Aussie female cricketers to get massive pay day after historic offer from Cricket Australia

67 Have your say

    Meg Lanning. (AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)

    Related coverage

    The average wage of Australia’s international female cricketers is set to skyrocket following a historic Memorandum of Understanding offer from Cricket Australia to the Australian Cricketers’ Association.

    Under the five-year offer tabled by the game’s governing body, the average pay packet of professional female cricketers in Australia would rise by more than 125 per cent.

    That would see the average domestic player salary rise from $22,000 to $52,000 for cricketers contracted to teams from the Women’s National Cricket League and the Women’s Big Bash League, while the average international players’ wage would rise from $79,000 to $179,000.

    Under the Memorandum of Understanding, that latest figure is expected to rise to $210,000 by 2021.

    The Memorandum of Understanding is also good news for Australia’s male cricketers, with the average state cricketer playing in the Matador Cup and Big Bash League set to see their salary rise from $199,000 to $235,000 by 2021/22.

    Average international wages for male players, including BBL contracts, match fees and performance bonuses, will rise to $1.45 million by 2021-22, up from the current figure of $1.16m.

    “We are pleased that the Australian Cricketers Association agrees with us that women, for the first time, should be part of the Memorandum of Understanding, and we have proposed a financial model that has gender equity at its heart,” Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland said.

    “Under this offer, we will achieve gender equity by ensuring that the minimum and average hourly pay will be the same for state men and women in 2017/18. In addition, match fees for the WNCL and the Matador Cup will be exactly the same: a one-day game for a state cricketer is worth the same to both men and women.

    “We are also introducing, for the first time, prizemoney for the WNCL of $258,000 and the WBBL of $309,000 this coming summer.

    “Cricket has led the charge on providing a real sporting career path for women, and this offer locks in all that hard work of the past few years. It is truly an historic development which allows us to say with confidence that cricket is a sport for all Australians.”

    The deal is also set to see investment in grassroots player development rise, with Cricket Australia committing itself to finding an extra $25m to put towards the area. Should they follow through on that commitment, the total funding for grassroots cricket would rise to $76m.

    Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland and chairman Wally Edwards

    While the deal is not yet official, Sutherland said he was confident of signing a complete agreement by July this year.

    “We understand that the ACA prefers the status quo, but CA believes that the model devised in the 1990s, which is based on a fixed percentage of revenue, has served its intended purpose – to make Australia’s cricketers some of the best paid sportspeople in the country,” Sutherland said.

    “It was a means to an end, not something that has to hold us back from providing players with financial certainty, a fair deal for all players including women, and the flexibility to invest in the grassroots of the game.

    “This is a landmark agreement. We are now looking forward to sitting down with the ACA to work through the details and we are confident we will be able to announce a completed agreement before June 30.”

    Daniel Jeffrey
    Daniel Jeffrey

    Daniel is Editor of The Roar. You can catch him on Twitter @_d_jeffrey.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (67)

    • March 21st 2017 @ 6:16pm
      Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 6:16pm | ! Report

      I don’t mean to sound harsh and I don’t doubt the endeavour of our female cricketers but how can you receive $180k a yr doing something that generates little public interest and little financial return?

      Doesn’t demand = financial return?

      • March 21st 2017 @ 6:42pm
        Sydneysider said | March 21st 2017 @ 6:42pm | ! Report

        Cricket Australia has the money to throw around, just like the AFL does, to keep women playing cricket.

        This is a good outcome for women that play the game BUT I do agree that it is the men’s game that is subsidising the women’s game.

      • March 21st 2017 @ 6:46pm
        Craig said | March 21st 2017 @ 6:46pm | ! Report

        I agree. The standard of womens cricket is incredibly poor and it’s probably below the standard of a 3rd grade mens team (in actual reality an amateur park cricket team would beat the womens team, but thats not what I’m saying. I’m saying the actual standard for a supposed professional team is incredibly poor).

        The amount of money to pay the top 11 womens cricketers will be far more revenue than the game is able to generate.

        Whilst I’m happy for the womens team to be propped up in an attempt to improve and develop the game, how is this sustainable over a longer period of time?

        The argument for equal pay simply doesn’t stack up. Revenue generated becomes a factor at some point.

