Generations of cricketers have grown up in this country with the dream of playing in an Ashes series.
The current crop is no different, despite the increased presence of myriad Twenty20 leagues.
Yet, players yesterday took a step that may harm their prospects of being selected for this summer’s series against the old enemy by boycotting the Australia A tour of South Africa.
CA initially set down today as the deadline for the players to confirm their standing for the tour but brought it forward 24 hours for what it said were logistical reasons.
As one, the players elected to turn their back on the tour.
The decision, made in unison by the playing group which was to be led by Usman Khawaja, has moved the current acrimonious pay dispute into even rougher waters.
On Sunday, following an Australian Cricketers Association meeting in Sydney, the players resolved to abandon the tour if there was not material progress made this week on the MoU talks after having drafted 14 non-negotiable resolutions.
Yesterday they deemed that there had not been sufficient progress towards ending the stand-off. Cricket Australia expressed a different view, believing there had been enough progress following discussions this week to see the tour proceed.
Not for the first time, the battling parties are diametrically opposed in their view of proceedings.
While the dispute appears a long way from being resolved, the abandonment of the Australia A tour will be of great concern to CA.
Among the touring party, which was scheduled to play two four-day matches against South Africa A were Khawaja, Glenn Maxwell and Jackson Bird.
The national selectors chose that trio, and others, as an audition for the Ashes series. It would be a way for them to enhance their prospects of selection come the summer.
The fact they have opted out of the tour is the most potent signal to date that the players remain united.
As is the case in all disputes of this nature there is a level of brinkmanship with both parties making threats.
While CA would have foreseen the boycott of the South Africa tour as a real likelihood, the fact that it has occurred will cause some gnashing of teeth.
Both parties remain at loggerheads over the revenue sharing agreement that has underpinned successive MoUs since 1997 but there is an equally large issue at play – CA’s desire to dilute the power of the ACA.
It is a classic case of a business entity endeavouring to dull the strength of its constituent union.
The genesis for the current dispute stems back to the 2012 Crawford Report into CA’s governance.
The report recommended the most significant shake-up in the cricket board’s 112-year history with a reduction from 14 to six state-based directors and the introduction of three independent directors.
The move away from the board being merely a collection of state bodies was the catalyst for the appointment of current chair, David Peever.
As former managing director of Rio Tinto Australia, Peever has a history of taking on the unions.
While at Rio he was an ardent fan of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation and used it as a catalyst for many of the anti-union measures undertaken at the multinational miner.
Peever is opposed to collective bargaining through third parties and believes workplace agreements should be negotiated with employees rather than unions.
While the players see themselves as equal partners in the game, Peever views them as contract employees, believing the pair should negotiate directly without input from ACA.
To date, the players have held firm in the belief that they are best served by ACA taking up the baton on their behalf at the negotiating table.
Previous chairmen, Jack Clarke and Wally Edwards – both cricket administrators of long standing – and current CEO James Sutherland have previously questioned the revenue-sharing model.
Peever is staunchly against it continuing, as are many on the current board.
Clarke, Edwards and Sutherland all previously agreed to ACA being a representative of the players in the drafting of earlier MoUs. Peever does not and he is ardent in his desire to remove its power at the table.
Those at the top of CA would have been hoping by now for fractures within player ranks.
Yesterday’s decision to opt out of the South Africa tour is a clear indication that there is nothing but unity across the playing group.
Yesterday’s announcement by ACA indicates the parties are still poles apart.
Curiously, Sutherland is still having limited exposure in the negotiations.
While he has been in talks this week with his ACA counterpart, Alistair Nicholson, CA’s chief negotiator remains Kevin Roberts.
Should Roberts attain the goals set down by CA’s board for the next MoU, he may be the body’s next CEO when Sutherland, who has been in the role since 2001, departs.
Despite ACA’s desire for mediation, CA refuses. Without it, it is hard to see how a resolution acceptable to both parties can be found.
The players want to assure that all players – male and female – are remunerated fairly. They believe it can only happen with a revenue sharing model similar to the one in place for the past 20 years.
They are also concerned that funds that could be directed to the grassroots level of the sport is being drained by a top-heavy bureaucracy.
ACA has voiced its concerns that the number of CA employees has almost doubled in the past five years.
