da roleta： A concise look back at the events that led to the pay-dispute crisis between the Australian players and their cricket board
da dobrowin： Daniel Brettig30-Jun-20173:46
What is the CA-ACA pay dispute?
November 11: MoU negotiations between Cricket Australia (CA) and the Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) formally begin in Melbourne, with a meeting between CA’s chairman David Peever and his opposite number Greg Dyer. The meeting was preluded by news that the ACA was chasing a more expansive definition of Australian Cricket Revenue – the agreed pool of money from which their payment has been drawn – to include digital revenue.December 7: Australia’s captain Steven Smith and deputy David Warner dine with CA board directors where the governing body’s desire to break up the revenue sharing model is discussed. It is an evening that begins a trend of CA trying to go around the ACA to deal directly with the players.December 12: CA sends its initial pay submission to the ACA and players, detailing plans to break up the revenue sharing model and offer fixed wages to domestic male and female players, while only offering surplus profits – capped at A$20 million – to international men (subsequently expanded to also include international women). A particular sticking point is the pregnancy policy for female players.December 19: CA suspends pay talks with the ACA after the pregnancy clause revelations, locking the players’ association’s negotiating team out of a scheduled meeting at the board’s Jolimont headquarters – this is the first major breakdown in pay talks between the two bodies in 20 years.December 22: Australia’s men’s and women’s captains Steven Smith and Meg Lanning write to the CA chief executive James Sutherland requesting that the board respects the ACA as the players’ collective bargaining agent and asking that they cease attempts to deal directly with individual players.December 27: Sutherland seeks to take some heat out of discussions by stating during the Boxing Day Test match against Pakistan that Australia’s players’ association and board have “more in common than not”.January 24: The ACA claims that it is not being offered substantial financial details on which to judge CA’s proposal and weigh it up against its own.March 5: Sutherland maintains CA’s desire to break up the revenue percentage model while visiting India for Australia’s Test tour.March 21: Players are presented with CA’s formal pay offer, which adds some detail and some adjustments to the December proposal but remains largely unchanged in its modelling and overall thrust, seeking to breakup the revenue sharing model and return wage control to the board. The offer also outlines what CA intends to do with the money raised by changing the model – expanding its media wing and investing in other new projects in addition to https://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/1087893.html” target=”_blank”>funding the grassroots.April 19: Tim May, the former ACA chief executive and an architect of the first revenue sharing MoU in 1998, challenges CA to provide a more substantial case for breaking up the model.April 27: CA’s head of cricket operations, Sean Cary, one of few board employees to work closely and consistently with the ACA, quits to take up a tennis job in the United States.May 11: Mitchell Starc insists that no Australian players will entertain contract negotiations until a new MoU is agreed upon, following revelations that CA’s team performance manager Pat Howard has offered multi-year deals to the top five players – Starc, Steven Smith, David Warner, Josh Hazlewood and Pat Cummins.May 12: Sutherland writes to his opposite number at the ACA Alistair Nicholson, criticising the ACA’s approach to negotiations and informs all players coming out of contract that they will be unemployed as of July 1. The ACA requests mediation to move pay talks forward after numerous rounds of fruitless meetings between the players’ association and the board.May 15: David Warner further inflames the dispute by saying CA might find itself without any players for the Ashes if the two parties cannot reach an agreement.May 17: CA’s chairman David Peever rejects the ACA’s request for mediation, stating that negotiations had not yet begun.May 18: The ACA unveils a contingency fund for players left out of pocket in the event of the pay dispute going beyond June 30.May 25: The ACA announces the foundation of The Cricketers Brand, a commercial wing of the association for the use of the players’ intellectual property, which passes out of the hands of CA beyond June 30 when the MoU expires.May 27-28: Peever rejects the ACA’s calls for mediation a second time as CA again attempts to deal directly with the players. Australia’s federal minister for sport, Greg Hunt, reveals the governmentwould be prepared to provide mediation for the two parties if the dispute were to threaten the Ashes.May 30: CA releases a video featuring lead negotiator Kevin Roberts explaining CA’s pay offer to players, with another released the following week. One of the graphics accompanying the video states that the Big Bash League lost A$33 million for CA over its first five years, a claim attacked by the ACA’s Simon Katich.June 8: Warner criticises CA for the release of the videos to players in the middle of their Champions Trophy campaign. Australia would be eliminated in the first round after a pair of washouts are followed by a loss to England.June 20: South Africa launches its new Twenty20 tournament and it is revealed that numerous Australian players, including internationals, have expressed interest in the event which will clash with the home season. At the same time it emerges that players have discussed playing exhibition matches should the dispute be lengthy.June 21: Following the announcement of the AFL’s pay deal with its players, the AFLPA chief executive and former ACA chief Paul Marsh criticises CA for endangering the international game. At the same time CA’s lead negotiator Roberts goes on a national roadshow to explain CA’s position to the players.June 23: CA offers a pair of concessions relative to its previous offer – increasing payments for domestic male players and also linking all players to the capped bonus system originally offered only to international players – at the same time as sending contract offers out to all players. The ACA, angered by the offers being sent out without an MoU, rejects the concessions.June 27: Players meet at an annual golf day in Sydney and implore CA’s chief executive James Sutherland to get directly involved in negotiations. Sutherland, who has kept at arm’s length from talks, arrives back in Melbourne from ICC meetings a day before the MoU expires.June 28: Players are sent a communique from the team performance manager Pat Howard outlining arrangements beyond the expiry of the MoU, including a warning that any players taking part in exhibition matches will be banned from the Ashes. Limited talks between the two parties go nowhere substantial.June 30: MoU deadline day arrives, and CA marks it by hardening its stance against the players, announcing that all money originally intended to be paid to out of contract players will instead be diverted to grassroots funding programmes until an MoU is agreed upon. This move enrages the playersfurther.
