing agreement between men and women is the future. Whether you or anyone else believes that the earning potential of women’s cricket is enough to entitle equal terms with their male equivalents doesn’t matter.
The Southern Stars are a world class cricket side and the very best in their craft. They represent Australia with aplomb time and time again – often lifting trophies and smashing records as they do so.
If they’re not entitled to a fair share of the pie, then honestly who is?
Karshey
Guest
I found this article amusing. 1. There is no background or context provided to the "pregnancy clause" so how do we know what the intent is here? 2. Do you have access to the P&L's for the mens and womens competitions to be able to gauge equality in pay. I think you will find that women in fact get a higher % revenue share than their male counterparts due to the significantly lower revenue streams. As a result each team has different support staff in line with what is financially viable. 3. I received an email yesterday from Cricket NSW promoting umpiring courses. One line was particuarly disturbing. "I am following up people who have registered on the Cricket Australia Umpires website as an umpire and have not yet completed any of the officiating courses offered. This is free for females to complete the course. For males, the cost is $40." In my opinion this is the very definition of gender inequality.
AllyOz
Guest
The inequality in terms of the pregnancy clause isn't CA's fault - blame God or nature if you are looking for someone to blame. As James Sutherland has stated on numerous occasions, for them the work place safety issue - the issue of the safety of the mother and the unborn child - should be given the higher priority. Men can't get pregnant so there will never be equality on this point. On the issue around equal pay, it is good that women are getting some remuneration to be able to play. The amount paid to female cricketer should reflect the amount that they attract from television rights and crowd numbers. It doesn't matter whether they are men or women but how much they are they attract in terms of dollars. Male cricketers earn more than male croquet or lawn bowls players, not because they are less talented at their sports but because of the commercial realities. Similarly the best cricketer will earn less than the best baseball player or NBL/NFL player. If you want to be a professional sportsperson that is the commercial reality that you have to live with. And it is the same in any other entertainment industy, Adele is always going to earn more from singing because she can see and I cant and, more importantly, people will be prepared to pay money to hear her sing.
Same Old
Guest
But being a male and then assuming that you know what pregnancy is like at all, then I say, get with reality mate. Next thing you'll tell me is that a woman wouldn't be capable of putting her dream cricket career ahead of the safety of her unborn child, and therefore keeping it a secrete so as to be selected/play. Its just not PC........
Rellum
Roar Guru
Gerard took it rather easy on him to be honest.
Rellum
Roar Guru
It is illegal to do so and to compare an injury to pregnancy says a lot. Get with the times mate.
andrew
Guest
They can. They can sign a work contract with CA to do that, but it won't be the same pay grade. They are not existing employee's they negotiate contracts annually it would seem.
The Bush
Roar Guru
But that's for existing employees. These aren't existing employees. As an example, in my home state, employers are allowed to discriminate when employing someone for a pre-existing injury assuming it impacts on their ability to do the job. However if they get injured doing the job, then for a certain period time, they can't be dismissed for that injury. Two different things.
Mike Dugg
Guest
its OK to ask a male athlete about previous injuries before signing contracts, something like pregnancy which affects a females sporting output should very much be part of questions asked
Brian
Guest
except the reverse is also true. CA could easily offer the best players 5 year contracts and end up paying unders because the competition is bigger in 5 years. Given the revenue generated by CA which is approx $200m per year taking a "risk" on a few $70,000 per annum contracts is hardly going to change future direction here.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Fail to see how Sutherland has held down the job for so long. I think he's been CEO since 2001, when Malcolm Speed stepped down? That's a long stint in the top job. Time for a change, surely. Mind you, Gerard is a formidable interrogator on these sort of matters, he skewered James Hird on the Essendope scandal and plenty of others besides, so I'm not surprised Sutherland has been made to look foolish.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Just heard James Sutherland on the radio hopelessly trying to tiptoe around this issue. He suggested that Woman could sign a contract if they were pregnant, even though, as Gerard Whateley pointed out to him that is not how it is worded, James just repeated that that is not the intention. I am not sure if James is aware that contract wording is generally considered important. Gerard then asked if he was aware it is illigal to ask if a Woman is pregnant on an employment contract and James just said we have our advice. He kept going on about health and safety when I have always been under the impression it is the woman's decision what they do with their body, not their employers. Sure, sign a understanding of the risks of the game but that is not what happened here. Sutherland is again showing his ineptitude.
