Cricket in this country has reached an unbelievable position: as of last Friday, Australia’s best professional players are unemployed, and every future tour is under threat as the dispute is still raging on.
What’s the real issue?
The heart of the issue is not dollar value to be paid to the players – it’s the model of payment.
The last 20 years have seen Australia’s best cricketers paid under a revenue-sharing model, which split up payment between male domestic and international players and the governing body.
On December 12 last year though, with the Memorandum of Understanding expiring on June 31, Cricket Australia sent their first pay draft to the Australian Cricketers’ Association with a fixed wage model, including a capped bonus system only available to international players rather than everyone.
This, if it were ever to come into effect, gives wage control directly to the board, rather than it being determined by the revenue generated by cricket in Australia.
From there, neither side has budged. CA have tried to deal directly with the players, the ACA and players have knocked back everything sent their way, and we now find ourselves in a stand-off.
In March, CA presented their formal pay deal, which added elements to the December deal, but was largely unchanged. It was around this time the media coverage in the issue ramped up.
It’s since been made clear the ACA isn’t going to accept anything not including a revenue sharing model.
In the March deal, CA said they want to return more money to grassroots and attempted to sign players on multi-year contracts, all not signed.
The grassroots, CA feels, are underfunded in Australia, so their plan was to use the extra money to invest in the juniors around the country, as well as expand their own media wing for better coverage of the game.
The MoU from CA was going to, for the first time, include women and raise their salaries by more than 100 per cent, while the total allotment for player wages actually increased from $311 million to $419 million.
With the large windfall expected from the Big Bash, the ACA and players were wary that the increase might not be enough if the current revenue sharing model was to be carried over.
The move would have taken international women’s average pay from $79,000 to $179,000, while state-based women’s players could jump from $22,000 to $52,000.
The revenue sharing model keeps percentages of income though, and based on the majority of money being made by the men’s team, they felt it was far from a good deal to protect everyone in Australian cricket.
Mediation was then requested by the ACA but rejected by CA. On June 23, a new deal was sent by CA, allowing the fixed bonus to apply to all players – not just international ones – and sent contract offers to all players.
It was immediately knocked back, with the players still not believing the deal was fair.
AAP Image/Paul Miller
The players are now unemployed – what next?
There are three tours on the horizon, plus the upcoming ‘A’ tour of South Africa.
Boycotts are the most likely course of action by the players. CA can’t afford that, but it’s been threatened and if the MoU isn’t worked out by Friday, the ‘A’ tour will be cancelled.
Following that, the tour of Bangladesh, the ODI tour of India, and the Ashes could all be shelved.
There has been talk the ACA will save the summer’s biggest tours by releasing the rights of players for short-term contracts, but it still doesn’t look positive.
It’ll be a band-aid solution at best, and when the Ashes are over, it’s likely to be ripped off, with the pay dispute continuing.
Essentially, the ACA will place the players up for hire to CA for a certain length of time for a certain amount of money on their terms.
Players aren’t going to be continually given short-term contracts. It’s simply not a workable option and a new MoU, with a longer term deal – years in length – for the players must be worked out.
As for domestic players, the base wage for a state player is reported to rise to $80,000 per year under the new MoU, but with the deadline now past, those state players – who undoubtedly don’t have bank accounts as healthy as the likes of David Warner and Steve Smith – may have a thinning resolve.
This could lead to them beginning to sign fixed-wage, multi-year contracts with CA, no matter how much they want the revenue sharing model.
Of course, that’s exactly what CA want. Given they have already gone past the deadline, the chance of them breaking their stance on a fixed wage contract now is slim. The lower-level players are far more likely to relent.
Furthermore, players are looking at options overseas in T20 leagues and exhibition matches. It’s been strongly suggested by CA that bans of at least six months would be applied to players who participated during the Australian summer.
AFP PHOTO / GREG WOOD
Unpaid tour contracts
I almost spat my breakfast across the table when I read Glenn Maxwell and Usman Khawaja, among others who were going to be unemployed, were being offered unpaid contracts to go to South Africa for the ‘A’ tour.
