Directly shared with almost 700 thousand followers, Australia’s two premier fast bowlers, Mitchell Starc and Pat Cummins, have taken to social media to express their sentiments on the current impasse regarding the proposed pay deal.
One, a touch cryptic, the other was less so.
Before we delve into the world of re-tweets, followers and favourites, let’s take a step back and give some context to the problem that faces Australian cricket – one a bit bigger than our perpetual gripes with selection.
The current pay model was established 20 years ago under the leadership and fortitude former captain, turned commentator and CA board member, Mark Taylor. It is, as we have constantly been reminded, a revenue-sharing model.
For those of us studying Arts as opposed to Business, a simple explanation is that of all the revenue coming in to CA, they share a percentage of that – 26 per cent to be exact – with the players.
As it stands, the claim is that 70 cents from every dollar earned by the sport’s governing body in Australia, end up with the players. This model expires June 30. Under the proposed deal, Cricket Australia would instead control a pool of $500 million dollars – from which all contracted players would be paid.
This is the cause of angst. While ostensibly about equality for players around the country, specifically for female cricketers, who can expect a 125 per cent increase, the ACA led by Alistair Nicholson, continue to reject a “lack of detail in the terms and conditions that underpin the agreement.”
This lack of clarity is said to come in the percentage scheme section of the agreement. Whether or not the 18 per cent rise for state cricketers will accompany a percentage share pay packet as well…
(AAP Image/SNPA, Ross Setford)
The issue that continues to frustrate the players is equality right the way down. At a time when the domestic scene, excluding the BBL, is being seen as little more than a trial for the international XIs, this proposed pay model doesn’t go far to suggest long term ambitions of changing this and returning the Sheffield Shield to the fiercely competitive breeding ground it once was.
Combine this with Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland’s blunt email declaring should the players not accept the deal, they ‘won’t be paid’, and we start to get a picture of a business that operates unilaterally – with little regard for the players.
Hence the sentiments from our tweeters mentioned above. Or at least, that’s what the ACA wants us to think.
Indeed the top-level players in men’s Australian cricket can expect a 30 per cent increase to their pay deals, should the proposed Memorandum of Understanding be accepted. To add some perspective, this year David Warner, and our favourite tweeter, Mitchell Starc, will have pocketed $2 million.
So when considering legitimate equality right they way through the cricketing scene, are they the ones who really need an increase? Cricket Australia is taking steps in the right direction, but at the moment it seems to be negated by a constant need to fund the international men to the point of excess.
I am in support of the players’ calls for #Fairshare – if that is what it really is. For me, the ones who deserve an increase as a part of the pay deal are the female teams, and those at a domestic level. Until there is clarity on how this will happen, I can’t see a Memorandum of Understanding being reached before June 30.
As for Mitch and Pat, I really hope that when tweeting they aren’t thinking with their own pockets.
Another Shane
Guest
meh let the players go, don't let the tail wag the dog, none of them will be in the test side in 10 years anyway. The game is over 140 years old. I am sure there are some shield players who wont mind playing for a couple of million each and will break ranks. We will be awful for awhile but like in the packer years we will rebuild. Stuff all these greedy player unions creeping into world sport.
Hayden
Guest
My Proposal for State Cricketers; * 20 Contracted Players paid a Base Salary of $ 70K a year. * 5 Rookies Players paid a Base Salary of $ 50K a year. * Captain paid 25 % more than the Base Salary and Vice Captain paid 10 % more than the Base Salary. * Match Payments $ 5K per Sheffield Shield Match, $ 2K per Matador Cup Match and $ 1K per Futures Cup Match. * Captain paid 25 % more than the Match Fees and Vice Captain paid 10 % more than the Match Fees. * From 2nd year of Agreement Base Salary and Match Fees increase by 2% each year.
davros
Guest
see thats exactly the illinformed stuff ...you would expect on here ...probably a c a stooge ? Its not really about the international cricketers on good dough ...its about maintaining the revenue sharing model ..which will mostly benefit the lower tier shield players ...i think warner and co are to be commended for having the guts to be concerned for all the domestic players and stick staunch
davros
Guest
oh please please please ...let this be the downfall of the Weasel Teflon Sutherland and his little RA RA sidekick
Don Freo
Guest
I dream of the day when CA and the AFL...and maybe the other winter also rans...buy Channel 10 and establish a Free To Air sports channel that will fill their coffers and send Rupert the Fox, sadly, to his next life.
Don Freo
Guest
Nah! You have to be good if you want to be paid for playing a sport you love. When you are the best and draw folk through the gate, that's when you get paid. Players play because they love the game. They are not going to stop because they are not professional. The good ones will be sought after, contracted and paid. Don't pay them until then...and then pay them the major part of the profit they generate. Would you pay struggling musos just in case there is no music in 3 years? Should all budding actors be on a retainer? Where will the fine artists be in 3 years? Time to pay exercise book doodlers.
