As I write this, the Australian ‘A’ cricket team should have been playing their first four-day match against South Africa ‘A’ in Pretoria.
This was an opportunity for players to put themselves in the shopfront window for potential selection for the Test and ODI side. With a trip to Bangladesh coming up after the tour, there was at least one fast bowling spot vacant in the Test squad for one of the pace bowlers to stake their claim.
It was also an opportunity for all players to put in performances for future opportunities. In the recent past, we have seen ‘A’ form be rewarded with Australian selection, so in a sense you could say it is a missed opportunity for all the players.
So, what is this all about?
Revenue share – plain and simple. The players want to retain the revenue share model, Cricket Australia want to change to, in their opinion, a model to better reflect a changing financial landscape.
I’ve followed this saga with interest as a Life Member of the Australian Cricketers’ Association and as a coach within Australian cricket.
I have to admit to being disappointed in the tit for tat in the media between the ACA and CA. Why have there been so many press releases stating disappointment at the lack of meaningful talks?
CA have spoken about “genuine flexibility” around talks with the ACA. Then we read in the papers that CA bypass the ACA and offer contracts directly to individual players. I’m not surprised there is some hesitation from the playing group.
The ACA are willing to be flexible in negotiations yet won’t talk unless the revenue share model stays. Is that “genuine flexibility?”
There are a number of things at play here.
A philosophy change at CA level. Players appear to be seen as employees as opposed to partners in the game.
It’s unique in that yes, technically, players are simply employees that draw a paycheque. However, the difference is that CA can’t just go and find someone else to bat at three for Australia and average over 50, nor can they find someone to bowl toe-crushing yorkers at 150km/h.
It has to be a partnership. I don’t necessarily believe that CA see players merely as employees. There is genuine sentiment from CA that understands how important the players are.
My thoughts are that CA are simply looking at numbers. They see that the Sheffield Shield and the domestic 50-over competition lose money. From their statements they have released publicly, they don’t believe that the finances of the game are healthy enough to have domestic players share in all cricket revenue.
Also, for the first time our women, international and domestic players, are sharing in this MOU and those domestic competitions are not money earners.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
There is a solid financial argument here. And there lies the crux of this dispute.
#fairshare – all the players have been using this hashtag.
The ACA have proposed that 22.5 per cent of revenue goes to players, 22.5 per cent goes to grassroots and the rest to running the game.
It sounds simple and, on the face of it, it is.
But CA don’t believe it is quite as straightforward as that.
There are obviously costs associated with running the game. There is game development, promoting the game, logistics, administration costs and so on.
CA understands the domestic competitions play an important role in developing players for international cricket, the nursery grounds of Australian cricket.
However, they feel it’s fair to put a cap on domestic wages because these competitions are not there as commercial drivers, moreso high-performance indicators, and that there are players in the competitions that won’t go on to play for their country.
The way the ACA sees it is they believe domestic competitions being healthy and strong cricket is of benefit to our international teams, and that players deserve to share in all revenue generated by Australian cricket.
The players that won’t necessarily play at the highest level are contributing to keeping the competition strong by playing high-quality domestic cricket, which helps develop the players that do end up reaching the top.
There is also a sense of CA not really believing that the ACA should dictate how they administer the game.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
It’s been very interesting to get the thoughts of the cricket supporters out there.
Whether it be watching my sons play sport on a Saturday or down at the local, the public opinions are many and varied. Some believe the players are greedy, some believe that CA are screwing the players.
I can assure you that neither of these statements are true.
However, the public has all agreed on one thing: why have CA and the ACA released a number of statements publicly and not just closed the door and sorted this out?
On this, I agree. Find a compromise and let’s get on with the cricket.
It’s not a great look for our game.
