The pay dispute between Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricketers’ Association reflects broader issues of workers seeking to increase their share of the wealth they help create through their labour.
In stalled negotiations, the players’ assertion of their rights to a greater share of revenue can only be tested by their preparedness to strike in support of such claims. Such drastic steps are only contemplated when negotiations reach an impasse, like when employers seek to maintain current revenue-sharing deals, or – as in this case – seek to deal with individual players directly.
The players’ refusal to work is a potent form of player power, but the potential benefits may be illusory. As the dispute drags on, both parties run the risk of alienating consumers (the viewing public), and possibly damaging the sporting brand.
The players’ strike in search of improved salaries across the cricket spectrum and several other demands, also recognises that an inflationary marketplace has emerged in professional sport.
A unique workplace
A feature of contemporary professional sports is that players are becoming increasingly well-organised and militant. In this way, professional sports is bucking major trends in industrial relations, such as a marked decline in both union membership and industrial disputes over recent decades.
Professional athletes now earn salaries far above those of other workers. Yet despite a profitable financial career, these athletes often form player associations to improve their employment conditions.
The need to form associations is due to a series of employment restrictions that limit the earnings of professional athletes at all levels. This is a unique characteristic of professional sport. Governing authorities have power to impose controls that would not be permitted in other workplaces.
Such controls include:
- fixing employees’ rates of pay;
- restricting the industry demand for labour;
- imposing compensation fees on players when moving between employers; and
- providing clubs with an equitable access to the supply of talent through measures like player drafts.
These restrictions are justified by the need to foster junior development, to maintain public interest in sport by creating “competitive balance” (or even competition), and to ensure the sport’s financial viability.
Differences between the codes
The balance of power in professional sport in Australia has predominately remained with the governing authorities. But players are clearly having a greater influence.
The bargaining power of athletes differs between various Australian team sports. The AFL and NRL offer the greatest opportunities for athletes to demand high salaries. These competitions have 18 and 16 professional clubs respectively, and each wants to attract the best players. Therefore, there are several prospective employers competing for the athletes’ services.
The situation that exists in professional cricket is different. Professional cricketers have access to greatest financial rewards at international level. But at this level, there is only one team for Test cricket and two teams for limited-overs cricket. However, there is also an avenue to cricket riches though the Indian Premier League.
So, Australian cricketers competing for a place to represent their country are employed in a marketplace with only one employer.
There are lucrative rewards for players who reach this pinnacle and are contracted to Cricket Australia. However, domestic players, and women cricketers, are not reaping the same financial benefits.
The current impasse is being spearheaded by those contracted to Cricket Australia. The issue at stake for these players is that the collective agreement process be respected by the employer, and that the interests of all professional cricketers are protected.
Where to from here?
Much of the focus of the dispute revolves around whether there will any disruption to this summer’s Ashes series.
However, the more salient issue in the longer term is that the dispute can be interpreted as a test of power. The outcome is likely to shape future negotiations in cricket and potentially other professional sporting codes.
In most other industries, the strength of organised labour has been aggressively challenged by government regulations that have sought to curb union power, and by assertive employers seeking to bypass unions in support of direct negotiations with employees. Unions now live in a contrary world.
Yet, if there is an intention to sideline player associations in major Australian sporting codes, employers may find there is no such decline in the power of organised labour in sports. Quite the opposite.
Industrial relations, like cricket, is a contest. The employment relationship embeds both co-operation and conflict, in what’s been described as a form of “structured antagonism”.
This concept recognises that both parties have a joint stake in the success of their enterprise, but nevertheless have different interests that need to be resolved through either co-operative employment relations – where employers and workers partner together – or adversarial relations and disputes.
Across different codes, athletes now have a louder voice to assert their interests. And they are expressing a clear preference for a larger share of the pie, and that negotiations occur through collective agreements with their chosen representatives.
By Michael Barry, Head of Department, Griffith Business School, Griffith University and James Skinner, Professor of Sport Business and the Director of the Institute for Sport Business, Loughborough University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
The Fatman
Guest
Meaning" makes no sense without context. There's no such thing as free-floating meaning. If life on Earth was wiped out, and there was no intelligent life on other planets (and no gods, etc), then a "don't walk on the grass" sign would have no meaning. If you think it still would have meaning, ask yourself, "Meaning to whom?" To gods? Remember, we've (for the sake of argument) said they don't exist. To the Universe? If it's sentient and can interpret signs, then it's a kind of god or person. I'm saying that if there's nothing like that—if there are no minds—then "don't walk on the grass" is meaningless. "Meaning" needs the concept of a mind to make sense. In whose mind does "do not walk on the grass" have meaning? No one's? Then it's meaningless.
Whiteline
Guest
Fat, who is playing in the Big Bash? Just saw the fixtures...
Paul
Guest
Why Davros....the ACA says All of the 200 plus players think exactly the same...so what is it that they want a say about exactly? Oh that's right, how much money they get. Until you as an ACA advocate tell us, we are all in the dark.
James
Guest
Your kids would be excited by executives turning up? Your kids are weird.
Julian King
Roar Guru
You're right. Cricket income isn't solely generated by the players, which is why the ACA propose a share of Australian cricket revenue (i.e. player generated revenue) as opposed to total revenue. Additionally, they propose a minimum set percentage (22.5%) of cricket revenue go into grass roots development (significantly higher than the current amount of 12%). In light of this, I expect you'll now support the players Miles?