In a desperate bid to keep the tour alive, CA – which was going to be almost a selection camp for the final spot on the Bangladesh tour, and likely to be a guide for the Indian tour, Ashes series and South African tour next year – offered the five national players a contract that would cover their accommodation, travel and insurance.
This would ensure there was no ‘out of pocket’ expense to the players, but it was quickly shut down by the ACA, leaving the A tour with it’s Friday deadline as unlikely.
No match payments was a direct slap in the face from Cricket Australia.
Women’s team paid forward to the end of the World Cup – but then they join the rest
The Australian women’s team have been slightly forgotten about in all this. They are currently playing in the World Cup and have been forward paid before the deadline by CA.
But, like the men, they will be out of a job at the end of the tournament, which they are favourites to win.
They have announced they will stand solid with the men – everyone is in this together, and they will not sign fixed wage contracts unless the ACA decides it’s the best thing for everything.
Why doesn’t James Sutherland step in?
An anonymous figure in this debate has been CA CEO James Sutherland, who has declined to get involved, despite the players calling for him to sit down with ACA CEO Alistair Nicholson.
Sutherland has been in England for the women’s World Cup and returned just days before the deadline, but refused to get involved, instead letting his board drag it out to the penultimate time.
CA’s head of strategy, Kevin Roberts, has instead done a majority of the negotiating, along with former Rio Tinto managing director David Peever.
It goes without saying that Peever and Roberts have become key players in this. Peever has been chairman of Cricket Australia since October 2015, after a long stint with Rio Tinto, while Roberts was formerly an executive at Adidas.
Peever was strongly against unions during his time at the mining giant, and it’s filtering through here in his dealings with the Cricketers Association. Unfortunately for him and his team, saying no to mining unions is a little easier than replacing Mitchell Starc or Steve Smith.
At the end of the day, everyone thinks they are in the right, no one wants to admit they are in the wrong, and until someone comes to the table with that admission, this bitter and ridiculous dispute over a payment model will continue.
And if the Ashes get cancelled – all hell will break lose.
Slane
Guest
CA are offering a deal with less money paid to Grass roots, less money to State players and more money to our elite cricketers. You've been told to read up on the issue multiple times and you still don't get it. In the information age, ignorance is a choice.
cj
Guest
Steve Smith earns 38'500 approx a week to play cricket a wage a lot of Australians do not earn in a year, if the CA are dink um in returning more money to the grass roots then i for one am all for it, instead of paying more to the current elite players, i remember in the day the when it meant so much and an honor to wear the baggy green. return money for grass roots cricket to build the game for the women's game other areas where it is really needed or it becomes like the Western Australian football league that was decimated with the introduction of the AFL. look at the West Indies from the power house to now. the future of cricket lays within the grass roots level, and not a group of hugely paid individuals who play the game now. personally i would hope to see CA sack all of the current elite with a permanent ban. and offer more money to state level sides who more than likely have players quite capable of playing international cricket.
Kevin P
Guest
You Aussies might to have to get Ponting and Clarke out of retirement as Captain and Vice Captain - Warnie and Johnson too - no matter what the 3 Lions are going to clobber our old convict/colonial whipping boys - The Aussies- 4 Nil. We(Barmy Army) have some great new songs too but wont mind bringing out the one about Mitchell Johnson again. He bowls to the left He bowls to the right That Mitchell Johnson His bowling is S****
Bakkies
Guest
The reg that doesn't cover insurance should be going back in to the club they are representing to ensure their club is financially stable.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The ACA has a fund to help out the lower tier players, but that will only last so long and is not a fixed amount sort of deal. I would like to see them make sure the current players are all looked after during this dispute.
Bakkies
Guest
'I don’t mind BBL as a bit of Friday night fluff, but the Ashes is the showcase of the game in its purest form. For it to be cancelled would be terrible.' and they would have to answer to the ECB and BT who they have on sold Aus domestic tv rights too.
Bakkies
Guest
The competition is there to produce players for the international one dayers that make money. The ACB have also destroyed the Shield competition. You have to have loss making competitions to produce players and to make money in the international game. You don't see the NZRU trying to bin the NPC when it wasn't making money and were bailing out unions that mismanaged their finances.
