Two words threatening to rip Australian cricket apart

Alex Broun 23:22 24/05/2017
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Mail
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Not happy: Steven Smith

    “Revenue sharing” – these two words are threatening to rip the game apart.

    They almost stopped India from attending the Champions Trophy, which starts in England next week, and could even see this year’s eagerly anticipated Ashes series cancelled as Australia’s players go “freelance”.

    Although revenue sharing is at the core of both these schisms the two issues are vastly different.

    In terms of India’s participation in the Champions Trophy it was caused by the powerful BCCI (The Board of Control for Cricket in India) refusing to accept the ICC’s (International Cricket Council) new revenue sharing model which sees less money given to the traditional powerhouses – India, England and Australia – and more shared among the developing or emerging nations, like Ireland and Afghanistan.

    The new deal saw India’s share drop from $570million to $290million, which the BCCI refused to accept, but they softened when the ICC increased that offer by $100million.

    The dispute currently ripping Australian cricket apart also revolves around “revenue sharing” but in a totally different context.

    Since the Kerry Packer revolution that changed Australian cricket forever in 1977, “revenue sharing” has been a part of contracts between the ACB, now Cricket Australia, and the players.

    Alistair Nicholson, chief provocateur of the ACA

    The current deal that runs from 2012 till June 30 2017 guaranteed players a 24.5% to 27% share of revenue, depending on results.

    This is at the low range of revenue shares in Australian sport which range from 25% (rugby league), to the high 20s (AFL, likely, given current negotiations) and low 30s (rugby union and football). Nothing compared to the US where athletes receive approximately a 50% share.

    But the Australian cricketers don’t want a bigger share of the revenue – in fact they want less (22.5%). The sticking point is they want an additional 22.5% to go to the lower levels of the game (State and club teams) with CA receiving the other 55%.

    Or at least this is what the Australian Cricketers Association (ACA), the player’s union, say they want. To date they are carrying out the negotiations on behalf of the players.

    James Sutherland, CEO of Cricket Australia

    James Sutherland, CEO of Cricket Australia

    James Sutherland, the CEO of CA, has rebuffed this plan saying the ACA “seeks to inappropriately expand its role as a players’ representative body into that of a de-facto administrator”. Ironically as only a sometime state player himself, Sutherland in his playing days was exactly the type of cricketer the ACA deal is trying to help.

    Many are starting to see this dispute as a battle not over shared revenue but rather a struggle between CA and the ACA for control of the game in Australia.

    While others are actually seeing it as a clash between two head strong individuals – Sutherland and ACA CEO, Alistair ‘Big Jack’ Nicholson, who played AFL, not cricket, for Melbourne in his playing days.

    The players, for now, have stuck firmly behind Nicholson and the ACA although according to Sutherland they stand to make much more from the proposed new CA deal.

    Mitchell Starc has been particularly prominent on Twitter making posts like: “The top players are going into bat for the domestic players, female players & grassroots cricket.”

    But again Sutherland would dispute that after offering the Southern Stars, Australia’s women’s team, new contracts worth $135,000 – making them the nation’s best paid sports women.

    Both sides are involved in an increasing war of brinkmanship, trying to force the other side to back down.

    Last week Sutherland issued an ultimatum to the players that no new deal was coming and they should take the current offer or leave it. The ACA returned fire by announcing they were forming a new organisation to look after the player’s IP rights if a new deal with CA is not reached.

    Waiting in the wings are global T20 leagues, like the new South African league, hoping to scoop up any Australian players who suddenly are off contract come July 1.

    The thought of Australian heroes like Steve Smith and David Warner wandering the globe as guns to hire, like Chris Gayle, may have tournament promoters everywhere drooling but it sends a shudder down the spine of all Australian cricket fans.

    David Warner and Steve Smith

    The big question is will it happen? Will the ACA – CA impasse lead to mass desertions of Australia’s stars from the national team or will sanity prevail and a new deal be reached at the last minute?

    For that to happen their will need to be compromise – and at the moment that is one buzz word in very short supply.

    Recommended