Leading player agent Neil Maxwell says cricket's pay dispute has slipped into "dangerous" territory, with players on the verge of falling into the hands of cashed-up entrepreneurs and even having the right to establish their own competitions.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The sport was under threat from Indian conglomerate Essel Group two years ago when it moved to set up the registration of company names in cricket-playing countries, prompting Cricket Australia to respond by offering multi-year contracts to its best players, including David Warner. The Australian vice-captain said at the time any offer from the Essel Group would have to be considered.
Warner has this month been vocal in his displeasure at CA's pay plan to cut players not contracted by CA out of the 20-year-old set percentage model, a plan which has divided players and their governing body and meant there has been little, if any, negotiation ahead of the June 30 deadline for a new memorandum of understanding.
Maxwell, who is on the Australian Cricketers Association board, and also represents Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood, said players would "have to find their own new sources of revenue and income" from July 1 if a deal was not brokered.
"Their image rights and playing abilities are the two things they've got and they'll be worked hard. This has ramifications not only for Australian cricket but world cricket because you are going to have players out of contract who can play anywhere they want and set up their own matches. It is dangerous," he told London's Sunday Times.
"Steve Smith and others will be free to walk into India, anywhere, and play a game, and in any sort of league. If I wanted to put on a match in New York, I could just go and get the Australian squad. Any entrepreneur with money will be looking at this with interest . . . [he] could contract 24 Australian players and play a game on July 1. Any news agency that wanted their image rights, or a bank or conflicting sponsor, could just start signing cricketers. Blokes could go and sign five-year deals with a competitor."
Maxwell told Fairfax Media it would be wrong to claim the players would be on strike from July 1. Rather, referring to comments made by CA chief James Sutherland, he said the players would be out of contract and "locked out".
"It is an important distinction," he said.
Players could look to play in England's NatWest T20 Blast from July 7 should a deal not be reached.
Sutherland has threatened to not pay players after June 30, meaning the scheduled Australia A tour of South Africa beginning July 8 is in doubt. It would seem odd for CA to then offer a tour-by-tour contract should a MOU not be reached, but should CA opt to do that, players could then vote to not tour. However, those with multi-year state contracts could be obliged to tour.
CA says Shield cricket does not pay its own way, so players on state contracts will be paid from a set pool under its submission. CA also maintains as 80 per cent of its revenue is not guaranteed, the percentage model used since 1997 will only be used on CA-contracted male and female players should there be surplus income.
"They suspended negotiations and won't accept mediation, and they have the hide to say the players aren't negotiating. It's a lie. They're going to try and divide and conquer. This could last four or five months," Maxwell said.
The pay dispute threatens to overshadow Australia's Champions Trophy campaign in England. While this tournament falls under the expiring deal, chat amongst players and the media is likely to focus on the stalled pay talks. Australia's campaign officially opens against New Zealand on June 2.
