The bitter pay war has become uglier as it's dragged on and has serious consequences for Australian cricket, including the alarming possibility of this summer's Ashes series being canned.
Here, we take a look at how Australian cricket arrived at the crossroads and what it means for the future.
WHAT BOTH SIDES WANT
For two decades Australian players have been paid according to a shared revenue model. That is, a fixed percentage of revenue generated by CA (26 per cent as of the most recent MOU) has been distributed to the top cricketers - that's international and domestic players - rather than them receiving a set annual salary.
If CA makes less money in 2017 than it did in 2016, it pays the players less that year. If CA makes more money in 2017 than it did in 2016, it pays the players more. Effectively, the players' income is dependent on how successful cricket is in Australia.
The players want to keep this model. They say it's worked for 20 years and if it ain't broke, why fix it?
CA wants to break up the revenue sharing model because it doesn't believe it gives the governing body adequate opportunity to grow the game. Much of CA's rhetoric about abandoning the current scheme has revolved around wanting to invest more in cricket at a grassroots level so it doesn't get left behind by other codes like AFL.
Instead it wants to offer the top players fixed salaries for the year so more money can be spent on the bottom end of the pyramid.
WHAT CRICKET AUSTRALIA HAS PROPOSED
Initially, CA didn't believe domestic players should be included in any revenue sharing agreement because they don't contribute to financial earnings anywhere near as much as the stars in the international arena.
As such, it was of the view only the top 20 players should be allowed a percentage of surplus CA revenue. The rest would settle for salaries that don't fluctuate according to the game's income.
Here's what CA presented to players in March:
- A $20 million pool of surplus revenue (surplus being the key word here) to be shared by the top 20 players ($16 million for men, $4 million for women).
- Total pay increases from the current $311 million to a projected $419 million between 2017-2022.
- Average women's pay increases by 150 per cent to $179,000 a year from $79,000 for international cricketers, and from $22,000 to $52,000 for domestic players.
- Average domestic men's payments increase to $235,000 by 2021-22, up from $199,000 in 2016-17.
- Identical match fees for men and women in state cricket.
- Average international men's central contract to rise to $816,000 by 2021-22.
- Average hourly pay will be the same for male and female state cricketers.
The ACA rejected this proposal as it abandoned the revenue sharing scheme.
In late June CA offered a revised deal in a last-ditch effort to end the standoff. It altered its proposal to include all male and female state cricketers in its profit share model (not just the top 20 players) and also offered pay rises to male domestic players, but still the offer was rebuffed.
THOSE NUMBERS LOOK DAMN GOOD, WHY ALL THE FUSS?
CA's offer wasn't well received by the players.
CA's offer wasn't well received by the players.Source:AP
Yes, players aren't exactly left out in the cold in CA's above proposal. The remuneration of female and state players seems more than fair, especially with expected pay increases over the course of a new five-year MOU.
But here's why the players are crying foul. CA is expected to strike a new broadcast deal next year and with the continued success of the Big Bash League (BBL), they can see a big upswing coming. If the game benefits from a new media rights deal the players want a slice of the pie, and they see CA's proposal as a means of cutting them out of the profits they work to generate.
The ACA was unhappy CA would break a partnership "that allows players to share in the ups and downs of the game and its revenue, and allows for fluctuations in media rights cycles".
The ACA rejected CA's original proposal, saying in March it "disrespects the value of domestic cricketers and the role they play in Australian cricket" and "denies female cricketers the opportunity to share in the game's revenue".
Additionally, CA's payments to state players would be capped at an increase of 18 per cent over five years, another sticking point for the ACA.
The ACA also rejected the revised offer put forward in late June because it didn't meet the players halfway. We'll get to another problem with this deal a little later.
The message from the players - led by outspoken Aussie vice-captain David Warner - has been about refusing to cave to CA's demands because they're looking out for lower-profile players who slave away on the domestic scene, in and out of state sides, who probably won't ever rise to national prominence.
The players are adamant CA's proposal hurts the little guy. The top players continue to say they're sticking together because they believe the revenue sharing model looks after everyone, whereas CA's new plan caters mainly for the top tier.
The ACA presented a "modernised" revenue sharing model with 55 per cent of revenue going to CA, 22.5 per cent going to grassroots cricket and 22.5 per cent going to male and female players. But CA wasn't prepared to accept.
Again, the crux of the problem is pretty simple. The players want the revenue sharing model as close to its original form as possible and CA doesn't. Right now, it's a standoff where nobody is prepared to budge.
THINGS GET UGLY - THE JUNE 30 DEADLINE
ACA General Manager Tim Cruickshank (L) and CEO Alistair Nicholson (R) are fighting for what the players want.
ACA General Manager Tim Cruickshank (L) and CEO Alistair Nicholson (R) are fighting for what the players want.Source:Getty Images
The sad reality is this game of chicken has sunk to petty lows.
- CA has been accused of negotiating in bad faith by approaching players like Steve Smith and David Warner in person, seen as a sneaky way of trying to bypass the ACA. The players were then clear in telling CA the ACA was their representative in this process and it should respect that.
- Two weeks after the ACA rejected CA's original offer, CA CEO James Sutherland penned a letter saying players would not be offered any alternative payment model and if they did not accept it by June 30, they would become unemployed.
- The writing was on the wall in May when the ACA launched a formal application to CA for outside mediation in negotiations. So badly damaged was the relationship between the two parties it was the first time since the MOU signed two decades ago either body had requested outside assistance.
