The last few months have been profusely turbulent for Australian cricket, as the ongoing tussles between the players association and Cricket Australia (CA) continue to rage on. The matter got to a serious level when Cricket Australia announced its new policy of payments, which included a fixed salary for the individuals, and the equal division of capital between the men, women and the infrastructure development.
That wasn’t too well received by the players and skipper Steven Smith along with vice-captain David Warner, clearly admitted the need of receiving a fair share of profits as a part of their remuneration. Warner on a couple of occasions even hinted that the players wouldn’t back down from a complete boycott, which could lead to the absence of an Australian team from the home Ashes later this year.
Former Australian Cricketers Association chief executive Paul Marsh recently voiced his opinion on the matter and slammed CA for not listening to the players.
“I think it’s crazy,” Marsh said. “For the services of players, cricket is now a seller’s market. The players can choose where to go, and that’s a reality the AFL doesn’t have, players, can’t pick up their trade and go somewhere else.”
“But the cricketers can, and for the majority of countries now they can make a lot more money doing that than playing international cricket. I think international cricket is at risk of falling over if the big countries have a period for whatever reason where they don’t play international cricket,” Marsh added.
“No players’ association can responsibly represent its members if you don’t understand what the financial forecasts look like,” Marsh said. “Historically CA – and the last MoU in 2012 was the best – gave us incredibly detailed and rigorous financial forecasts for their business, for the state associations and for the BBL teams. The reality of it is that your forecasts will end up being different to your actual results; almost by definition it is impossible to look five or six years into the future and get that absolutely right.”
“But in CA’s case they have to be accountable to something, and that’s why the percentage model is so important. If the actual revenues of the industry end up being different to what the forecasts are, then you’ve got something you can tie the players’ payments to. A share of revenue could be more or less than what it has been, that’s all part of the discussion, as is what goes in and what goes out, but it’s about tying what the players get to the actual revenues of the game rather than what the forecasts are. There’s no accountability for CA if they don’t,” Marsh concluded.