        • March 22nd 2017 @ 12:22pm
          ChrisB said | March 22nd 2017 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

          And just what do you base these enlightened opinions on? Watched any games have you? Seen the women okay men’s teams for an actual objective opinion?
          And why exactly do they have to be exactly as good as the men to earn a decent living? Why is it no enough to be the best female players? Best way of attracting more players and boosting this sub-standard talent pool as you see it

      • March 21st 2017 @ 7:10pm
        northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 7:10pm | ! Report

        My accountant makes more than that, and I can guarantee there’s no public interest and not much financial return to anyone but him.

        • March 21st 2017 @ 7:46pm
          Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 7:46pm | ! Report

          Is there a demand for his services?

          • March 21st 2017 @ 8:19pm
            northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:19pm | ! Report

            Oh, so it’s not actually income generated that matters? Changing the definitions now, are we? Make up your mind.

            • March 21st 2017 @ 9:27pm
              Hard Yards said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:27pm | ! Report

              Sorry, accountants, aren’t split into men’s and women’s comps, just so women have a chance of succeeding. And last time I worked in an accountants office, the number of accounts was roughly split down the middle sex wise and both sexes were paid the same

              Sorry, your hyperbolic argument fall flat on its face and is just BS. As soon as you learn the the difference between equality and privilege, we might be able to have a civil discussion, with out being labeled by those who don’t like their point of view challenged.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:54pm
                northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:54pm | ! Report

                No, accountants aren’t split into separate comps. I can think of plenty of sporting competitions that are split, though. I don’t think the average flyweight boxer is expected to take on a heavyweight, for example. Boxing, weightlifting, wrestling, martial arts, all split by size, and no one objects to giving the little guys a chance to succeed, so what’s the deal with women?

                And I’m quite aware of the difference between equality and privilege. Privilege was when virtually all the professions, accounting included, were male-dominated. Equality was when women finally got an equal opportunity for further education and a career, and by golly, they grabbed those opportunities and suddenly those professions are 50/50. This is a step towards that in sport: equal opportunity. It’s up to the women to make the most of it. Not sure why that’s a problem for some men, but it seems to be.

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 12:24pm
                ChrisB said | March 22nd 2017 @ 12:24pm | ! Report

                Don’t make these informed comments mate , you’ll confuse the knuckle draggers on here, of which there are plenty

            • March 21st 2017 @ 9:56pm
              Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:56pm | ! Report

              northerner, if you read my opening comment again you’ll answer your question. Being aggressive can often skew ones comprehension.

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 8:46am
                northerner said | March 22nd 2017 @ 8:46am | ! Report

                I gave you my answer. There are thousands of people earning $180,000 a year with little public interest and little financial return. Quite a few senior and not so senior civil servants are just one example.

                But lets think of another example: a start up company. Money is poured into the company with no return for three or four years, and then, the business grows and the proceeds start flowing in. Why would you think investment of that sort can’t be justified? And that’s exactly what we’re discussing here. Investing now to grow the game.

                In any case, your basic premise is wrong. As the WBBL has showed, there is public interest in women’s cricket.

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 10:57am
                Basi said | March 22nd 2017 @ 10:57am | ! Report

                Here’s a clue…

                Demand = financial return

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 4:02pm
                northerner said | March 22nd 2017 @ 4:02pm | ! Report

                Basil – demand = financial return?

                Umm, no. The relationship between demand and revenue is, to put it mildly, somewhat more complex than that. But even if it were that simple, then explain to me why you are challenging the pay of women cricket players when the demand for their game is, to judge by TV ratings at least, on a par with men’s sports like rugby and A League? If you really believe in equality you have to apply the same standards to all these sports, not just to the one played by women.

    • Roar Guru

      March 21st 2017 @ 6:20pm
      sheek said | March 21st 2017 @ 6:20pm | ! Report

      Good on them.

      Basil, women’s sports is going gang-busters in case you haven’t noticed.

      As the father of a daughter in her early 20s, the sooner we get pay equality across the board, the better.

      • March 21st 2017 @ 6:40pm
        no one in particular said | March 21st 2017 @ 6:40pm | ! Report

        they can get equal pay as soon as they generate equal income

        • March 21st 2017 @ 7:08pm
          northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 7:08pm | ! Report

          Funny, there are thousands of civil servants, federal and state, that make better money than that and generate no income at all. Plenty of really valuable people like cops, firemen and ambos that don’t actually generate income either. Not to mention all the union bosses, politicians and judges. The value of work is not necessarily judged by the income generated.