With a line ruled through the South Africa series, the next hurdle for CA is next month’s two-Test tour of Bangladesh followed by a lucrative limited overs tour of India. And then, of course, the Ashes.
Such is the standing of that series, federal sports minister Greg Hunt has stated that the government would be prepared to intervene in the dispute should things still not be resolved.
At this rate, he may be needed come November.
Barry
Guest
Kasprowicz has moved on to become head of Qld cricket and as for Taylor, he should be out there making a stand one way or another, guess he has to much to lose in order to have an honest opinion.
Mark
Guest
Total rubbish. Rarely do they get back paid. If a dispute has been going over a year their pay may be increased as if the agreement was made from the start to make up for pay increases missed, but even still money that has been foregone is not paid back.
Mark
Guest
So there is no cricket in this country besides the national team? That may be news to all the suburban cricket competitions around.
Zozza
Guest
So someone willing to fight for workers rights is anti business?
Zozza
Guest
Agree. Flat pitches are the biggest blight on the game.
Zozza
Guest
Good. Im glad the ACA have bought in a Unionist.
davros
Guest
talking much sense again Bert ...ahhh yess ...the bonuses !
davros
Guest
taylor had a few words to say a fortnight ago or so ....stooged for the boards point of view
davros
Guest
exactly ..standard negotiating tactic
davros
Guest
qwestion ...they allways say that every time an eba goes over ...99% of time when the resolution comes ...they all get back payed
Bakkies
Guest
Birdy the truckies aren't relevant to public buses and mass transit which the public rely on to get from A to B The bus drivers are arguing for more money when there isn't enough there. The Irish bus service was down for nearly 12 weeks due to the unions so the average Joe had to fork out serious money on taxis each day to get work. For a lot of towns it was the only bus service so people were stranded
qwetzen
Guest
And just as inevitably, some people take it seriously...
BrainsTrust
Guest
England team are not exactly the Roger Federer of cricket , their bowling is their weakness. The days of test players playing grade cricket have gone what difference though does that make if your selecting the best of the non test or state players from there.
Lroy
Guest
Exactly, its a disgusting tactic by the players, they should have said if no agreement is in place by xx then we will not go on any tours etc etc so that any existing tours could have been rescheduled by the host nations. Leaving SA swinging in the wing like this is deplorable and most fans ( I assume) rightly feel embarrassed by it, sorry bud, not sure what us mug punters can do about it now. ;-(
Lroy
Guest
That's the thing isn't it... if players aren't happy with CA they should do what Andrew Symonds did and just play IPL. He used to make more in 6 weeks over there than a full year with CA.
Lroy
Guest
I agree with that, Id probably increase the performance part, $1000 per run, $5,000 per wicket, ork hard), plus money for catches stumpings run outs etc... win bonus for everyone... so if you have a good game you make some good money. You don't have a good game you still make reasonable money. So if you score 1,000 test runs in a year or take 200 wickets your a millionaire... etc good for you. At least then the salaries are ''performance based'' . Unlike the AFL where the payroll for the worst team is the same as the payroll for the best team, what madness is that??
jameswm
Roar Guru
Channel 9 always get that report just before they negotiate a new TV deal.
Birdy
Guest
Bakkies, The transport industry is the very industry that needs a strong union. How many interstate and long distance truckies are on stay awake pills? Answer, not much change from 100%. Why ? Because the industry needs impossible delivery times over the safety of their drivers and mum simply picking her kids up from school.
Birdy
Guest
Totally agree Rellum. Construction sites now are run like concentration camps . Stealing workers penalty rates in service industries is just the beginning . It will spread.
Chris
Guest
The SDA is probably the only union currently operating which is anything like as you say Bob and I doubt that was ever their business strategy, they got screwed trying to support 16 year olds working for Woolies and ended up being a sub-branch of management. Regarding your comments on wealth redistribution, which modern economies are you referring to? Seems to be working quite nicely for the Scandinavian countries "If nations want their citizens to be happy, they will have to accomplish the difficult task of ensuring that their income levels are balanced and fair" from the article review https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/12/income-inequality-makes-people-unhappy/416268/ "These findings suggest that a more even distribution of growth in national wealth may be a precondition for raising nationwide happiness." http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797615596713 Let me guess, you're someone who still believes that negative gearing is important because it allows people to "get ahead" and think coal is our only hope for the future?