'They were devastated that we postponed that tour'
With the pay dispute reaching a 'boil over' point, Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland questioned why the Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) should have a greater say over the game's management. He also said that it is of utmost importance for Australia to tour Bangladesh after that 'no show' on security grounds in 2015.
The on-going nasty pay dispute is something not very familiar in cricket. It is threatening Australia's tour of Bangladesh next month, the ODI series in India and more pressingly, this summer's Ashes series.
The announced Australian Test team for the two-Test series in Bangladesh have recently collectively voted to boycott the series if a MOU is not reached in a week. They are scheduled to begin training in Darwin from August 11 before departing for Dhaka on August 17.
The decision irked the CA and its chief the most with Sutherland expressing his concern that the ACA was doing so with the intent of dragging out the dispute, rather than ending it.
“To think about a situation where an Australian team doesn't go on an international tour, I just can't come to terms with that,'' he told The Australian in an exclusive interview.
“Let's not forget that the last time we were due to go to Bangladesh the tour was postponed.
“They were devastated by that. International cricket is built on reciprocity and a belief that we are all in this together, trying to promote the game at an international level.''
In his detailed interview with the Australian newspaper, Sutherland also lashed out at the 'well-paid' cricketers for refusing a generous pay increase at a time when the wages of most Australians had flatlined.
“The players have a really important role to play in the success of our sport but whether they should be decision-makers about where we invest our grassroots funding is a completely different matter,” Sutherland said acidly.
“What would the players know about that? What would the ACA know about that?
“Our decision-making authority being compromised by some form of veto is unthinkable. There aren't many people who are getting significant pay increases right now. We have an extremely good offer on the table that allows well-paid cricketers to be even better paid.”
The Australian also added that the CA's pay offer, which is on the table since March, would see the average wage of an Australian Test or one-day team member immediately jump 12 percent from $1.16 million to $1.3m. According to the latest ABS figures, national wages growth is running at a historically low 1.9 percent.
The ACA however retorted by saying that the 'players are fighting for what is fair: for men and women and grassroots.'
The union's push to have a greater say in areas traditionally reserved for management was laid bare in a detailed pay claim presented by the ACA to CA last Thursday, shortly before Sutherland publicly announced his plan to submit the dispute to arbitration unless substantial progress was made in intensive negotiations, planned for this weekend.
The ACA, Australia captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner have made a virtue of an offer by the players to set aside up to $30m of their money to invest back into grassroots. Documents provided by the ACA to CA show that this offer comes with two significant strings attached.
The first being, the cricketers' goodwill depends on them receiving 30 percent of forecast revenue. From which, they propose allocate 1.1 percent towards the needs of local cricket. The players would still pocket 28.9 percent, a figure of $482m over five years.
Even when the historic inclusion of women players is taken into account, the players are asking for a bigger share than last time: 26 percent by men and 0.5 percent by women.
If the actual revenue comes in at a higher end, the players would give a greater slice to grassroots but only after sharing a player payment pool of more than $550m.
The second is that the ACA is prepared to make this money available only if given the final say on how it is invested.
This caveat reflects the ACA's lack of trust on the governing body to spend where it is needed, rather than on the already bloated administration.