          • March 21st 2017 @ 8:06pm
            Craig said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:06pm | ! Report

            Different industies.

            Talk to actors who are only in minor movies compared to major movie stars in big films. Same principle applies.

          • March 21st 2017 @ 9:21pm
            Hard Yards said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:21pm | ! Report

            Funny, civil servants aren’t split into men’s and women’s comps, just so women have a chance of winning.

            Until they are, your argument hold absolutely no water.

            • March 21st 2017 @ 9:56pm
              northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:56pm | ! Report

              The argument is that wages should be based on income generated. Civil servants don’t generate income. So presumably, they shouldn’t be paid at all if income is the determining factor. Obviously, income generated does not determine wages in many fields. The argument is flawed.

        • March 21st 2017 @ 7:13pm
          JoM said | March 21st 2017 @ 7:13pm | ! Report

          They aren’t ever going to get the same amount as the men, earnings wise or sponsorship wise, and for the exact reason you said above which I agree with. But, these girls work as hard as the men training wise and a lot are doing uni degrees as well as their cricket because they won’t ever earn the money out of cricket (before now anyway) to support themselves for the rest of their lives. They are as dedicated to it as the men are and this will make things a bit easier for them.

      • March 21st 2017 @ 7:09pm
        Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 7:09pm | ! Report

        I have a daughter too Sheek. I also teach her that privileges should be earned on merit rather than growing up with a feeling of entitlement.

        • March 21st 2017 @ 7:22pm
          Darren said | March 21st 2017 @ 7:22pm | ! Report

          I don’t think merit/entitlement is relevant.
          Except in the sense that these are the best female players who have earned their place on the representative teams through merit. They also clearly don’t have a sense of entitlement otherwise they wouldn’t have kept playing the game they love all those years for a pittance while trying to hold down a job.
          And if a sports star is paid $10M a year have they earned it?

        • March 21st 2017 @ 8:11pm
          Dr.Canuck said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:11pm | ! Report

          Entitlement!! You must be joking! If, in any way, female athletes in this country are acting entitled you have some seriously altered glasses you’ve been looking through. They don’t generate the income so they don’t get the pay? If that was the case nothing would ever change….glad to see the white male supporting the status quo. What a surprise.
          This is called growing the sport. This is called attracting a whole new fan base. This is called opening the eyes of young women to playing something other than netball….and opening the eyes of cavemen everywhere that women might actually (if supported) become good at something. I teach my daughter to challenge the status quo every day…..some other fathers obviously want their daughters to marry a doctor….not be one.

          • March 21st 2017 @ 8:25pm
            Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:25pm | ! Report

            Whoa there Dr Canuck. White male supporting the status quo? Are you serious?
            My daughter can be whatever she wishes to be and have my support. How dare you try to take the moral high ground by making sweeping assumptions like that.

            • March 21st 2017 @ 8:39pm
              Dr.Canuck said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:39pm | ! Report

              fair call Baz….but I’m not going to back down on my support. It’s not just about the national side. it’s about getting more participation in sport by girls. It’s about getting teenage girls to continue in sport rather than quit (because they now have role models to show playing sports as a late teen is supported by society…not ridiculed). If you want women’s cricket to be the equal of the men’s game you’re going to be waiting a long time. Just because Serena would lose to Roger doesn’t mean she’s less of an athlete. But she wouldn’t be there unless she was given a chance to show her stuff in the first place. Give them a go

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:16pm
                Hard Yards said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:16pm | ! Report

                “Serena would lose to Roger doesn’t mean she’s less of an athlete”

                Wrong, it would mean she is less of an athlete, a training does not equal athletic ability. To me that’s like saying the the 300th ranked player (even best estimates say she would be ranked around about 350th in the men’s comp) in the world is the same a Roger, even through his athletic ability not good enough to even approach the top ten. Should that same Player get payed the same as Roger, even though he hasn’t got a chance of winning a Grand slam?

                And if there was true equality, it would mean women men would compete with men on an equal footing. that way if they were good enough, they would have the same chance to win the same prize money as men, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

                Now feel free to genralise and label me as you see fit. Let the hypocrisy run free, just because I pointed out what true equality would be.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:54pm
                Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:54pm | ! Report

                I really don’t know where to start with this comment. The stupidity is palpable.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:18pm
                Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:18pm | ! Report

                I agree. All girls should be playing sport, it’s important for their physical, mental, social, and emotional development. If they happen to excell at a particular sport and have a career path in that sport to continue in then great. Does that mean that we now start setting up professional leagues in different sports to give girls a career path even though there may be very little viewing interest in some of them? Can my son earn big money playing Indoor Soccer just because he enjoys playing it even though there is little viewing interest in the game? Female tennis is big because people want to watch it, this is what generates an industry.