Whiteline
Guest
I love how the ACA keep rolling out Warner. Times are tough when he is your spokesperson!! Fantastic. He will have a bit more time to watch some 'cardoons' on his OLED TV...on the couch...love the blacks...so black..cardoons..OLED..blacks.
davros
Guest
its clearly not just about money ..its being able to have a SAY IN THE DIRECTION THE GAME IS TAKEN
davros
Guest
i couldnt be bothered even half replying to all that cockwomble ..maybe just the last line ? Without the players there is no ashes ...with out peever and roberst and other hard headed psycopath egomaniac idealogues ...they would be in South africa now and getting ready for bangladesh shortly . Trade unions are true poison ?...wow theres an unbiased comment !
The Fatman
Guest
It is all about Revenue Sharing - the cricketers want to be paid as a portion of the % of the total revenue made and not a fixed income. This is no different from the NBA or MBL in the States where the players and administrators are partners not one works for the other.
The Fatman
Guest
You watch Ches. The Ashes tour is doomed. And you will be left eating big fat humble pie as there is ZERO cricket this summer. The Fatman has spoken!
Ian
Guest
Have to agree with you. The dispute is about money and not to recognise this simple reality is the same as sticking your head in the sand. I have lost total respect for the players. They are greedy. If they want more money, they should have very tight performance clauses in their contracts. For example, if David Warner wants more money, then he should have to maintain a reasonable, minimal average over the season. If he had reached the top of his profession as an accountant and made as many mistakes as he does when batting, he'd be without a job. Moreover, in all the time my two boys played cricket (in Sydney), there was never any interest shown by any elite players. For all the time the coaches and managers of the teams they played in gave, they go nothing back. They did it for the love of the game. These elite players do it for the love of money. My son would have gladly played for Australia for minimum wages and unfortunately lost complete interest in the game (in spite of consistently making rep sides). I remember how both my boys were snubbed by some elite players when I took them to watch them practice at the SCG the day before the Ashes test stared. A few players gladly signed their sheets, but the vast majority either ignored them or said they would do it later but never did. What made it even worse, is that there were not a massive amount of kids looking for autographs. Perhaps some encouragement from some of these players may have inspired them to stay in the game! It seems it's no longer a privilege to play for your country unless you are being paid a small fortune. Quite sad,really.
Mike from tari
Guest
Does anyone really know what each side want, I have not been able to figure out what the stumbling block is, I have heard so many different stories that I don't know what is true & what is crap.
ches
Guest
One example is the player all of a sudden have an extra $30 million for grassroots. Why did they not do this before? Just trying to make themselves look good. Whatever happened to a true act of generosity where somebody does something good for someone else (Grassroots in this case) and does not expect a single thing in return? Instead they have to boast about it on social media. Hmmmmm Trade union style organisations are true poison and equally as bad as big corporate greed. I did not like the way the CA (or you might say lack of) used statistics to distort their argument. There is way more. Take your "Norm Gallagher" glasses off, stand in the middle and see the truth. There is massive fault on both sides here and the punters, the ones who pay all their salaries are the ones left wondering. Talk about fair. Without the punters they are all out of a job.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
So you are ok with CA execs being greedy then? Pretty sure they are paying themselves pretty well. My kids did aussie rules, cricket and swimming. I saw elite sportsmen turn up to encourage the kiddies but I didn't see any suits. All the elite players of the last 20 yrs managed to go all the way under the previous model. The players are advocating for all levels whereas CA seem to be keen save some cash below, particularly around that other vital cog, the Sheffield Shield. They must hope to get some leverage out of the individual contracts as well.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
A couple of sacrificial resignations or sackings on CA's side would do the trick.
Miles
Guest
CA has to negotiate on behalf of the rest of the cricket community. It seems like people commenting here don't have kids in the sport. If they did, they wouldn't be cheering on the greed of these blokes, poor things, wondering where their next Maserati will come from. I can tell you where it will come from, parents like me. Cricket income isn't generated solely by the players. The only reason they're on the field is because of the hours put in by their home clubs, the volunteer coaches and people who maintain facilities around Australia. They get the glory while the volunteers get very little back. If the players union comes out and demands a fixed percentage for clubs across Australia to develop the next generation of players, I'll support their position. Until then, their narrative is entirely selfish (it's all about us) and driven for one outcome only, which is their own enrichment at the expense of the game.
Chui
Guest
A war in all senses of the word? Hyperbole much?
ches
Guest
@Fatman of course there will be more cricket if this is not resolved. One of 3 things will happen. 1. The players as a group will break away and join or start another "Rebel" CA alternative to which the ICC & State Cricket trusts will support to keep the game going. 2. Division within the playing group will occur and some will give up the fight and sign just to get working again. Not all will follow. The talent pool of Australian cricket will be severely damaged but the game will go on. 3. CA wins the dispute. The whole group of players will be lost to the game. But CA goes on. They will field First Class squads and higher with Grade level cricketers. The high standards will be obliterated overnight. But the game will go on, albeit very slowly. In time when a high standard is reached (huge financial loss the consequence) the game will grow again commercially. Cricket is culture to many here. There are many who would give their eye teeth and work just as hard for less money to play at the highest level. Cricket will always be played here and with that comes those who strive for excellence and make a living from it. I personally hope number 3 never happens. The players could kill CA overnight by selling the IP rights to an overseas company. CA will be hamstrung to run the game properly without these resources at their disposal. Nor could afford to pay a third party company the rights to use them. Extortion is the word that comes to mind.
davros
Guest
how are both groups approaches appalling ? this furphy is tossed up time and time again ..there has been one groups approach that has been appalling and its not aca
ches
Guest
Your right Nic it is not a strike by the players. But on the same token it is not a lock out by CA either. All the players have to do is sign and they are employed again. Having to sign was not a "new rule" created for this crisis. One always had to sign a contract to play at that level. I am not saying (or advocating) the players should sign either. Both groups approach to this is appalling. Both have valid points and crummy ones as well. There are no Good Guys here.