Burner
Guest
I suspect the reason Sutherland isn't involved in negotiations is that he's previously been a vocal supporter (and was one of the original architects from a CA perspective?) of the revenue share model. Clearly Peever is desperate to break the ACA and he can't expect Sutherland to criticise the revenue share model with a straight face in the circumstances. Kevin Roberts and Pat Howard don't have the same background with regard to the model. As mentioned elsewhere, we still haven't heard why a revenue share model is no longer a good idea. If it was clear and obvious, CA would have made their point. To the extent they have had points to make they've done it through the press so it's unlikely the reasoning has been sensibly articulated and isn't available to us. There is no doubt that CA has extraordinary administrative costs. The doubling of staff since the last MOU is a curious one. That might be justifiable if profits had also doubled or investment had been made to ensure profits would double. The ACA can't know without proper disclosure by CA. For those suggesting the ACA is unnecessary, Smith, Warner, Starc et al, through their managers, will always get a good deal. The fringe, journeymen (and journeywomen!) and aspiring professional players have no negotiating power unless there is a body speaking for all of them. CA's heavy handed approach to the whole thing is bullying. I hope the ACA undertakes enough revenue raising activities to support the second and third tier players who are most likely to buckle first. If they can hold on, CA won't jeopardise the Ashes and the Big Bash. The irony, of course, is that the likelihood is that the longer this continues, the pot that will be available to everyone is going to diminish. Sponsors, broadcasters and fans will spend their money elsewhere..
Gary Magpie
Roar Guru
James, don't be too harsh on the ARU, they're still trying very hard to screw it up! But seriously, you touched on a real comparison. The ARU model has transitioned from a bottom-up association model of representation to a top-focussed commercial model. The players are contracted at the high level by a game that no longer provides support to the grassroots. So rather than ask why Cricket Australia is shying away from a profit sharing arrangement with players, maybe we should be asking why the ACA players are shying away from profit sharing with the grassroots. Or perhaps why should we support a bunch of players that aren't that good earning salaries that most punters could only dream of earning...
matth
Guest
You can't tell someone "You know that money you earned last under an agreed contract? We just aren't going give it to you after all". How would you like it?
Slane
Guest
I was just thinking that sounds awfully familiar. Sounds like a recipe for some goood cricket to me!
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
A very good point that has been raised on other threads and other articles on this topic in the Roar. Where does the 55% get spent???
Bill
Guest
They get a set % of revenue. So if it's $22 bucks now and you drop it they still get $15 or $10. The idea of sharing revenue not surplus is rediculous. You want to cut back office then get a seat at the table and help manage it. Don't just take a set cut off every dollar and sit back with your head in the sand.
Bill
Guest
The players returned ! Ffs if they hadn't taken the money as earnings and paid tax on it then little johnnys parents wouldn't have had to pay so much in the first place. Above someone mentions the ACA accuse CA of hiding revenue. Now someone else is saying the ACA didn't realise they were getting money from the rego fees. Which is it?
James
Guest
I dont understand why CA is not being more proactive with how they are trying to sell their plan to the general public. They want to focus alot more on growing the game with young people, everyone likes little kids playing cricket, i dont get why CA seem to be doing nothing to sell that idea to us. Its PR gold.
Scott Pryde
Expert
Thanks James, Really appreciate it mate. Agree, but neither side is in the clear.
Scott Pryde
Expert
Thanks mate. I think, in a lot of ways that was one of the key aims of this article. To try and set a few wrongs right and just get all the info summarised. It's been ordinarily reported, and there is a lot of people just don't know what's going on - I'll be honest, I wasn't completely over the issue until I wrote the article. The 'A' Tour is already gone, and I just can't see either side bending over. Scary times ahead.
Scott Pryde
Expert
Thanks for that mate, Federal intervention isn't something I considered, but definitely is an option down the track. Cricket is too important to the country to let it go. You're right about 'if it's broken don't fix it' though.
jameswm
Roar Guru
You don't get the concept, do you Matt? The players get a cut of revenue and the rego fees are part of that revenue. Where SHOULD he rego fees go? To Sutherlands salary? To marketing? Better yet cut them right back, because there is a massive operating profit.
jamesb
Guest
Hey Scott Fantastic article. One of your best. Like I said yesterday, CA has more questions to answer than the ACA.