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 6:35am
                Baz said | March 22nd 2017 @ 6:35am | ! Report

                i love this my sport it is small can i earn money playing it n not work plz but its not going to happen.

                However i as a cricket fan do support this move.

                WBBL has the advantage of being able to see the ball better as it goes a little slower through thr air also spinners have a bit more flight.

                Yes they dont generate the money.

                But i beleive this is an investment in the battle front of the parents who have alot of say over what sport thier children play.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:59pm
                northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:59pm | ! Report

                But there’s evidence that people do want to watch women’s cricket, AFLW and other women’s sports. The ratings may not be comparable to the men’s forms of those sports, but they’re certainly comparable to some other men’s sports. That ought to be justification enough for professionalising the sports.

        • March 21st 2017 @ 8:20pm
          Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:20pm | ! Report

          Basil,

          Seriously. Regardless of gender these women are just as serious and dedicated athletes in comparison to their male counterparts. So what if they cannot bowl as quickly or hit a ball as far they still work their guts out to be the best they can possibly be. They’ve earned every penny of their in comparatively miserly salaries compared to the men.

          Instead of trying to disregard and question their worth perhaps you should present them to your daughter a prime examples of what hard work, dedication and perserverence can achieve. And while you’re at it. Wake up. It’s 2017 and even the smallest (and this is in all reality) resemblance of recognition for effort is long overdue.

          • March 21st 2017 @ 8:29pm
            Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:29pm | ! Report

            It’s not about gender. It’s not even about skill. There are plenty of amateur sportspeople with just as much dedication as the pros. This doesn’t automatically qualify them to to big pay packets.

            • March 21st 2017 @ 8:44pm
              northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:44pm | ! Report

              For crying out loud, what exactly is the issue here? Their employer thinks they’re worth the pay they’ll be getting – what more is to be said, other than you don’t like it for reasons you can’t quite articulate? Ever heard of employers investing in employees in order to build the business? That’s what’s happening here. And since they’re paying the piper, they get to call the tune.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 8:52pm
                Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:52pm | ! Report

                Bang on. CA has determined that these athletes are worth at least this much and are willing to pay them for their services. They are no less dedicated to the sport as the men. Even then, it’s relatively peanuts in comparison.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 10:01pm
                Jameswm said | March 21st 2017 @ 10:01pm | ! Report

                There’s also promoting the growth of women’s cricket, to get younger girls into it. It’s not always about a finite bottom line, and this is more than an income-generating business. There is promotion, which cannot be calculated.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 10:15pm
                Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 10:15pm | ! Report

                Getting upset doesn’t make you right.

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 8:48am
                northerner said | March 22nd 2017 @ 8:48am | ! Report

                Basil – being unable to mount a cogent argument doesn’t make you right either.

              • March 22nd 2017 @ 12:29pm
                ChrisB said | March 22nd 2017 @ 12:29pm | ! Report

                Absolutely spot on. It’s an investment and if it wasn’t worth it to CA, they wouldn’t do it. They’re in a battle with netball, AFL, basketball etc plus individual sports to attract athletic girls, you need to offer a decent reward path, as you do for male athletes. Not to mention the PR message it sends, this is worth more than annoying a few sexist cretins

            • March 21st 2017 @ 8:45pm
              Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:45pm | ! Report

              I think it has a lot to do with gender in your case. It’s clear in your ‘contributions’ that you hold certain archaic beliefs on the topic.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:29pm
                Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:29pm | ! Report

                Once again the moral high ground has been taken, Bravo. It’s a PC issue.

                Lets be genuine here. If your interested, vote with your feet and go watch rather than just throwing someone else’s money at and have a smug feeling of supporting progressiveness. That’s the whole thing about “equality” now, it’s more lip service than anything else. If you truly believe, then support it in a physical way. Go, watch, support. Everything else is just grandstanding.

                Ask my wife and my football playing daughter if I’m “archaic”.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 9:48pm
                Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:48pm | ! Report

                I have put my money where my mouth is and turned up and tuned in.

