Players won't budge on their 26% revenue share

Australia's cricketers will refuse to budge from their fixed 26% share of total Cricket Australia revenue when the game's administrators seek to carry out the player payment recommendations of the Argus review.

One of the review's many key conclusions was that the payment structure of Australian cricket was not firm enough in its link between player payment and performance. Australian players are paid relative to the performances of each other on a year-by-year basis, but do not experience peaks and troughs of remuneration when their performance surge ahead or lag behind the results of other nations.

The basic building block of Australian player payments is their fixed 26% share of total CA revenue, an arrangement that allows for the players to be paid less in years when the collective body has turned in a lesser profit, and more when the opposite is true. Paul Marsh, chief executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA), said the players would not allow any change to his model.

Player payment negotiations were effectively placed on hold in the off-season as CA and the ACA agreed to extend most existing arrangements by one year while numerous changes to the cricket landscape, including the expansion of the Twenty20 Big Bash League, took place.

"Quite simply the ACA and our members won't entertain a move away from the percentage share of revenue model we've had since 1999, nor our current 26% share," Marsh said. "We believe this has worked very well for Australian cricket and the players for the past 12 years and is not a reason for the recent decline in our on-field performances.

"The recommendations regarding changes to the contracting and player payment models will form part of our upcoming MOU negotiations with CA. We are open to discussing how we can improve these models to make Australian cricket stronger but moving away from our percentage share of revenue model isn't open for discussion from our perspective."

Marsh took issue with the review's findings about player wages not being linked closely enough to performances, and also pointed out that the players' use for CA marketing and advertising across the summer had to be remunerated irrespective of how individuals performed on the field. He expressed the view that no-one else in Australian cricket, be they administrators, coaches, or board members, were as accountable for performance as the players themselves.

"What's been overlooked in my view is the fact that our payment system is already extremely performance based," Marsh said. "Player retainer values fluctuate from year to year based on player performances - and these fluctuations can be considerable. Players come on and go off contract lists and it would be fair to say that no other role in Australian cricket is subject to such cut throat performance measures.

"It's also important to note that player payments are not just a function of on-field performance. When signing contracts, players hand over various commercial rights to CA that CA exploit for the financial gain of Australian cricket. The players also agree to a range of other significant obligations and restrictions. There has to be a fixed value attached to this that isn't dependent on on-field performance."

Most of the review's other findings and recommendations have been met with a warm response by the players and their representatives, but Marsh raised some doubts about the how the concept of linking the head coach with each state would be practically implemented.

"The creation of the General Manager of Team Performance is a good initiative, as is the move to a full-time National Selector," Marsh said. "The expansion of the Head Coach's role makes theoretical sense, however, in practical terms, how alignment between this role and the State coaching roles will be achieved is the big question for me."