The current pay dispute between Cricket Australia and its players has reached a new low, with the parties no longer talking and Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland demanding that players sign the Cricket Australia offer by June 30th, 2017 or they will be unemployed.
While this threat sounds like something from a bygone era, it also raises questions about the necessity for Cricket Australia itself to perform its relatively small role in bringing international cricket series to Australians.
If Cricket Australia can’t reach agreement with its playing talent, someone else ultimately will. To conduct an international cricket series such as the Ashes in Australia is a major production, but most of the heavy lifting is actually performed by others, rather than Cricket Australia.
Cricket grounds are well established and well practiced at hosting international cricket, if Cricket Australia closed its doors tomorrow, the venues would still prepare wickets and host thousands of fans.
The ticket agencies, with which these venues each have contracts, will continue to operate their online ticket sales as they do for other events throughout the year. Major networks, particularly Channel Nine will already have sold the advertising space, have mastered television coverage and don’t need any involvement from Cricket Australia.
The ICC employs the umpires, balls are provided by those suppliers and fans know how to buy tickets and get to the grounds to watch their cricket heroes. An opposition is fairly critical to a Test series, but thankfully overseas teams consider an Australian series a critical sporting and economic fixture.
Which brings us to the Australian players themselves, the talent we all want to see play cricket. From June 30th they will, it seems no longer be contracted employees or partners of Cricket Australia, meaning they are free to pursue other contracts of employment.
The grounds will be ready, the players and opposition prepared, umpires focused, tickets available and Channel Nine ready to welcome us to the first day’s play at the Gabba. The only party not prepared would be Cricket Australia itself.
Will Cricket Australia be missed? Given that the players are no longer bound by contracts, and that all these other parties are reliant on international cricket to financially survive during summer, the market will inevitably and quickly fill the role Cricket Australia performs. In the entertainment industry, Cricket Australia’s role is referred to as the ‘promoter’.
If Adele decides she wants to tour Australia, at least five major promoters will be pitching for the role. They will each present their offer to the performer and a choice will be made.
If one ‘promoter’ is unable to meet the performer’s expectations others will find a way to do so. Once appointed the ‘promoter’ then deals with all the parties we have discussed earlier, to deliver the major event.
Cricket Australia is behaving like it is the only possible promoter of international cricket in Australia, but if it ends its contracts with its players as it has threatened to do, the market will quickly fill the void. Stadium operators, networks, ticket agencies, players and the ICC all have an economic imperative for international cricket to be played.
Most of these parties will not miss Cricket Australia, they already deal with promoters and each other throughout the year when conducting other major events.
Cricket Australia needs to resolve this dispute or face the prospect of losing its monopoly over the role of international cricket promoter in Australia. If this occurred, they would face a future focused only on grassroots cricket administration, the loss of most, if not all revenue, and ultimately for the individuals, the loss of their employment.
Peter Stewart
Guest
Sorry Mr Bean, but players will not have any reduction to their current pay structure, but will receive an additional $13m plus across the board. The additional increase in revenue will go to grassroots. None can argue with that.
Lyndell
Guest
It's not really that simple. The ICC decides who plays Test cricket, and the ICC Is comprised of member national federations. In Australia, that's Cricket Australia. Without changing the structure of the ICC, no Cricket Australia = no test cricket. The role of national sporting federations are broad and includes not only putting on fixtures, but everything from grass roots development, promotion of the game, and nurturing not only players but also officials to a level where they make the cut for the national and international stage. Having a conversation about the future and worth of Cricket Australia with the filter of just one issue (albeit a very big and high profile one) isn't sensible or useful.
davros
Guest
yeah i got that feeling ...similar to when a journalist asked him "if he's job was on the line " when South africa rolled us in tassie ...lol
ches
Guest
Cricket in Australia just does not have enough money. There is not enough money to pay the top 20 contracted players what "They Want", ensure 1st class cricketers can make a good live living and see enough money is funneled down to Grade, club and junior grass roots cricket to develop the game. Hell, the AFL is paying for pieces of infrastructure and the lowest junior levels. Since when have you heard of going down to your local grass roots junior/senior club ground and seeing a small grandstand paid for by CA? never. Womens cricket is emerging fast and need to be paid enough to make a living. Womens cricket standard is not so good at the minute. Why? because they cannot make a living out if it to train full time & CA does not have the money to target training programs to them at the same level as elite men. Womens cricket needs cash. Give to them and watch them fly. No doubt. Where is the cash going to come from to develop grass roots cricket. Without well funded and strong Grade/First Class your elite will be crap. No players coming through. Who is being greedy now? The elites needs to get over themselves and start being paid more Akin to the top AFL & NRL players. First class payers need to be paid as well as the "average" NRL/AFL player. Fact
The Corporate Box
Roar Rookie
No The CEO took a different tack on ABC. Drawing attention to CA's focus on grassroots cricket. In fact under the ACA proposed deal a further 22.5% goes to grassroots cricket, eclipsing the sum offered by CA. Things have turned on CA and having threatened the players with becoming unemployed perhaps the CEO is now realising his own employment is at stake.
davros
Guest
Suitherland didnt look that well ..last night on 730
davros
Guest
Suitherla nd didnt look that well ..last night on 730
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
It is fantastic to see the Australian players standing up for domestic as well as women players. I hope some sense prevails soon. This is ridiculous and this cannot be good for Australia's champions trophy campaign.
