Published: May 27, 2017, 01:14 PM (IST)
Edited: May 27, 2017, 01:14 PM (IST)
As the tension builds between the pay system issue among the players and Cricket Australia (CA), Chairman David Peever has refused a request from Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA) for negotiations. The ACA had rejected a CA pay and conditions proposal, saying it was unfair and disrespectful on April 28, 2017. But the players were received with a serious blow CA Chief Executive James Sutherland issued a stern warning to all the players, asking them to accept the new terms presented by the CA, while failing to do so would lead to the players losing out on payment from CA.
CA president Greg Dyer had urged CA and Peever to reconsider the pay system to bring back normalcy between the board and the players. Responding to Dyer by letter on May 26, Peever asserted that the union was not making any efforts from their side to mediate the matter. According to Herald Sun, Peever, in a letter sent to Dyer, maintained the ACA’s refusal to open the lines of communication did not allow for discussion on what he called “significant problems” with the current player payments model.
“This is a regrettable approach because CA’s proposal features substantial increases in player payments while allowing greater flexibility to address the underfunding of grassroots cricket over the next five years,” Peever wrote.
“You indicate that the ACA has offered flexibility within the negotiation process around certain issues. However, this does not address the significant problems with the current player payments model from CA’s perspective.
“While we fully respect the enormous contribution made by the game’s elite players, it is also true that player payments have grown by 63 percent for international men and 53 per cent for domestic men over the past five years.”
Under CA’s proposal, only male international players would have the chance to share in any surplus revenue, while other domestic male players and women at both domestic and international level would have to settle for fixed amounts. which would not fluctuate according to the game’s income.
This matter has escalated much due to players planning to boycott playing for their country if the matter reaches a stalemate after June 30.