Jason Gillespie
Guest
154km/h and hit 150km/h plus a number of times.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Was a good article indeed!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
But Christo, the point is, that if there are 800 places at AFL teams all paying 6 figures minimum, compared to 100 places in domestic cricket where the bottom wage is around $40K, (not saying these are correct numbers, this is just hypothetical), then, if you were a teenage prodigy who played rep level at both sports but were getting to the stage where you had to choose which one to pursue, one has much better career prospects than the other. It's one of the reasons why I believe that the BBL can help even test cricket level, because it helps make a career in cricket more viable, thus increases the likelihood that those sorts of talented sportspeople, if making a choice pragmatically, would consider sticking with cricket.
davros
Guest
Ha Ha didnt just skewer him Maggie ...lanced him chopped him sliced and diced him ...the only point i could see that he missed ..is that Peevers view on industrial relations most people would agree is the most agreeable sensible ie most people disagree with collective bargaining ? Really ?
davros
Guest
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju8deAt4rVAhWINpQKHbsGB1UQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fsport%2Fopinion%2Fgideon-haigh%2Fmedium-is-the-message-for-cricket-australia-chairman-david-peever%2Fnews-story%2F9c1c1eb0c258af1ba392963d95d46062&usg=AFQjCNHsIwlg4bG1JqBGn8ZgGZ-FknKjNw
Maggie
Guest
Gideon Haigh in today's Oz has absolutely skewered Peever in regard to Peever's article.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Indeed, I agree on all your points, but like any political statement it will just appeal to the faithful and peeve off the other side. It achieves nothing but continue the problem identified by Dizzy in his article, pointless public bickering.
davros
Guest
Yes Rellum ..C A have deliberately dumbed down Shield and one day domestic ...its like they dont care ..or have even the flimsiet strategy ...to get a crowd thru the gate ? Nsw v s a shield game in newcastle had 10k thru the gate ...start there and build on that ! Adelaide oval regualry had 7 k plus for a domestic one dayer ...that was basically stolen from the fans ...who cant even support there team live now ! Just deliberate willfull negligence and worse
davros
Guest
what Matth ..said !
davros
Guest
what a croc ..id say players are well n truly winning public relations battle...and as for you playing in their place ...when it came time for first net session ...i bet youd run away like a girl !
matth
Guest
Dear oh dear, who advised him to put this in the public domain. The first half a dozen paragraphs come across as very arrogant. "modest but necessary changes". CA are changing the whole basis for player payments. Whether or not they are justified, they can't possibly consider the changes to be modest. And if the changes were that modest why have both parties been so far apart on an agreement? He then goes on to say that anyone who questions CA motives is being insulting. Sounds a bit autocratic. Then "because they see first-hand the chronic underfunding of the game at the grassroots level, in particular junior cricket". so the implication is that the current model of funding that has been in place for over 20 years is itself the cause of underfunding at grassroots levels, not the cash reserves maintained by CA, not the doubling of CA staff over the past 5 years. He provides no evidence to support this allegation. He then goes on to assert that he supports ACA representing the players in these negotiations despite: - CA repeatedly attempting to go around ACA and deal directly with the players - the speech he gave supporting direct engagement rather than through representative bodies, and asserting that all 'reasonable' people believe the same. Therefore if you support collective bargaining, you are unreasonable. He accuses ACA of "rejecting that proposal (and recent concessions) out of hand, but by launching a campaign of such sustained ferocity that anyone could be forgiven for thinking CA was proposing the reintroduction of slavery rather than healthy pay rises". But wasn't it CA that refused to enter into mediation unless ACA first agreed to abandon the current pay model? "But not content with that level of overreaction, the ACA has gone much further, refusing to allow players to tour, threatening to drive away commercial sponsors and damage the prospects of broadcast partners, lock up player IP into its own business ventures and even stage its own games. It’s a reckless strategy that can only damage the game and therefore the interests of the ACA’s own members." How about the CA reckless strategy of: - repeatedly threatening all players with unemployment if they refuse to sign (while not agreeing to mediation), - trying to deal with only certain players individually to splinter the ranks, - cease paying all cricketers at 30 June, rather than rolling out current arrangements for a short period - announcing that even if agreement is reached the players will not be back paid - even though CA no longer employ the players, CA is threatening them with respect to them earning any livelihood connected with their cricket skills or profile. So who is being reckless? "But CA and the State and Territory Associations are responsible for the health of the entire game, not just the elite level where more than 70 per cent of the game’s total revenue is currently directed.". So the players are asking for 22.5% of revenue. So the other 47.5% of revenue that is directed to the elite level, where does that go? Probably to quite reasonable places like ground hire and preparation, marketing, travel costs etc, but if CA refuse to disclose these details to the players, how are they supposed to make an informed judgement? I imagine that Sullivan's next meeting with Nicholson, rather than being about progressing the negotiations, will be sidetracked by this attack as a form of defence article. I though a businessman of the stature of Mr Peever could see a bigger picture rather than running to the media like this.
