Regardless of the current turmoil that has engulfed the short-term future of Australian cricket, there remains the inevitable picture that will supposedly set the sport back on course.
What picture? It’s the customary and somewhat forced handshake and smiles being worn by Messrs Sutherland and Nicholson after a deal has finally been thrashed out, restoring Australian cricket’s status quo.
The players will return to living out their dream [sic], while the folk in Jolimont headquarters will keep close their digital abaci in anticipation of fresh new rewards.
Yet left in the shade, as always, are the game’s patrons – its fans, or for corporate speak, its customers. You know the ones: those lame ducks that come back year after year keeping the coffers full, while one side cries poor among its wealth and the other steadfastly poses as an Ebenezer Scrooge body collective.
Leaving aside the merits, morals and melodrama of both Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricket Association, the public spectacle of witnessing Australian cricket besmirching its venerable history is likely to leave it without a firm fanbase.
I’m not talking about the Twenty20 crowd – cricket’s history goes well before 2005 – but about those who would spend a full day, or even full days, at a cricket ground investing their dream and passion in a team they could be truly proud of.
Those days could be ending given that off-field stoushes dominate Australian cricket’s agenda, not how to best England this Antipodean summer.
Youth may have played a part towards my ignorance at the time, but when a pay dispute last threatened to engulf Australian cricket in 1997-98, it was done to ensure the players could enjoy a fully professional existence out of the game. Twenty years before that, Kerry Packer’s troupe acted to mitigate any player from living below the poverty line.
The pay game is different this time. No player who is currently ‘unemployed’ lives without a healthy disposable income, courtesy of the numerous Twenty20 leagues that now dominate the sport. To that end, never have Australia’s best cricketers needed their governing body less.
Yet with another bumper TV deal on the horizon, even with the noted struggles of Channel Ten, Cricket Australia will feel they can play hardball with its players, especially when the TV deal does not necessarily infer quality of content. Whether it’s Australia’s best 11 cricketers or a pub team that lines up at the Gabba on 23 November, Cricket Australia will laugh its way to the bank.
At best, the Australian public will pour scorn upon the motives across all sides of this seemingly endless feud. At worst, they just may not care.
If there is a positive to be gleaned, it is that all facades have now been shed away to reveal the unlikeable agenda of Australian cricket. On one hand, Cricket Australia’s agenda is about pinching pennies ahead of a bumper TV deal; on the other, the players unite to claim what is rightfully theirs, on morals more than need.
So when the inevitable occurs and Messrs Sutherland and Nicholson work out a mutually beneficial way of keeping their money, the Australian public may well choose to keep theirs too and turn away for good.
Bert
Guest
We will come back. Fans always do.
Rellum
Roar Guru
It took at minimum four years for baseball to recover, and that was only through the whole home run record race which itself caused another drop in faith with the game.
Roostermark
Guest
Test cricket is not Baseball, Baseball has a Tribal following and was always going to recover.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I was going to say that. Major League Baseball and the NBA both lost major chunks of seasons to pay disputes and it may have effected ticket sales for the first few months upon resumption, but then people moved on and continued following their favourite teams and players.
davros
Guest
no chance ...go and read the article on abc online right now ..they actually quote and "expert" fixer in these matters ...who has dealt with this scenario all over the globe ! Quote roughly " i know of no major sport anywhere in the world including major league baseball basket ball etc etc that has gone through this sort of crisis...that has had fans so dissaffected that they haVE NEVER RETURNED TO THE GAME " Allways they have come back
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
No need to apologise - nowhere was I trying to examine the relationship between the board and its players, because that's been done very well by others on this specific issue, and focusing on that digresses from what I intended the subject to be: the fans. The references to 1997 and then WSC was done to provide a more modern context to the previous times this issue has arisen. Not to say it hasn't before, as you've alluded to, but what Bradman endured in the 30s has little relevance to today's climate. Even Bradman needed his cricket board more than Steve Smith does right now, thanks to Twenty20 leagues around the world. Whether or not that's a good thing is subjective. I can't comment on the WSC days as it was before my time (beyond the small reference in the piece), so I'll focus purely on 1997. Recalling newspaper coverage about it then, the offers on the table related to essentially doubling the salary of Australian contracted players, but which was rejected in favour of the revenue sharing model that was in effect until last week. But even in 1997, while the likes of the Waugh brothers, Taylor, Healy, Warne and McGrath could on their salary live off cricket fully, some Shield players aspiring for Australian selection couldn't afford that life, as the salaries weren't high enough to the point of making cricket a full-time profession. In 1997, from the fans perspective, there was a just cause on the players' behalf to pursue that model on a needs basis. While in 2017 you can say the players are asking to keep that model for the sake of equity, their digging in to the extent in which the short-term future of the game is threatened is not making their case more appealing to supporters. On the same token, Cricket Australia's lack of wiggle movement does not endear themselves to Australian fans, who can make an active choice on whether to part with their hard-earnt money to an organisation that is increasingly appearing to govern for their own financial ends, not for the betterment of the sport, as per their brief. While the players have choices, so do the fans - that was the point of this story. While plenty will be on deck to see the team on November 23 if and when this issue is resolved, it has provided ample reason for many people, myself included, to look elsewhere to spend our money.
ChrisB
Guest
Simple fact is people should learn your more discerning to whichever sports the like and withhold their money or support. Things would change pretty quick I'd no one bought tickets, membership or merchandise. Used to watch tests regularly in the 90s/early-mid noughties but only once since 2007 due to being busy and having other interests and commitments. People aren't so rusted on now as both sides will learn to their peril. Damn them all
Sarah Krause
Roar Rookie
Not sure how CA will handle it if they can't convince the best XI to play the Ashes this Summer. I will definitely be wanting money back if it is just eleven lads they found at the pub taking the field at the Gabba...
Chui
Guest
It won't affect my interest in the slightest if/when the best XI take the ground. Anything less might be a different story.
Roostermark
Guest
Without the fans they might as well just play park cricket, no fans = no money. I have gone every year to the Sydney Test match and one dayers for the last 20 odd years but not this year, it's the fans both side truly have shown a disdain for and I am voting with my wallet.
AGordon
Guest
Sorry Vas, but this article shows little understanding about the history of Australian cricket. This latest spat is only one in a long line of disputes stretching back more than100 years Teams have been touring to England since 1868 and these trips were initially set up by players and their mates as a way of making some serious money. The Cricket Board at the time wasn't happy about missing out on money and in 1911-12 sent a side to England containing 4 recognised Test players. The rest stayed at home because the pay offer being made was unacceptable (sound familiar). Over the years, there have been many other incidents involving individual players trying to increase their wealth through endorsements etc. Bradman was even involved in one, telling the Board if he could not cover a cricket tour as a reporter/player, he would stop playing. You rightly mentioned the disputes in the '70's and 90's. Yes, the public was not happy about the events but you're sadly mistaken if you think interest dropped off as a result of this. Sure some people left watching the game but many others got involved. Record crowds at Test matches after these disputes were settled is testimony that people have an entrenched love of the game which will almost always overcome these sorts of issues. Can I suggest you write about the "relationship" between the players and Cricket Australia, once the current dispute is settled. The current pay dispute is merely a skirmish in a "war" between the two parties will continue for the foreseeable future as it has been going on for at least the last 100 years, because neither side trusts the other.
marcel
Guest
For me the love died a long time ago...one particular afternoon at The Oval, when Ponting made no real attempt to win the Ashes. Since then my interest has slowly declined. With each passing year the players just seemed to become progressively more objectionable. I could never have imagined that the current crop could find a way to be more unlikeable...but amazingly they have.