Sunday, 14 December 2008

Pay to Stay and Play

More money for Australian contracted players; plus less commitments. Is the national side getting a bit full of themselves, or are they worth it? What do you think?
Let's look at the pros and cons:

1) The 11 players on the field represent our entire country; so therefore they are our elite. This should entitle them to remuneration that acknowledges them as such.
1a) Many players that pursue cricket show enough talent in other sports to put them in a position of having to choose ultimately which sport will serve them best, (or which one they have the most skill at).

2) Money is now flooding into the game via India, if CA are not prepared to ensure a player can effectively secure his financial future, why wouldn't players choose a career playing hit and giggle for the duration of their playing career?

3) With tour and sponsorship commitments (22 appearances a year- no more than 4 in any given month) on top of away time -up to 10 months a year, players need to capitalise on their money earning years to partially negate the lost time with families.

4) Players already earn incredible sums of money, (M.Clarke was 7 figures last year!). If you are in the national side, and are getting $5100-$12750 (plus OS loadings) in match fees, or nearly $700 a run, be grateful you represent your country and are raking it in... other representative sports-people pay their own way!

5) Cricketers are housed, fed, transported and catered for medically as soon as they are in the national side... no additional expenses.

6) On top of their CA money, cricketers receive huge amounts from sponsorships and endorsements- how dare they request less time doing such work.

I for one think that if they can get more from CA, why not! For top ranked players the draw of a few seasons of T20 in India must always be in the back of their minds; if you could earn a yearly income with only three months away, why wouldn't you? The privaledge of having played for your country won't pay the bills when you are too old to earn money from cricket!

stoph verismo


  1. Yeah good points both sides. On one hand I say stuff 'em. Blokes from the mid 70s were being paid rubbish and staying in pig-sties when on tour (sub-continent). Therefore they don't know how lucky they are. On the other hand relationships take a battering from being away so much but players know this when they commit to playing at the highest level. I agree with those that say 'if you're going to play in the IPL don't turn around and complain about playing too much cricket'. I'll admit a bias here because I don't feel 20/20 should be counted as being cricket. I don't believe 20/20 is going to 'save' test cricket at all so it can get stuffed.
    It's almost an unarguable issue for those of us who have never competed at such a high level of sport as we have no idea what it's really like. To make a comparison I met this bloke on a plane this year and he'd spent 183 nights away from his young family the previous year. If I was going to do that I'd want to be pretty bloody well compensated. Have I sat on the fence well enough?

  2. i don't think t20 will save test either- or destroy test cricket.
    what i think it will do is create better career opportunities for younger cricketers that either just aren't good enough- or not connected enough to force an old boy out of the national side (or too Victorian!).
    That, and establish a bigger pool of players with international experience.

    CA may live to regret being tight-fisted if many up-and-coming players take the Indian $ option and fail to show interest in playing for Australia.

  3. It's worth noting that the eleven that take the field in a test are by no means the best eleven cricketers in the country. They are the best eleven players that fit the criteria to win the test match in question. Although it is difficult to compare batters and bowlers I think we can all agree that Brad Hodge is a better cricketer than Jason Krezia and Nathan Hauritz combined and yet he has managed to fade into non-contention. Stuart MacGill was probably the third best spinner in the world for quite a time yet sat in the shadow of Warne and made far less money. CA and TV moguls need to be made aware that it is the next tier of players they will one day look upon to fill the void left by our ageing gladiators to prop up their bottom lines and the time has come to spread the wealth to them when they need it most. Don't let talent fall aside because the money is not there to keep the next generation interested.
    Cricket has the same following as AFL yet only eleven places at the elite level as bait for up and comers. It needs to use the almighty dollar as incentive or risk falling away.

  4. that's true NL (best players for the conditions) but overall you'd hope that CA at least had the best players in the country on contracts.

    i await with interest the nations reaction to the first player that prioritises IPL over national selection; if it does happen, you'd think it would be someone that has been told they are likely to be 12th man and says, "stuff carrying drinks and fielding at 3rd man for a few thousand dollars when i can play 2 games of 2020 and pay off my mortgage!