Don Freo
Guest
Without cricketers, CA has no cash cow. The players don't get much of the CA income pie...the administration gets too much. Cull the CA office to a handful (instead of its hundreds) and put coaching staff on an hourly contract rate. You'd still have enough to pay the cricketers half the CA budget and enough left over to end world hunger. Get off the gravy train, CA, and pay your cows.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
As Felix says, viewing numbers and general interest are holding up for League. International cricket is in danger of being overtaken by its own domestic bastard child, and to an extent is under the pump from the A-League. If Nine have to drop one, it would be international cricket - which in terms of general interest seems on the decline. Ten aren't in a position to bid for the North Ryde Snooker Championships, nor can Seven afford to pay top dollar for any more sport, thanks to their AFL rights. Nine will probably retain the rights, but with a drop in value (unless it comes bundled with BBL, buit the costs involved in having two production teams and dedicating 10 hours a day to cricket - on combined Test/BBL days - might be too high).
jeff dustby
Guest
a rarity - a sesible comment from you
jeff dustby
Guest
because in tennis people like to watch womens tennis, they dont in cricket
Felix
Guest
League TV numbers are solid this year by all accounts, and that's despite non FOXTEL viewers having to endure 5 more of Rabs' Ramblings. The change to media licensing laws will definitely place downward pressure on all sports negotiations in the near future. Let's just hope it doesn't end up in an Optus style EPL debacle.
Felix
Guest
Of course, why shouldn't they? You'll have a pretty shit XI in 3 years if you don't support those who are embarking on making a career of it.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Sorry when I say league I mean rugby league, the NRL. None of those links mention how ch9 is going to have to renegotiate/alter rethink it's deal with rugby league because ch9 is in trouble. They only talk about Cricket coverage. Hence it fells like a negotiation tactic. The players are not wanting more, they want the status quo to remain, which could mean less money. I support them because they are in this representing all levels of the game, past, present and importantly future, not just their own wallets.
Sydneysider
Guest
"I haven’t heard about how the next League deal is going to suffer because of the bad state of 9" http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/channel-nine-urged-to-end-its-international-cricket-coverage/news-story/731c334afb95db14e90b80d449d518a1 Channel 10: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4661911.htm Channel 7 already has AFL and tennis and the Olympics. Channel 9 will be the only serious bidder thus the TV rights won't be as high as before. Cricket Australia want the status quo to remain so that they can maximise their tv revenue but it's not going to happen. AFL and NRL have sucked all the FTA TV money out of the market for sport. Cricket Australia will still get a very good deal BUT it won't be enough for the players who want more and are threatening to go play in T20 tournaments around the world.
Rellum
Roar Guru
That is surely just a negotiation tactic, I haven't heard about how the next League deal is going to suffer because of the bad state of 9 or the shifting landscape. Deals are up for negotiation and CA and 9 are trying to play everyone for their own benefit.
Sydneysider
Guest
"I also wonder if the ACA will be so wedded to the share of revenue model when rights values decline in future years." That's where it is heading. CA know that Channel 9 has been advised to not hand over more money for the TV deal. The changes in media laws that are coming, the demise of Channel 10, Fairfax sacking journalists, News Corp sacking photographers. The media landscape is changing. Cricket Australia have been told that the new tv deal being negotiated won't have an increase. Channel 9 lose $40 million per year televising international cricket. The direct subscription model won't produce the same amount of revenues that Cricket Australia currently gets, hence why the anti-siphoning list exists. Interesting scenario coming for the ACA and CA.
Harvey
Guest
Getting greedy? I thought they were there already :P
Onside
Guest
Will the Australian team of multi millionaire cricketers defeat another nations team of multimillionaire cricketers.
BrainsTrust
Guest
As I have pointed out before if India and England did not come here the revenue would be almost halved, they don't get paid a cent though for generating almost half the revenue. Women are being paid about 5% of what the men are getting which makes it easier to increase their share.
Joe Bell
Roar Rookie
Do you think the men's game would have become the supremely professional and continually improving entity that it currently is without massive investment? How do you propose the women's game improves to its maximum potential when the best players in the game have to be working a second job just to make ends meet? Without the same access to physios, coaches, facilities ect that the men have the women's game will remain stagnant. Invest and professionalise the game further and you will see better cricket being played >>> bigger crowds >>>> bigger tv deals >>>> increased revenue Your argument is incredibly short-sighted and disappointing how many people comment the same stuff on cricket forums...