No end in sight for Cricket Australia’s pay dispute
Published 18-JUL-2017 15:05 P.M.
|
2 minute read
Hey! Looks like you have stumbled on the section of our website where we have archived articles from our old business model.
In 2019 the original founding team returned to run Next Investors, we changed our business model to only write about stocks we carefully research and are invested in for the long term.
The below articles were written under our previous business model. We have kept these articles online here for your reference.
Our new mission is to build a high performing ASX micro cap investment portfolio and share our research, analysis and investment strategy with our readers.
Click Here to View Latest Articles
Entering its 249th day, the Cricket Australia pay war has cast a shadow over the upcoming summer of cricket – which incidentally, could cost the tourism industry up to $400 million.
The bitter dispute has already led to the cancellation of Australia A’s tour of South Africa. Australia’s tour of Bangladesh may be next, with several key figures warning the test series may be cancelled for the second successive time against the emerging minnow.
Cricket Australia (CA), which is the major governing body of the sport in the country, is at odds with contracted players. CA has maintained that the current model – which sees elite players paid a set percentage of all revenue – is hurting the game at a grassroots level. The players are opposed to switching to CA’s proposed profit share model, which would see a greater emphasis placed on grassroots cricket.
Earlier in the year, The Sydney Morning Herald detailed how CA’s desire to adopt a modernised collective bargaining agreement breaks down the current model.
According to CA:
‘$100,000 investment that generates $115,000 of revenue should result in a profit of $15,000, to be invested back into cricket. But because the players get a share of revenue, not profit, they would be entitled to 24.5 per cent of the $115,000, leaving Cricket Australia with just $86,825 of the original $100,000, an actual loss of $13,175.
‘Thus, any CA investment requires an unrealistic profit of 32 per cent just to break even. More than 70 per cent of Cricket Australia’s expenditure is investment in elite cricket. Players are entitled to 24.5 per cent of every dollar returned from that investment, not just every dollar of profit.’
CA Chairman David Peever unloaded on the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA), the representative body for elite players, accusing it of damaging the game and being unreasonable.
“CA has made what in any normal circumstances would be regarded as a very generous offer,” he said.
“It includes healthy pay increases for male players, a more than 150 per cent increase in pay for female players and gender equity in both pay and conditions, along with a share of any surplus for all players and major increases in other support and benefits.”
ACA adviser Greg Combet responded to Peever’s statement, encouraging CA to rethink its approach to the ongoing dispute.
“Without the trust and commitment of the players in a partnership that benefits the game, Cricket Australia has no game at all – the Packer years were evidence enough of that,” he said.
“CA has compromised trust and commitment by seeking, without adequate explanation, to bust the longstanding revenue share partnership with the players. Mr Peever now even makes the astonishing claim that the players’ association is damaging the game. That is not the way to build trust with the players.”
Past players including Mark Taylor have called on the ACA to be more forthcoming in negotiations, but those words fall flat when they have been benefactors of the exact model CA wants to scrap.
The first Ashes test may be scheduled for the 23rd of November, but there’s no indication a compromise will have been reached by then.
General Information Only
This material has been prepared by Jason Price. Jason Price is an authorised representative (AR 000296877) of 62 Consulting Pty Limited (ABN 88 664 809 303) (AFSL 548573) (62C), and a Director of S3 Consortium Pty Ltd (trading as StocksDigital).
This material is general advice only and is not an offer for the purchase or sale of any financial product or service. The material is not intended to provide you with personal financial or tax advice and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Although we believe that the material is correct, no warranty of accuracy, reliability or completeness is given, except for liability under statute which cannot be excluded. Please note that past performance may not be indicative of future performance and that no guarantee of performance, the return of capital or a particular rate of return is given by 62C, Jason Price, StocksDigital, any of their related body corporates or any other person. To the maximum extent possible, 62C, Jason Price, StocksDigital, their related body corporates or any other person do not accept any liability for any statement in this material.
Conflicts of Interest Notice
S3 and its associated entities may hold investments in companies featured in its articles, including through being paid in the securities of the companies we provide commentary on. We disclose the securities held in relation to a particular company that we provide commentary on. Refer to our Disclosure Policy for information on our self-imposed trading blackouts, hold conditions and de-risking (sell conditions) which seek to mitigate against any potential conflicts of interest.
Publication Notice and Disclaimer
The information contained in this article is current as at the publication date. At the time of publishing, the information contained in this article is based on sources which are available in the public domain that we consider to be reliable, and our own analysis of those sources. The views of the author may not reflect the views of the AFSL holder. Any decision by you to purchase securities in the companies featured in this article should be done so after you have sought your own independent professional advice regarding this information and made your own inquiries as to the validity of any information in this article.
Any forward-looking statements contained in this article are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results or performance of companies featured to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this article. S3 cannot and does not give any assurance that the results or performance expressed or implied by any forward-looking statements contained in this article will actually occur and readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
This article may include references to our past investing performance. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of our future investing performance.