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.
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.”
Hayden
Guest
Makes sense that match fees for WNCL & Matador Cup One Day Matches are the same as No one attends these matches and there is "NO" Commercial Value in these matches.
northerner
Guest
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.
Basil
Guest
Thank you for your measured response. I asked a genuine question and have been answered with a fair bit of aggression by people taking some form of moral high ground, resorting to name calling and questioning my parenting skills. Once again, I was asking a simple question, why do people feel the need to take the need to take this approach?
Basil
Guest
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.
Wandering Aloud
Guest
I'll take your point there and apologise for lumping that line in that paragraph. It was petter placed in the one above. The point still stands that we don't know if there is a market yet and won't for a while. We are in a flux moment where a large number of female athletes who had successful amateur careers have stepped away after school or university. My wife is one who wishes the Big Bash had been around when she was playing elite junior softball... Now that there are some viable options for making money in sport the female talent drain will slow significantly and the product will improve. This is classic chicken and egg. With respect to the PC v demand. Does it matter? The potential second order benefits for health budgets, increased revenue as parents of girls get involved, as well as the message it sends regarding gender equity are surely justification enough to at least give it a go.
ChrisB
Guest
So you think female players are worthy of attention if they're hot enough to partner a major sportsman or get modelling gigs? Nice BTW both are excellent players, and yes they are pretty attractive. I'd think most fans have also heard of Meg Lannng at least, I mean she's only the captain and (until recently) the no1 ranked bat in the world (and is also quite easy on the eye, for what it's worth). Runs a good cafe too....
ChrisB
Guest
Spot on. It's pretty damning of the level of discourse and awareness of so called fans if they can't name the current Aussir captain or its longest serving player (Alex Blackwell) but can wax lyrical about an obscure Shield/BBL player
ChrisB
Guest
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
ChrisB
Guest
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
ChrisB
Guest
Don't make these informed comments mate , you'll confuse the knuckle draggers on here, of which there are plenty
ChrisB
Guest
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
Basi
Guest
Sorry mate, I don't see one comment of mine where I am condemning Professional female sport. As Ive stated, I don't doubt there endeavour. My original question was in reference to whether this is a genuine Industry which has a demand or a PC issue. That's all.
Basi
Guest
Here's a clue... Demand = financial return
aussikiwi
Guest
The women get a pay increase which still leaves them earning a small fraction of what the men earn. Cue outrage from male posters, and tired threadbare old arguments against equity. If women were receiving equal pay these arguments might have a semblance of relevance. What exactly are you (most of you) complaining about????? It really does come across as angry white male mysogyny.
northerner
Guest
Basil - being unable to mount a cogent argument doesn't make you right either.
northerner
Guest
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.
Baz
Guest
its also to stop the women who are good at cri let going off to other sports abd being poached. noone can complete with tennis and golf for potential income but that pool of people is less than 10 that do well so not a high number
Baz
Guest
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.
Wandering Aloud
Guest
I want to take issue with Hard Yards line of argument and state unequivocally that gender equality as he has narrowly defined it has absolutely no place in areas of physical endeavour where the consequence of females being relatively weaker isn't injury or death. That means outside of some very specialised military areas there is no reason why we shouldn't provide equity, that great concept of fairness, rather than blind equality... Why, because to put those relatively weaker individuals into the same arena would be deny them the opportunity to compete and visit on them almost certain injury and potentially death (in the case of many contact sports) simply because they were born female. To make the fatal mistake and fight a battle on two fronts I'll take issue with the second antagonist. Basil, we don't know how much income these girls will generate yet because they haven't had the opportunity. Television doesn't cover amateur sport anymore, just ask the Shute Shield, so there is no way to know if people are interested in buying tickets, merchandise or just plonking themselves on the couch without giving it a go. Even if they are required to be subsidised by their male counterparts, who lets face it can spare a couple of quid (unless you're the ARU), saying that because they are (in general) genetically weaker their endeavours are less valuable is insulting and misses the point. Which is this; Basil, name for me please one negative aspect of professionalising women's sport that isn't financial. If the promise of a big pay day gets some girls out playing Cricket or one of the Football codes, then rather than showing indignation those supporters of the Men's codes who subsidise professional women's sport should feel justifiably proud of the positive effect the sport they love is having on the community as a whole.
Maggie
Guest
I would hope most cricket fans would know Alyssa Healey as an excellent wicketkeeper and batter. They probably known the personal stuff as well but that is incidental to her cricketing ability. And by the way, both Meg Lanning and Alyssa Healey played in the first XI boys team at their respective schools while in their teens.