These days, the reality is sport is a business. As much as fans hate it, that’s the reality.
How many AFL, NRL and A-League players leave a club because either the club or the player is making a business decision?
Therefore why is Cricket Australia being hammered for making business decisions. If I’m wrong please correct me but if you ran a business wouldn’t you do the following: reward you best staff and provide incentives for the other staff to make your business more profitable.
For months we’ve heard about the dispute between Cricket Australia and the players, which has led to them being effectively ‘unemployed’ for the past few days. Players have taken to Instagram and other social media sources to lament the ongoing feud, criticising Cricket Australia for the standoff.
If what I’ve read is accurate, a Shield player makes $240k a year. That’s not bad money in anyone terms and considering the crowds that attend those games, it’s fair to say that Cricket Australia is being generous. Those particular staff aren’t profitable on crowds and viewer numbers alone.
Also the game gives those Shield players a platform to make serious money outside of the Cricket Australia banner, for instance through the IPL, Big Bash or other revenue streams.
Would this pay model work? Reward excellence while offering an good pay to everyone else? I think so.
Take for example Steve Smith. He first came onto the scene as a leg spinner and he wasn’t that good. He went away and worked on his batting and the rest is history. Does he deserve the rewards he now gets? Absolutely.
If sport is business, which sadly it is, sometimes we have to cope business decisions.
What do you think, Roarers? Who is at fault in this pay dispute, and will it be resolved anytime soon?
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
The unwillingness of CA to share how money is spent within their administration and refusal to enter in to mediation with the ACA, coupled with serious attempts to bypass the players union shows little respect for either players or fans. It's been a very heavy-handed and draconian approach by an an administration that has CA in a healthy financial position but not without significant cost to the domestic 4 day comp, which used to be the strongest in the game. Transparency is always the best option unless you have something to hide.
Matt H
Roar Guru
That's right, a base Sheffield Shield player night earn $70,000. CA are about to possibly make a windfall from BBL television rights and are concerned to ensure it does not pump too many extra dollars to the players. The bigger issue where I'm somewhat sympathetic to CA is defining the revenue that is included in the revenue sharing agreements. At the moment it includes revenue that is not generated by the players. For example as it stands the players get their % of all revenue, including such things as junior registration fees and investment income. But I also hear that during the course of the current MOU, CA has doubled it's staff so that's not good. In addition, they are using very negative tactics, to not only limit player costs but to actually bust open the ACA and end their strength as a collective bargaining.organisation for the players. This is a risk when the players have a monopoly on cricket talent, but CA does not have monopoly on professional cricket opportunities. All in all, unless you are an insider its very hard to get a handle on this because the press releases from each of the parties naturally are biased in their direction.
Maggie
Guest
I don't think Sheffield Shield cricketers earn anything like $240,000 pa. That might be the average earned by a State cricketer playing all three forms of cricket: Sheffield Shield, Matador Cup and BBL. And as an average figure it would be inflated by the high payments paid to the top BBL players. And here (as I understand it) is the fundamental disagreement between CA and the players. CA are effectively saying to Sheffield Shield cricketers that if they want to earn good money they need to be successful T20 cricketers. While the players (including all the top international players who would earn more from the proposed CA model) want Sheffield Shield cricketers to continue sharing in the total cricket revenue stream. What to you is 'good business' (diverting investment away from a loss-making arm of the business) is not necessarily good for cricket where Sheffield Shield is the nursery in which test cricketers are grown. Unless you (and CA) are more interested in tne continued growth of the razzle-dazzle of T20 and less concerned for long-form cricket?