PETER DAY. Show me the money!

Cricket’s two most powerful bodies have reached an impasse over pay. The enmity between the two runs deep – blinking first ain’t an option. Thus, all our elite players (230+) are currently unemployed. HOWZAT for a dilemma?

There’s nothing like propelling a tennis ball wrapped in electrical tape towards a mate standing in front of a garbage bin, all the while trying to hit the damn thing over the neighbour’s fence – have you ever seen how much a ball wrapped in plastic tape swings and dances; it’s a beautiful thing to behold?

Backyard cricket: the game where not only mates, but gran and grandson become batting partners in a fiercely fought out Test Match.

And this is serious stuff, too; “Sure, it’s only make believe Test cricket… but try telling that to your big brother whose trying to knock your head-off from just 12 metres away!” It’s on.

“Howzat… Gaaawn… you’re out: that’s EL-BEE-DOUBLE U!”

No umpires or DRS here.

Things always get sorted, though, ‘cause the game must go on – “And anyway, you can’t be EL-BEE first ball!”

Laughter. Passion. Diving. Cheering. Crying. Sportsmanship. Dummy spits. Broken windows; not to mention mum’s ritual call-out, usually at ten to six on the dot: “Dinner time! Finish your game and wash your hands, boys… and that means NOW!”

This is the place where all cricketers begin their education, from the elite to the fun-loving social player.

And what a noble thing: to learn your craft in the most accessible and familiar of places: the place where dogs and cats, clothes lines and vegie gardens look on without fuss.

The place where the lemon tree stands nervously at cover-point, the Azalea bush hunches over at 3rd slip, while the gum tree stands imperiously at deep mid-off.


Well, that was way back when. Things change, don’t you know? Time to remove those pesky rose coloured glasses and enter the real world: the world which has turned cricket, and many of its sporting cousins, into a corporate behemoth – a dog eat dog world of intellectual property rights, franchises, lawyers, branding, commercial interests, and ruthless power-brokers.

The backyard has become a corporate swamp that is slowly but surely swallowing-up the game’s beauty and nobility. No wonder the unseemly stand-off between our game’s two most powerful bodies: the Cricketers’ Association (ACA) and Cricket Australia (CA).

So what happened?

Well, the goose laid the proverbial golden egg for our cricketers twenty years ago when they successfully negotiated the revenue share model – a model, mind you, which sees some of our retired International cricketers currently earning seven figure salaries; yes, blokes who no longer hit, catch, bowl, or field in either the Test or Sheffield Shield arenas are earning over twice as much as our Prime Minister.

Why wouldn’t they want to maintain the status quo; wouldn’t you?

Yet CA’s proposed new funding model, the one the cricketers have rejected out of hand, seems more than reasonable:

  • Male international players average salary is expected to increase from $1.16m to $1.45m by 2021;
  • Domestic players average salary up from $200,000 to $230,000;
  • Women International players average salary up from $79,000 to $179,000;
  • Female domestic players average salary up from $22,000 to $52,000.

(figures from The Australian, July 13, p.1)

Cleverly, though, the ACA has framed this dispute in industrial relations terms: it’s the big, bad employer taking advantage of the poor workers. In this instance, however, one has to question whether the workers might be overplaying their hand.

Indeed, as it stands, 70 per cent of the game’s total revenue is directed at the elite level, while just 12 per cent is passed-on to grassroots. CA rightly believes this is untenable and that it can be resolved only by changing the revenue sharing model the players understandably want to cling to.

Given this backdrop, it is interesting to see how the very well remunerated have managed to attract underdog cum victims-of-corporate-bullying status; little wonder they are way out in front of CA in the public relations stakes. This is not to say, of course, that the players are simply being mercenary and opportunistic. There is genuine goodwill among them. Rather, the point is, entrenched privilege changes a man; he loses perspective, as decent as he may be. And who wants to trade-in a five star lifestyle anyway?

But CA too has its problems and is, by no means, without fault. Its bureaucracy has become bloated, while at the executive level, the goose has also been especially kind laying larger and larger eggs. The CEO of 16 years, James Sutherland, for instance, is on perhaps as much as two million per annum – at least he’s not retired.

Further, they have run a very clumsy and, at times, grating PR campaign; one from which the CEO and the chair, David Peever, have been strangely absent.

And while CA seems to have a good, if poorly enunciated grassroots story to tell, and the players remain our beloved backyard champions; it’s hard to have much sympathy for either set of protagonists. One just hopes the dispute doesn’t end in a nasty divorce in which the adults become so consumed with winning – and doing each other over – that they forget the kids: the punters, juniors, and volunteers.

Frankly, “The love of money is the root of all evil – and of most disputes.” It’s time, then, for both parties to remember their first love: the game. That beautiful childhood sweetheart they met way back when in the backyard.

And lest we forget that amid the acrimony there remain a lot of thoroughly good people – players and administrators alike. It’s just that the insatiable corporate culture in which they are immersed has little appetite for cricket’s humble backyard and grassroots soul.

Might I suggest, then, that Mr Sutherland takes the new ball from the old gum tree end; Mr Nicholson (ACA, CEO) takes guard in front of the bin near the Azaleas; while Mr Peever fields at deep cover-point to protect the kitchen window.

Now that’s a game worth fighting for.

“Gentlemen, play!”


Peter Day is a former backyard cricketer and Catholic priest from the archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn


This entry was posted in Sport. Consider contributing. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to PETER DAY. Show me the money!

  1. Julian says:

    Thank you Peter for your entertaining analysis.

    Brian Doolan (above) mentions: “…Gideon Haigh’s recent observations about just what a strange corporate entity Cricket Australia has become…”. I read those comments also and would agree with Gideon’s assessment of the situation.

    You mentioned Peter that you thought the C.A. chair Mr. Peever had hitherto been a bit reticent. His comments made the front page of The Australian newspaper last Thursday, July 13. There was also a longish article from Mr. Peever on page 12 of that paper. All in all, I am sure everyone will be quite relieved to know that Mr. Peever is now writing “…exclusively for The Australian…” .

    P.S. I do find it hard to keep tongue in cheek as I write !

  2. Stuart Magee says:

    Well now I did get a laugh from that, but it is a serious matter. You say that “some of our retired international cricketers are currently earning seven figure salaries”
    Indeed! What distinguishes them from the retired players who no longer get paid, and for how long after retirement do they continue to be paid? No letting it go through to the Azaleas now.

  3. Brian Doolan says:

    Peter, your article overlooks a key fact that is known even to a lay observer like myself. I presume it is isn’t intentional sophistry. You ask of the players ‘why wouldn’t they want to maintain the status quo?’ and state that Cricket Australia wants to change the current revenue sharing model that ‘the players understandably want to cling to’. Anyone can read the Cricketers Association’s media release of 28 April 2017 on its website which states that the Association has proposed a revision to the current model which would provide 22.5% of agreed revenue to the players, 22.5% to grass roots cricket, and 55% to Cricket Australia. A key sticking point that you don’t analyse (which was also an issue in the recent AFL collective bargaining agreement) is, what constitutes agreed revenue. I agree with administrators that if they develop, say, a lucrative sponsorship for kids participation programs, then the professional players don’t deserve a share of that revenue. But if a new form of digital broadcasting of elite competition brings in novel revenue, why should this sit outside a shared pool, as I understand Cricket Australia is proposing. You might also like to examine Gideon Haigh’s recent observations about just what a strange corporate entity Cricket Australia has become after recent reforms and, in particular,the opacity of its governance.

Comments are closed.