Oz stalemate lesson for us
Players’ Association goes on front foot over renewal of Master Agreement and any new deal with NZ Cricket.
Regardless of any resolution to the industrial relations dispute between Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricketers’ Association in the coming days, weeks or months, the damage to trust and goodwill will take years to repair.
The organisations’ protracted contractual disagreement has set a watching brief for New Zealand Cricket and the New Zealand Cricket Players’ Association. They are soon expected to begin negotiating a renewal of their eight-year Master Agreement which ends in July 2018.
The Australian gridlock has been caused by an inability to agree on the percentage of “revenue share” players receive.
The principle is also likely to anchor any New Zealand deal.
The failure to secure a Memorandum of Understanding after months of negotiations means Australia’s top cricketers are unemployed. This summer’s Ashes series is under threat, as is the Twenty20 tri-series planned for February between New Zealand, Australia and England.
“I’d be surprised if this went into the summer, but I’ve been surprised before,” NZCPA chief executive Heath Mills said.
“We need to remember, whole seasons of American sport have been lost to this sort of situation. Surely at some point, the CA board will realise they’re losing ground because of how this behaviour affects their commercial partners and fans.
“You like to think these processes shouldn’t be that acrimonious. But sometimes you need these moments to occur for people to realise and understand how important the partnership with athletes is.”
Contrary to the NZCPA getting on the front foot, NZC opted to leave any urge to comment outside off stump.
“NZC’s position is that it does not hold a position on another board’s negotiations with its players,”
NZC public affairs manager Richard Boock wrote in a statement.
Mills said the Australian hostilities could not afford to be repeated here.
“I’ve been surprised by the way Cricket Australia have approached this. They’ve tried to divide the group [of players] and we’ve eventually seen them lock the players out.
“Anyone who understands industrial relations in sport will know that’s not an effective way to reach a partnership or agreement with your playing group. It has never worked in America when governing bodies have gone down that road, and I don’t know why CA thought that would work.”
Mills said it looked like CA want to control everything and everyone.
“That’s not conducive to having fair, reasonable and effective industrial relations.
“Professional sport is a unique environment where the players are both the employees and the product. There are not many workplace environments where that dynamic exists. That doesn’t seem to have been well understood by the people governing Cricket Australia, who are heavy hitters from the corporate world.”
The revenue share model has worked for Australian players across two decades and was set at 26 per cent in the last MoU, meaning CA get 74 per cent. The ACA want to keep the system, whereas CA argue a fixed salary model would allow them to invest more in the game’s grassroots.
“The revenue sharing model is critical because the players are then linked and partnered with the governing body to grow the revenue,” Mills said.
“The players in Australia would be foolish to move away from that. If they moved to a profit share arrangement it would not work because there might not be much money left to share.
“Governing bodies are exceptionally good at spending on themselves, such as in the hospitality, marketing and PR departments. And because they control the money, the players would have no ability to influence that internal spend.”
Mills said terms like “investing in grassroots” were bandied around by CA as an emotive strategy.
“That comes up all the time with national sporting organisations when they are about to negotiate wages with their players.
“Club and school sport is extremely important and no professional cricketer would say otherwise, given they come from those environments and remain engaged with them throughout their careers.
“I would suggest that the excessive money Cricket Australia have earned in the last four to five years has gone into growing themselves and their own business and resources, rather than going directly to clubs, schools and ‘grassroots’.”
In the 2010 MoU between NZC and NZCPA, a fixed salary model was agreed, but that could change if the ACA-CA duel is a gauge.
“As I understand it, the players simply want that to remain, and are not asking for an increase.
“CA won’t pay them until they accept new terms. Players are still practising and training, but CA has locked them out.”
Hopefully a painless resolution can be reached in New Zealand rather than risk a return to the bitterness of 2002 when the NZCPA was established. After six weeks of negotiations, a peace accord was reached on November 11 — Armistice Day appropriately enough — which changed the face of cricket in this country.
However, the relationships between players, administrators and fans were tested to the brink.
Similarly NZC, who have experienced a gilded run since the Black Caps’ success at the World Cup under the leadership of former captain Brendon McCullum and coach Mike Hesson, would be loath to fritter away that goodwill.
Players sought fair incomes, ground standards and a future voice in running the game. Administrators wanted an affordable set-up.
Fans just wanted some cricket. Little has changed.
I’ve been surprised by the way Cricket Australia have approached this. They’ve tried to divide the group.
New Zealand Cricket Players’ Association chief executive Heath Mills