                You’ve done yourself in with the whole PC bit. I was raised to value someones effort regardless of age, race, gender etc. My position is not some point scoring exercise. I geniunely appreciate the levels of skill and dedication on show. It’s the true essence of the sporting contest. Something that’s the exclusive realm of men.

                You clearly believe otherwise.

              • March 21st 2017 @ 10:12pm
                Basil said | March 21st 2017 @ 10:12pm | ! Report

                What’s with the assumptions? You don’t know me and are using them to build a case against me purely based on what you feel.
                It is PC. True equality doesn’t see race, age, or gender.

        • March 22nd 2017 @ 12:26pm
          ChrisB said | March 22nd 2017 @ 12:26pm | ! Report

          Yeah the like of Ellyse Perry and Meg Lanning are entitled are they? What you’re teaching your daughter is that women’s sports are inferior, women are inferior athletes, therefore not worth paying or watching. Bet she feels awesome

          • March 22nd 2017 @ 2:37pm
            Basil said | March 22nd 2017 @ 2:37pm | ! Report

            Why do your views come with put downs?

            Im not saying that at all. I was simply saying that demand drives everything. Demand drives womens pro tennis. Demand drives womens NBA. I don’t recall putting down womens pro sport at all. I was just questioning the demand on womens cricket in relation to the contracts, that’s all. I’d be asking the same question if male netballers were going to be on $180k contracts as well.

            By the way, how do you know what I’m teaching my daughter? She is one of the happiest kids you’ll ever meet.

      • March 21st 2017 @ 8:26pm
        Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:26pm | ! Report

        Sheek,

        We’ve butted heads more often than not recently but I do agree on this topic. I am still amazed how business seem to think they can justifiably shprt change women in regards to pay and entitlements. I don’t have children. So no daughters but I do have nieces who are every bit as worthy of praose and recognition as boys of their age. Hell, the eldest is a bad arse Ice Hockey player who leaves the boys for dead.

    • March 21st 2017 @ 8:11pm
      tigranes said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:11pm | ! Report

      David Warner earns millions more than any doctor, police offucer, nurse…does he deserve it any less…considering he assaulted someone and got to keeo his job

    • March 21st 2017 @ 8:11pm
      Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:11pm | ! Report

      People are talking about the Womens game being able to generate revenue. Considering the stand alone WBBL games drew ratings far in excess of what the A-League and Super Rugby have would suggest that there is value in the womens game.

      As for the standard. It’s all relative. Comparing the mens game to tye womens is comparing apples and oranges. Completely different.

    • March 21st 2017 @ 8:24pm
      Swanny said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:24pm | ! Report

      Working class

      Im not sure your ratings on afl w are accurate mate . Round 1 was a success but massive drop off since then .

      Anyhow good luck to the girls in chasing a career in any sport .

      • March 21st 2017 @ 8:29pm
        Working Class Rugger said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:29pm | ! Report

        I was talking about the WBBL as it relates to this particular article. They did rate quite a bit abovethe A-League and Super Rugby. In regards to the AFL W. There was a significant drop off but the last FTA ratings i saw were still above the two mens leagues mentioned.

      • March 21st 2017 @ 8:51pm
        northerner said | March 21st 2017 @ 8:51pm | ! Report

        All the figures are here on Wookie’s site:

        http://www.footyindustry.com/?p=3467

        The Foxtel figures for A League, Super Rugby and AFLW are very similar for last week. And of course, the women got 145,000 FTA viewers as well. I’d say they’re doing just fine in the circumstances.

    • March 21st 2017 @ 9:17pm
      Brainstrust said | March 21st 2017 @ 9:17pm | ! Report

      The reason they are increasing the womens pay is because they are paid so little its easy to increase.
      Then they can put pressure on the men to sign up to the deal.
      When Cricket Australia agreed to the percentage of revenue it was when the revenue was low.
      and expenses were low.
      Cricketers then got massive pay increases when Cricket Australia’s revenue skyrocketed.
      This offer looks generous but Cricket Australia are playing the cricketers.
      The Ashes is about to come and the skyrocketing of revenue will come with that so they will get bigger increases anyway. WHo knows what else they have in the pipeline.
      The reason Cricket Australia wants to cut the percentage of revenue that goes to pay cricketers effectively is they want to spend even more on the Big Bash and other stuff.

    Explore:
    , , , ,