IAN CHAPPELL

It appears the two main objectives of Cricket Australia (CA) in its increasingly acrimonious dispute with the players is to reduce the amount of money being paid to first-class cricketers and to split their association.

If that’s not the objective then why offer more money to the elite players and at the same time try and do away with the revenue sharing clause in MoU?

Firstly, the issue of the amount of money paid to firstclass players. CA says it wants to reduce this to overcome the shortfall in funds available to the grassroots. Its main concern is to stop the good young athletes choosing other sports, attracted by the greater odds of getting a contract and the higher remuneration available.

The CA case doesn’t stand close scrutiny. If other sports are more attractive to young athletes then why would they reduce the money available to Australia’s first-class players?

Surely the lure of earning a lucrative wage is one way of stemming the flow of good athletes to other sports.

Then there’s the matter of who devised the current system. It was the administrators of CA and the state associations.

They introduced the academy system and appointed the numerous coaches who now proliferate in the game. It was the need to provide serious cricket opportunities for young players graduating from the academy and coaches wanting greater access to the first-class players’ time that took the game towards becoming fully professional.

Now CA is complaining that first-class players are over-paid.

There may well be cases where first-class players are over-paid, the same could be said of most businesses, CA included. However, it’s that same firstclass system that produces players who go on to become elite internationals. It’s the elite internationals who create the interest in the game that produces lucrative media rights deals, large crowd attendances and sponsors, not to mention inspiring youngsters to either become players or followers of the game.

In essence, it’s the elite players who are responsible for providing administration jobs and in many cases, well paid ones.

The business of Australian cricket should not be a boss and employee system. It has to be a partnership where both sides have a vested interest in growing the game. There has to be a certain amount of trust and respect on both sides for it to work successfully. Neither the trust nor respect is visible at the moment.

It’s the elite players who are responsible for providing administration jobs and in many cases, well paid ones.

Now that the June 30 deadline for a new MoU has passed and the Australia A invite to tour South Africa has been declined by players, there are three events that could cause a deal to be agreed.

Firstly, there’s the Channel Nine sponsors’ lunch on Tuesday in Melbourne. Unlike the recent Sydney event, there will be CA officials in the room and it could be rather uncomfortable for the attending administrators if a deal isn’t imminent.

The next period of interest will be the ODI tour to India in October. It’s highly unlikely CA will want to aggravate the BCCI by cancelling that tour. Then there’s the Ashes. This is a lucrative tour that creates great interest among the public.

CA won’t want to forfeit any of those lucrative Ashes opportunities and I also can’t imagine them just handing the series to England on a platter by choosing a sub-standard team. If CA doesn’t have a deal in place before the commencement of the Ashes series, then Donald Trump’s won’t be the only leadership style I find mystifying.