Arky
Guest
There's a few separate issues here. The pregnancy clause is a disgrace. If it was just about safety, men and women would have a clause requiring the disclosure of any health condition that puts them at risk of playing including pregnancy but also including many other things. Not requiring them to specifically swear they aren't pregnant. Equal pay and conditions in professional sport is a completely different kettle of fish. This isn't an equal pay for equal work situation. Sportspeople in popular sports can get paid ludicrous amounts- but sportspeople in unpopular sports can get sod all. Female (and male) fencers in Australia get nothing, should they all get paid what the cricketers do too? Also, no need to put down desk jobs. What sort of a message are YOU sending to young women that working with their brain is inherently less important than being a sportswoman?
Christov
Guest
This article has a lot of misleading statements in it.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Denying or modifying employment on the basis of pregnancy is discrimination. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/pregnant-employee-entitlements in particular this part should be relevant to CA. Safe jobs All pregnant employees, including casuals, are entitled to move to a safe job if it isn’t safe for them to do their usual job because of their pregnancy. This includes employees that aren’t eligible for unpaid parental leave. An employee who moves to a safe job will still get the same pay rate, hours of work and other entitlements that she got in her usual job. She and her employer can agree on different working hours. She will stay until it's safe to go back to her normal job, or until she gives birth. The employee will need to give her employer evidence that: •she can work but can’t do her normal job (including why her normal job isn't safe) and •how long she shouldn't work in her normal job. The employer can ask for this to be a medical certificate.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Is it a breach of workplace laws? Presumably you're suggesting it's discrimination? Lots of employment contracts in the wider world are only for a limited time frame. If you're not able to physically perform the role, then that is frequently grounds to deny someone a contract or make it void upon it becoming known. I don't think the "unfairness" here is really about the terms. It's about the lengths of the contracts. If they were offered longer contracts, allowing them to "work" for a certain period of time, then they'd have to be entitled to maternity leave. At point the issue would resolve itself.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Yeah the doctor thing is actually worse and very surprising. You'd think after the Hughes thing that wouldn't fly...
Paul D
Roar Guru
Year to year contracts based on talent & performance - sure, that's the industry. The women aren't on those contracts though. Interesting too everyone is fixated on the pregnancy issue, I would have thought not being guaranteed a doctor at games was a much bigger health and safety breach.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I expect this is definitely the case. I think one year contracts are probably the only real option at the moment. They are hoping to really grow the women's game and it's very much a year, to year prospect. They only started the WBBL last year and had no idea how it was going to go. They are trying to push it a bit more this year. One year contracts mean that if it goes really well, then the women have a chance of getting more in their contract the following year, and if it isn't then CA isn't burdened with making massive losses paying the players dramatically above what the revenue can handle. If the women's game gets to a point where it's both viable and stable they can then consider longer term contracts. I think a lot of the men's contracts are probably only one year ones too. I think most players might be on longer term state contracts, but the national contract list is reviewed every year which would suggest that for the most part those players are on year by year contracts.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Chris, sure - but they're not being offered 5 year contracts. If that was the case they'd sign the contract, have a year unpaid maternity leave and return for the next 4 years. They're not being offered any contract, are told to go away for 12 months and then have no guarantee of employment once they return.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I suspect it does say something like that. But in saying things like that, contracts would generally spell out lots of different areas that need to be disclosed, like injury, illness, pregnancy, other contractual agreements already entered into etc.