I’m sorry to be the spectre at the feast but the recent calamitous fallout of the ongoing pay battle between Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricketers Association has got me on the side of the so called ‘heartless bureaucrats’ – and with good reason.
As of 12:01 this morning, almost 230 of Australia’s greatest cricketers will be out of contract and for the foreseeable future, without an income.
Naturally the two sides have spent their final moments before diving head first off the preverbal cliff not on hammering out a deal, but on winning the inevitable media war.
Cricket Australia said the ACA had refused to “show genuine flexibility in the best interests of the players and the game” during the lengthy negotiations, while the ACA has berated Cricket Australia for leaving the game in “the worst state of uncertainty since the days of World Series Cricket”.
Now, to say either side in this conversation has been the adult in the situation would be sadly misplaced. Both at one time or another has acted like a tired toddler refused their favourite toy.
I’m putting a lot of faith in Cricket Australia’s assessment that 70 per cent of all CA funding goes to the elite level of the game; if true, it’s a damming assessment of the state of play in Australian cricket.
CA has stated that: “the model was adopted 20 years ago to address the underpayment of players. The game has changed fundamentally since then: players are now justifiably well rewarded and the modern challenge is the chronic under-funding of the grassroots of the game, particularly junior cricket.”
This is a valid point. In 1997 we still saw Test players routinely play for their state sides and Twenty20 cricket was still a concept played only at junior levels.
But 2017 is a whole new kettle of fish.
Star player Josh Hazlewood took to ACA’s Facebook page in a video to say it was “hugely important” to the players that more money be filtered through to state players and female players and said they had the right to feel disrespected by CA.
I agree, it would be fantastic to see state and female players be paid more for their efforts but would star players be willing to be the ones to sacrifice for their comrades? I’m highly doubtful.
Now I was lucky as a small child, I remember spending days at the WACA watching the likes of Justin Langer, Adam Gilchrist and Damien Martyn of WA take on the Waugh brothers of NSW and it was amazing. To see those Test players in their state colours was a thrill.
But those times are gone and as much as my nostalgic views wish it wasn’t so, they are not coming back.
Cricketers seem to want the best of both worlds. To cash in on lucrative Twenty20 competitions, as well as reap large amounts of cash at the representative level.
Now it all comes down to personal opinion, if you want to ‘cash out’ and become a Twenty20 raider and play in four or five competitions a year for big cash, you are free to do so. If you want to work your heart out for a baggy green cap, fantastic.
(AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi)
The one thing that keeps being brought up is that the CBA breakdown could lead to an England whitewash of the 2017 Ashes; a thought that the ACA hopes puts shivers down Cricket Australia’s spine.
Problem is these highly paid players have won just two of the last seven Ashes series.
Credit where it’s due that both of those wins were 5-0 whitewashes but to think this would be the proverbial straw to break the camels back is laughable.
This pay breakdown shows that cricket in this nation is at a flashpoint not seen in decades. But weirdly the roles have changed.
When World Series Cricket came to be; our Test stars were woefully underpaid and saw Tests routinely sell out.
Now, the top test players get paid much more than what many would consider an average income, they have lucrative offers from overseas and routinely play several test series a year.
But really it comes down to us, the fans. Do we want to pay the players the exorbitant fees they believe they’re entitled too? Or try to stop the mass exodus at junior level to other sporting codes.
As always, it comes down to where we as fans willing to put our money.
Republican
Guest
.......to be sure, it is.......
davros
Guest
The big bash is not making money ? ...do u really believe that ? One of the biggest points of contention is that C A are not being transparent with how much money there actually is ...there is a view within ACA that they are hiding money and revenue ....to the point they have had forensic account types all over it ...as much as they can whilst being denied access ..they are sure there is undeclared revenue ...they just cant be sure how much !
Sydneysider
Guest
"What the dispute is really about is actually that Cricket Australia wants to double the Big Bash" Yep, which is a commercial decision. No two ways about it. The reality is that Cricket Australia has to decide which direction the game is going and obviously the commercial aspect is the top priority, hence the plans to double the amount of matches in the Big Bash and extend the BBL from late December to the end of February. It means that Sheffield Shield cricket will be the format that loses out, along with the domestic 50 over game. This is where Cricket Australia are heading. Some may not like it, but that's the future of the game in my opinion. It's only a matter of time.