Rellum
Roar Guru
DIdin't Dizzy clock 153ish in South Africa?
Rellum
Roar Guru
Cheers mate, and just to be clear and frustration in my post is directed at CA. I feel they have been mismanaging the game from top to bottom for a long time and I don't think I am along in that opinion.
Johnno
Guest
Quick question Dizzy. In the speed gun did you ever clock 150km, what's the fastest recorded ball you ever recorded cheers.
Jarijari
Guest
Well said, Dizzy. It's about time to get on with it and find a solution. The Bangladesh tour appears to be fading away but there's a trip to India slotted in for October one-dayers and it would be best to keep that happening, even if it means some sort of interim agreement between the players and administration. On the payments for Shield players, I'd be surprised if the average was more than $100,000. The national women's team probably deserve more, for example, especially the likes of Lanning and Perry. Overall, neither the players nor the admin own the game, it's the punters who will vote with their feet or their eyes in the long run. The Ashes will happen, whatever the outcome.
Jason Gillespie
Guest
Thanks for your post. I am a huge Shield Cricket fan. This is where our international players learn the game after club and 2nd X1 cricket. The players are huge fans of this competition and want it as strong as possible. i believe everyone does. As I've said, the point of my post was to highlight the issues and offer the thoughts of many cricket fans who I've spoken with, which is they just want to see an agreement reached. Thank Dizzy
Rellum
Roar Guru
I have got to say I admire your bravery to put up an article on this issue given your history and current position. And congrats on the PNG post. I will comment on some of your arguments of course, this being the Roar and all. I wonder if you though State cricketers could add no financial value to cricket when you were in the outfield as QLD thrashed SA in 95 with the stands teaming with people, or when you suited up in the old One day comps in front of decent crowds. CA is the one who let these comps slip into meaninglessness where they offer no financial windfall. CA say the finances are more complicated than the simple 22.5% spits can deal with. That may be true but the players are arguing that they haven't seen the financial numbers from the last financial year, so how can they come to any conclusion on what is the appropriate numbers if they don't have the details, details the MOU is meant to guarantee they get access too. On the grassroots, I don't know how an organization can spend more on administration than the grassroots they suddenly hold dear and are supposedly administering. By their own numbers they spend 15% on admin and 12% on grassroots. I say this as well as they have basically made grade cricket redundant with all the focus now on pre-selected youth proteges. I would also love to hear your thoughts on the current state of the Shield? To me it has been reduced to something that doesn't even resemble a competition where no ones seems to care who wins, well no one but me and a few others. I assume you cared about winning it in your playing days, but I wonder now how many players now just see it as practice to get into the selector minds. A more individual attitude than a collective of the team trying to win the thing. That is not even mentioning how Pat Howard has made it his own plaything.
DavSA
Guest
I feel and hear your disappointment at the cancellation of the Aussie tour to us here in SA Jason as you were directly involved and I agree with you that it could have been an important tour for those up and coming players . SA would have put out a decent side with I am afraid the accent on Could have ....We are also very disappointed here , cant speak for all but myself .
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Minimal public comment? Its nice to see there are still dreamers out there, Jason. I am not convinced that a minimal public comment world exists anymore. Be nice if it did though.
Daniel
Guest
Base line, if the players aren't prepared to be flexible, then I will raise my hand to play in order to save the Ashes. What the players fail to realise is that they can't win the publicity battle! Time on their inflated wages has come, top ups are made through T/20 competitions around the world. What the players need to negotiate is a reduction in meaningless tours, enabling them to make more money playing in aforementioned T/20 leagues.