The 2017 Cricket Australia Pay Dispute: Revenue Sharing, Lockout and the Ashes

Timeline

1. Nov 2016Formal talks on a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) begin between CA and the ACA.
2. Dec 2016CA proposes ending revenue sharing for most players; captains Steve Smith and Meg Lanning ask CA to respect the ACA as bargaining agent.
3. Mar 2017CA makes a formal offer of pay rises without a guaranteed revenue percentage; the ACA rejects it.
4. May 2017CA warns out-of-contract players will be unemployed from July 1; the ACA seeks mediation, which CA declines.
5. Jul 1, 2017The MOU expires, leaving about 230 players without contracts.
6. Jul 6, 2017Australia A players boycott their tour of South Africa, the first player-led boycott of an Australian tour.
7. Aug 3, 2017CA and the ACA reach an in-principle agreement keeping a modernised revenue-sharing model.

The ethical issues

• Whether players should share in revenue as partners or be paid fixed wages as employees.
• Bypassing a union by negotiating directly with star players.
• Using funding for grassroots cricket as a bargaining argument.
• Fair treatment of domestic and women players alongside international men.
• Collateral harm to fans, junior players and partners during a lockout.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
International male players	Their share of revenue and influence over the game's direction.
Domestic and women players	Fair pay and inclusion in the same model as the stars.
Australian Cricketers' Association	Its role as collective bargaining agent and player solidarity.
Cricket Australia	Financial control and investment in grassroots and the game's future.
State associations and grassroots cricket	Funding for clubs, juniors and facilities.
Fans, broadcasters and touring nations	Matches going ahead, including the Ashes.

The case

On July 1, 2017, about 230 of Australia’s professional cricketers woke up without contracts or pay. The five-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Cricket Australia (CA) and the players’ union, the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA), had expired at the end of June, and the two sides were deadlocked over a single principle: whether players should keep a guaranteed share of the game’s revenue.^[4][5][6] Over the next month the dispute produced the first player-led boycott of an Australian tour and put an Ashes series in doubt before a deal was struck on August 3.^[3][4]

Background

For about 20 years, players had been paid under MOUs that guaranteed them a percentage of Australian cricket revenue. Before 2017, male players shared in up to 26% of Australian Cricket Revenue, which represented about 80% of CA’s total income.^[6] Former ACA chief executive Tim May, the architect of the original 1998 MOU, publicly challenged CA’s plans in April 2017.^[1]

CA argued that the model had become too rigid. It wanted to direct more money to grassroots cricket, which it said “sorely” needed it, and to replace the revenue percentage with fixed pay increases.^[6][5]

The rules and governance

CA is the national governing body, controlling contracts, the national teams, broadcast rights and the domestic competitions. The ACA represents male and female players in collective bargaining. The MOU set pay, conditions and the revenue share. Without one, players had no contracts and CA had no agreed basis to employ them.^[5][6]

The breakdown

ESPNcricinfo’s timeline shows talks beginning in November 2016 between CA chairman David Peever and ACA president Greg Dyer. In December, after national captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner met CA board members over dinner, CA submitted a proposal to break up revenue sharing: domestic men and women would receive fixed wages, and only international men would share a capped surplus. Smith and Australia women’s captain Meg Lanning wrote to CA chief executive James Sutherland asking CA to respect the ACA as the players’ bargaining agent.^[1]

In March 2017 CA made a formal offer with pay rises for men and women but without the clause guaranteeing players a percentage of revenue. The ACA rejected it and a revised offer. Smith said players would not “give up” revenue sharing.^[5] In May, CA warned that players out of contract would be unemployed from July 1, after its high-performance chief had offered multi-year deals to leading players. Fast bowler Mitchell Starc said players would not discuss contracts until there was an MOU. Warner warned that Australia “might not have a team for the Ashes.” The ACA asked for mediation, and CA’s chairman rejected it.^[1][5] The ACA set up a contingency fund for players and launched a commercial brand for them. CA released videos featuring its lead negotiator, Kevin Roberts, making its case directly to the public.^[1]

Lockout and boycott

When the MOU expired, the ACA said more than 200 male and female players were unemployed.^[3] On July 6, two days before they were due to fly, Australia A’s squad, effectively the second XI, chose not to tour South Africa. It was the first time Australian players had led a boycott of a tour. “All players are deeply disappointed at the behaviour of CA which forces this course of action, given the players would rather be playing for their country,” the ACA said, accusing CA of refusing mediation. The ACA called the boycott “an incredibly selfless act.”^[3][2]

CA replied that it “has never and would never attempt to compel any player to represent Australia at any level if they were unwilling to do so,” and said the approximately $250,000 the tour would have cost would go to a national community cricket fund.^[3] The ACA raised the prospect of employing the players itself and offering them back to CA “on the right terms” to rescue the summer, while rejecting “CA’s attempts to divide and rule.”^[3] Warner wrote on Instagram, “The players are unemployed and some are hurting financially but continue to train.”^[5]

The deal

After intensive talks that began on a Sunday, CA and the ACA reached an in-principle agreement on August 3, 2017.^[4] The new five-year deal kept a “modernised” revenue-sharing model. Players would share up to 30% of agreed revenue: 27.5% of forecast revenue plus a 2.5% performance pool, worth about A$500 million over five years, an increase of nearly A$120 million.^[4][5][6] For the first time women were included in a gender-equal model, and payments to female players rose from A$7.5 million to A$55.2 million. A female international’s base retainer rose from $40,000 to $72,076 in the first year.^[4][6] Grassroots cricket would receive up to A$30 million that would otherwise have gone to the players if CA’s revenue exceeded forecasts.^[4][5]