Sydneysider
Guest
Agreed Republican. "Compared to Union and League, Cricket is fairing quite well." Yep, and compared to other sports like rugby union, football, basketball, athletics etc... cricket is flush with money.
BrainsTrust
Guest
What the dispute is really about is actually that Cricket Australia wants to double the Big Bash, now to get the best foreign players here for twice the time is going to take a lot more money. So what they will do is cut the Sheffield shield again and distribute the money to the Big Bash players. Then you have the additional cost of doubling the Big Bash so they want to use the Ashes surplus on that as well and not to top up the players. The big aspect of that gamble is the new TV deal, can they sell the BIg Bash for more if its doubled. Will the TV networks pay them double upfront for an expanded Big Bash .If they don;t then its another X years of running the BIg Bash at a loss and they will have to maintain the ratings for twice as many matches which will be even money spent on marketing the Big Bash. The other aspect might be if they are selling the BIg Bash to Foxtel for a big sum, and they are demanding twice the length of competition and who knows what else, the biggest demand could be no competing one day T20 matches taking away the major Australian stars during that period. The major loser will be the SHeffield shield specialist who cannot make the Big Bash they may well have their salary halved.
Republican
Guest
.........why is Cricket struggling at the GR? This is not exclusive to Cricket in our saturated sporting market. Australia's cultural diaspora together with media, has influenced a dramatic shift in patronage and choice, so it is moot as to whether throwing good $ after bad will rescue Cricket or perceived dated codes. Compared to Union and League, Cricket is fairing quite well. Some codes may have to resign themselves to being in the niche category of sporting brands, while Cricket has at least managed to reinvent itself with a focus on the truncated versions of the game, in order to remain relevant to todays fickle market of sports consumers.........
Bobbo7
Guest
Whatever model goes more money to grass roots should get up. This idea that the players are the great daw card is not the full story. Cricket is the draw card. Yes. Some players have great talent and they do very well. But if there was no Dave Warner, there would be someone else. We had Ponting, Clarke now Smith. The players change but the game remains. The talented hard workers do very well, just as in other careers. The contracted players are very well paid, as they should be. State players should get a good wage but if State and Women's cricket is not making any money then you simply can't justify huge salaries to those players. It pleases me to see the women's team are now fully professional but they and State players can't expect massive money when they play in a competition that costs money to run. Domestic cricketers have the time to plan a post-cricket career like many people who change jobs in the workforce. Some get jobs in cricket and others can go on to do other things. Cricket does not owe them a retirement fund. If they are good enough they will make plenty of money, if not then they get to play a great game for a while on a pretty decent wage then do something else. I'm all for the pros making a good living but I want grass roots cricket to get the funding it needs.
John
Guest
Club cricket is massively underfunded, if Cricket is to continue to be the no 1 summer sport more money needs to be spent at the grass roots level.
Republican
Guest
.........., Cricket together with all elite sport is about the bottom line because sport has devolved a self perpetuating multi national business. In that respect the ethos of 'sport' has been utterly compromised and as such 'sport' is oxymoronic. For those who truly support the essence of sport, the decision should be crystal. There is a distinction to be made between 'consumer' & 'supporter' the latter being conflicted by the commercial culture that has corrupted, devalued, & commoditised sport. The true supporters focus should be exclusively on the grass roots and amateur tiers of respective code/s. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.......
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
Quite frankly Matthew, you have completely missed the point. The system as it stands has developed Australian Cricket works very effectively. CA is wrong and must include its PRODUCT as part of the system. But on one issue - no professional player has played for the BAGDE in any sport for a long time. Professionalism is all money. Some may play for both and desire the badge but they will not play for that badge without adequate funding.
AGordon
Guest
I think you're missing the point. This dispute is not primarily about money, it is about power and control. CA wants to control all aspects of players including the "cricketers brand" and they want to break the Union which is effectively the Players Association, by having individual contracts, etc which would give them enormous control over the game in this country. The Players are having none of it, hence the impasse. This a business model where businesses strive to maximise their profit. I understood CA is supposed to be a not-for-profit organisation and as another commentator points out," the players are not only employees (of CA), they are the product". Short of getting an independent arbiter, I can't see either party coming to any meaningful compromise because they are poles apart.