2017 Cricket

Australia Pay
Deal Simran Verma - PGP10052
Group 8

Ajay Rohilla - PGP10067

Garvit Minocha - PGP10081
Manavi Singh - PGP10092
Pooja Suresh - PGP10098
Manaswini K - PGP10214
Sujeet Pal - PGP10238
 02 Background of the Case

● Parties Involved: Cricket Australia (CA) & Australian Cricket

Association (ACA)

● Precursor: Recognition of ACA in 1995 from ACB

The strike that led to the 1st MOU in 1998

● Previous MOUs: Fixed Revenue Sharing Model

[Latest – 26% of the revenue generated by CA]
 03 The Offered Proposition

$20 mn pool of surplus revenue to be shared by the top 20 players

Total pay increases from $311 mn to a projected $419 mn

Average women’s pay increases by 150%

Average domestic men’s payments increase to $235,000

Identical match fees for men and women in state cricket

Average international men’s central contract to rise to $816,000

Average hourly pay will be the same for male and female state
cricketers
 Why the Fuss?
● CA’s new broadcast deal in 2018
● The current proposal cuts players out of those profits
● Problems with the proposal

Disrespects the value of domestic cricketers

Denies female cricketers a share in the game’s revenue

Payments to state players would limit to a raise of 18% over 5
years

4
 Power moves of CA

High level connections

A massive figure of $419 million

An aggressive approach

Tried to bypass ACA to deal directly with the players

Termination of one year contracts

Divide and Conquer

5
 Power moves of ACA

• ‘Modest’ demand for new MoU

1. Include female players
2. 22.5+22.5+55 - Revenue Model
• Hardship fund in times of lockouts
• Establishment of The Cricketer’s Brand -> Additional
source of revenue
• Last on payment to CA executives and growth in its
contingency fund
6
 07 RV of CA and ACA
CA’s Settlement Range
CA’s Settlement Rang
CA’s RV (worst case) CA’s Desired amount
($500M+ (27.5%) to M/F and
$58M (2.5%) additional or
arbitration) CA’s Settlement
Range
ZOPA
ACA’s Settlement ACA’s RV (worst
Range case)
($419M including $58M
ACA’s Desired amount additional or Arbitration)
 08 Final Decision Taken

• Includes Women, 27.5% revenue sharing with extra

2.5% depending upon performance
• $58 mn under the previous MOU will be paid and won’t
be it carried over
• Players will receive 27.5% of income above the forecast
level
• $25 mn from ACA for grass roots cricket to be matched
by extra income from CA
Advantages to CA on the final MOU

• Underperforming player won't get

fixed amount
• ACA will give $25 MN to grass root
cricket

9
Advantages to ACA on the final MOU

• Players are getting paid as per their

performance %
• Female and male players are getting
equal pay

10
 The income available to
players under the new
MOU was forecasted to be
$500 million over the next
5 years which was $110
SU
million higher than the M
previous amount 
M
Therefore, the ACA won
this contest by an innings A
and $110 million R
Y
11
Thank You!

12