Mr Bean
Guest
Peter, you've misread what is happening. The players just want to keep the current pay structure that has been in place for the past 20, because it makes sure that the domestic players and female players are paid properly. CA are trying to change it
Peter Stewart
Guest
Great to see CA and James Sutherland standing up for the game and its future. Not only are the players exceptionally well paid for representing Australia, they can also go overseas to T20 series and become multi-millionaires in the process; The game needs a total approach to funding and everywhere from Shield to the local park cricket club needs to be funded - not just 15-20 top class players
Rellum
Roar Guru
"but they will be forever despised in Australia for putting money before the game" The entire position of the players at the top is fighting for less money. They are arguing to earn less money than what CA is offering. They want to make sure that the domestic and Women's players get more. People in the game will not despise them but rather CA. The players and the ACA need to make sure that everyone is aware of what they are standing for so statements like this, even though talking about T20 money overseas is not going to talk hold in the general population.
davros
Guest
Im not sure how much of this is Really Sutherland ...and how much he has been advised by the corporate goons on the board .....ie former head of wesfarmers and former managing director of rio tinto ...both hardline anti union bully boy co's. I think that CA are just trying it on and if the players stay united with the ACA....c a will eventually have to capitulate and come to the table with the revenue sharing model . Meanwhile they will continue to try it on ....but at the end of the day they know what it will take to reach an agreement ....so as to not deal themselves out of the game . Love to see a clean out at board level though ....
AGordon
Guest
It's clear there can only be a few outcomes from the current dispute; 1) both sides reach an agreement and we all live happily ever after 2) no agreement is reached, potentially we don't have an Ashes series and cricket administration across the nation is thrown into chaos. 3) no agreement is reached but CA still has to honour it's contracts/commitments so uses second string Aussie players, similar to what happened in the '70's. It also tries to keep managing the game but with seriously reduced funding little credibility. Both sides seem to think they're bargaining from a position of strength but they're really in very weak positions. CA's bullying tactics will only get and keep players offside, They cannot continue to run the line that players will be off contract because the names they need to continue to promote cricket have many other income sources available to them, so they can simply walk away. This would leave James Sutherland and his mates pretty much out of a job and cricket in Australia set back by 40 years. On the other hand, the ACA has adopted the arrogant position that "you need us, we don't need you". True, after 30 June, they might go off and earn big bucks elsewhere, but they will be forever despised in Australia for putting money before the game. They're also assuming the various international cricket Boards will allow them to play - what if these Boards decide to side with CA? Both sides need to get back in the sandpit with an arbiter so they can learn to play together - and the sooner they do this, the better. They also need to understand the term "compromise" - maybe The Roar cold get Play School to do an episode on this topic and send it to them. The alternative is too sad to contemplate - extended coverage of the Sydney to Hobart race instead of a Boxing Day Test.
MatthewSkellett
Guest
I can't work out whether Sutherland has gone insane or insanely greedy. This whole shebang makes no responsible sense whatsoever .
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
I don't think there will be any major shake up. Eventually a deal will be reached and the Ashes will go on as planned. The Ashes not happening will be a huge setback for cricket in Australia and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen.
qwetzen
Guest
Others have pointed out valid reasons why CA will survive. I'm pinning my workers' hopes on Sutherland being thrown under the heavy roller as part of any compromise.
matth
Guest
I'm afraid virtually all contracts are with CA. Any rebels would be reduced to playing each other on suburban grounds, remembering there is no Kerry Packer to come and organise a comp, and the current state of world cricket is such that players from other countries would not need it anyway. The English would still come and be assured of a win. CA would lose big on the next TV rights and cricket would fall back as a sport in our competitive landscape. The rebels might end up with a rival T20 comp to the Big Bash.
Al
Guest
This was my understanding. It would require either the ECB to defect or the ICC to recognise a rebel association in Australia. Given the nature of the ICC, the latter wouldn't work because of the threat of other players breaking from national associations in the future which would threaten all the bureaucrats in the ICC far too much.
rock
Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't each cricketing body (aka CA & ECB) need to be sanctioned by the ICC? That would mean a rival organisation would need to be sanctioned before anything was organised, or the ECB would effectively need to 'defect' from the ICC to play the Ashes against Australia under a rival banner. I could be completely wrong, but that's how I thought it all worked.
Brian
Guest
Given CA is already selling ashes tickets and trying to sell tv rights one assumes they already have contracts with grounds etc. I assume they are also the body recognised by the icc. Certainly the ICL didn't work well when it was played. Corruption will be the only thing it's remembered for.