- Things worsened when Australia was in England preparing for its Champions Trophy campaign, as Cricket Australia released a video explaining why its proposed model was so beneficial.
The players weren't impressed, David Warner taking a not-so-subtle jab at CA's approach. "It is only what we hear in the media and that's how CA have been driving it the whole way. They have been using the media as a voice and we get the message from there," he told Fairfax Media.
The players hit back by releasing their own video.
- When CA blinked first and proposed a revised deal in June (mentioned earlier in this piece), it did so at the same time it sent out contract offers to players, a move that enraged the ACA and players alike.
"The parties have not reached agreement on many fundamental issues," the association said in a statement. "The contract offers do not contain revenue sharing for all players, and are not what they appear to be. They do not include crucial information regarding terms and conditions.
"Further, as has been requested since August 2016, critical financial and forecasting information has yet to be provided so the ACA can properly assess the offers and advise the players accordingly. This remains unacceptable."
As the PR battle became as important as finalising a pay agreement, the threat of a player strike loomed ever closer.
DOOMSDAY'S ARRIVAL - 'WE'LL BE JUMPING OFF THE CLIFF TOGETHER'
On Tuesday, the ACA admitted it had all but given up on resolving the dispute by midnight on June 30.
"We will be jumping off the cliff together," ACA chairman Greg Dyer said. "It's fair to say we (CA and ACA) still remain a long way apart. The fundamentals of the deal are nowhere near resolved."
Cricket Australia high performance manager Pat Howard sent a letter to all states and the ACA on Wednesday explaining in detail the situation all players faced as a result of the deadlock. He reinforced if no MOU was agreed upon, players whose contracts expired on June 30 would be unemployed.
"If your contract expires on 30 June, you will not be an employee of CA, a State Association or a W/BBL Team from 1 July. This means that you are not required to play, train, perform player appearances or media commitments, and you will not be paid a retainer until such time as a MOU is agreed and a player contract is agreed with you in writing," the letter read.
Howard also made players aware that ICC regulations state they cannot play "ICC approved cricket (eg domestic T20 competitions operated by overseas cricket boards) without approval from Cricket Australia" and "players who participate in disapproved cricket (eg exhibition matches) are not permitted to participate in ICC approved cricket for a minimum of six month thereafter".
He said applications for "No Objection Certificates" would be dealt with on "a case-by-case basis".
However, players can continue to use CA and state facilities to train.
'PATHETIC' SITUATION 'AN ABSOLUTE EMBARRASSMENT'
Australia's women are just as involved as the men.
Australia's women are just as involved as the men.Source:News Corp Australia
Speaking on The Back Page on Tuesday, Courier Mail chief sports writer and veteran cricket journalist Robert Craddock said the inability to come to an agreement was "pathetic".
"It's embarrassing, the level of communication between both sides of the argument is an absolute embarrassment," he said.
"Cricket Australia is awash with riches, the game is doing brilliantly in this country. How they cannot have a solution after months and months of this standoff is pathetic, it really is.
"Both sides are at fault."
Former Australian leg-spinner Kerry O'Keeffe said if the Aussie players take industrial action they risk losing the goodwill of the public, even though in their mind they're doing what's right.
"The players have to blink first because they risk failing the pub test. Now the public's starting to find out Steve Smith's on $2 million, Mitchell Starc's on $1.8 million, that the average Shield player gets $240,000," he said.
"They (the public) will start to resent this grab for money. The players will say, 'That's money we earn,' but if you lose the public you lose the game."
WHERE TO NOW?
Will Glenn Maxwell sign an "unpaid" contract?
Will Glenn Maxwell sign an "unpaid" contract?Source:AP
Australia is scheduled to tour Bangladesh in August. That tour is now in doubt.
The Aussies are also supposed to host this summer's Ashes. David Warner has spoken about the possibility of that series not going ahead and while you'd have to think the biggest rivalry in Australian cricket can't possibly be in jeopardy, we've seen this debacle head further south than anyone envisaged. So who's to say it won't get worse before it gets better?
Australia A also has a tour to South Africa shortly and News Corp reported CA was considering taking the extraordinary step of asking the second string team's biggest names to sign contracts for no money.
News Corp has since reported those contracts were not formally tabled, and Test stars such as Glenn Maxwell and Usman Khawaja may boycott the Australia A camp. However, some players in that squad - like Ashton Agar and Hilton Cartwright - are on multi-year state contracts and as such are still employed by CA, so would be required to leave for the tour next Friday.
The T20 revolution means players can ply their trade as guns for hire around the world in the game's shortest format. If players are unemployed and unable to earn money playing in Australia they may well turn to lucrative T20 tournaments - such as those in England, India and the Caribbean - to earn a buck.
However, as mentioned earlier in Pat Howard's letter, they would need CA's approval to do this.
IS THERE AN END IN SIGHT?
Shane Watson wants James Sutherland to get involved.
Shane Watson wants James Sutherland to get involved.Source:Getty Images
Apart from sending the letter saying players would be unemployed if no deal was reached by June 30, James Sutherland has been largely absent in the negotiation process, instead relying on CA's chief negotiator Kevin Roberts to get the job done.
Earlier in the week retired Aussie star Shane Watson urged the CA CEO to step in and end this ugly mess.
"James is a bit of an expert in negotiations with his previous experiences and this time he's not even involved in this one, which just bewilders me how that happens," Watson said on Tuesday.
"Someone who knows the ins and outs of how things work in MOU negotiations has not actually been involved."
The two parties have thus far shown they essentially can't stand each other. If Sutherland can't wave a magic wand and make all well again, who knows what the future holds.