“This process hasn’t been easy and history will judge if it was all worth it in the end,” Sutherland said. “Neither side has got all it wanted in these negotiations.” He added: “Relationships with the game have been tested and I know that has been a bit of a turn off for fans.” ACA chief executive Alistair Nicholson said “the resolve was very strong within the player group.”^[4][6] The Bangladesh tour and the Ashes went ahead.^[4]

The core dilemma

CA said it was acting as custodian of the whole game, trying to free money for the grassroots and modernize an old model. The players said the revenue share made them partners, and that CA was trying to divide them by offering stars individual deals while leaving domestic and women players with fixed wages. Both sides went public, and fans, junior players and an Australia A squad paid the price. How should a governing body balance the claims of elite players, the wider game and the sport’s commercial future, and is a shared-revenue partnership the fairest way to do it?

Competing values

• Partnership vs. control: revenue sharing gives players a stake; fixed wages give the governing body flexibility.
• Stars vs. the collective: individual deals for top players versus one agreement for all.
• Elite pay vs. grassroots investment: money for players is money not spent on clubs and juniors, and vice versa.
• Hard bargaining vs. the game’s relationships: lockouts and boycotts apply pressure but damage trust and fan goodwill.

Strongest arguments

For CA’s position. The governing body is responsible for the whole sport, not just its professionals. Fixed pay rises would still have improved players’ earnings while letting CA invest more in grassroots, women’s and community cricket. A percentage guarantee locks a large share of income into player payments regardless of the game’s other needs.

For the players’ position. Players generate the revenue that funds everything else. A revenue share aligns their interests with the game’s growth and gives them a reason to promote it. Removing it for everyone except international men would have split the playing group and weakened the bargaining position of domestic and women players.

On how it was conducted. Whatever the merits, CA’s approaches to star players and refusal of mediation hardened the dispute, and the ACA’s boycott and public campaigns hurt fans and development players. The final deal looks much like a compromise that could have been reached without a lockout.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks how the game’s revenue should be distributed. Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether one would be a Test star, a domestic player, a woman cricketer or a junior club volunteer, many would favor a model that shares growth across all groups. The final deal’s gender-equal structure and grassroots provision suggest both sides moved toward that view.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian would weigh total outcomes. The deal raised pay for women and protected the Ashes, generating large benefits. Against that were the costs of the dispute: lost income for players, a cancelled tour, a worse relationship and fans turned off by the conflict. A utilitarian might ask whether CA’s goals could have been reached with less harm.

Rights

A rights lens focuses on workers’ right to bargain collectively through a union of their choosing. Bypassing the ACA to deal with individual players arguably undermined that right, which is why the captains wrote to CA. Rights analysis also recognizes CA’s right as an employer to propose a different model, and the players’ right to refuse to play without an agreement.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are CA’s chief executive in early 2017. Stakeholders include international, domestic and women players, the ACA, state associations, grassroots clubs, broadcasters, sponsors, fans and touring nations. The relevant codes are the MOU framework and labor law.
2. Gather facts. How much revenue goes to players and to the grassroots now? What would each model deliver over five years? What do players fear losing? Watch for confirmation bias: are you hearing only your own negotiating team?
3. Test options. Keep revenue sharing with adjustments; replace it with fixed pay; or create a hybrid with grassroots provisions. Weigh consequences for every group, duties to bargain in good faith and what each choice says about CA as custodian.
4. Check codes and law. What does employment law require when an agreement expires? Is direct contact with represented players appropriate? Would mediation or arbitration help?
5. Decide and document. Set out the rationale, the numbers and the trade-offs, and share them with the union before going public.
6. Communicate and follow up. Negotiate through the agreed channels, explain the deal to fans and players and repair relationships after the agreement, measuring results for women and grassroots investment.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled

• The MOU expired with no replacement, leaving about 230 players without contracts, and Australia A boycotted its South Africa tour.
• The August 2017 deal kept a modernised revenue share of up to 30% and raised women’s payments from A$7.5 million to A$55.2 million.
• The Ashes and the Bangladesh tour went ahead.

Contested

• Whether CA’s goal was primarily grassroots investment or greater control over player costs.
• Whether the lockout was necessary to reach the final compromise.
• Which side bears more responsibility for the damage to relationships and fan goodwill.

Why this case matters

Who shares in a sport’s money shapes how its people see their role: as partners in the game’s success or as employees of its governing body. The 2017 dispute shows how a fight over that question can split or unite a playing group, how women and domestic players can benefit when stars refuse to be separated from them, and how hard bargaining can leave lasting costs even when both sides claim the outcome as a win.

Key terms

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Principal–agent problem

When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.

Multiple points of view

Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should elite athletes share a fixed percentage of their sport's revenue? What are the alternatives?
2. Was CA's argument about grassroots funding a genuine priority, a bargaining tactic, or both?
3. Were the Australia A players right to boycott their tour? What did they gain and lose?
4. Who bore the costs of the dispute, and who should have?

Sources

1. How Australia's pay dispute escalated — ESPNcricinfo
2. Australia A cricketers boycott South Africa tour over pay dispute — The Guardian (AAP)
3. Cricket pay dispute: Australia A's South Africa tour cancelled amid first player-led boycott — ABC News
4. Ashes saved as peace deal is brokered in Australian cricket pay dispute — The Guardian
5. Australia pay row: Deal agreed 'in principle' to resolve pay dispute — BBC Sport
6. Cricket pay deal: Here's what you need to know — ABC News