Why is it wrong for AFL players to get paid more, but not cricketers?

[GTOA]

The AFLPA had a pay dispute with the AFL, and the players won a payrise, after threatening a strike. The media and the public, to a man, accused players of being greedy, and that they should more be paid what Joe Bloggs on the street gets paid. The players were castigated, and are expected to do more for their pay, despite putting on the game, and drawing crowds to see them.

Yet, cricket players have a pay dispute with CA, and no-one chews out the players for being "greedy" and in fact, bag CA for their tactics.

Why is this?

I think cricketers should be more criticized for wanting more money than AFL players.

Cricketers have other forms of revenue. Dave Warner can advertise his OLED TV, and Ricky Ponting whored himself on many an ad, which would make John Laws proud. AFL players aren't allowed to do endorsements, except for club sponsors, because it then constitutes a third-party deal, and goes against salary cap rules.

When is the last time you saw an AFL player endorse a product that was not an AFL or club sponsor? You don't see Gary Ablett, for example, in a Gillette ad, or an AFL player in a Nike ad.

Also, cricketers have IPL to make money from. A player who doesn't get Test games can go over to India every season, and be paid millions for a few weeks' work. Some players have made more from IPL than they ever did playing Test cricket.

AFL players don't have a multi-billion dollar competition where players can supplement their income above their salary.

So, why the hypocrisy? If you have a problem with AFL players being "greedy", then you must be critical of cricketers and all other sportspeople asking for payrises as well. What's good for the goose......

Is it just the tall poppy syndrome, and since AFL is the biggest sport in Australia, most people want to see it have the biggest fall, or is it that cricketers play for the country, so it is unpatriotic to criticise them, but AFL players don't represent the code internationally, so we don't get behind them as much? Or is it that there are more footy journos who actually secretly hate the game, and campaign against it with their constant criticism, than with cricket journos, who are more in love with their game?

 

[eth-dog]

The media weren't on the players side? News to me

 

[The 747]

There are 20 or so cricketers in the whole country who get paid AFL level salaries.

 

[Saintly2]

Nah.

It's a different sport firstly with massive difference of "elite" players, the issues on where the extra money goes are different, the demands of the game are different and so on.

Did i mention it's different?

 

[nobbyiscool]

Yet, cricket players have a pay dispute with CA, and no-one chews out the players for being "greedy" and in fact,bag CA for their tactics.

Right there, you've kind of answered your own question.

As someone who deals with these issues on a day to day basis, bargaining is all about getting your message out there and winning public support.

Whether it's Joe Blow voting on the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement that his employer has put to a vote, or whether it's the highest paid sports person in the country, what's important is the message you sell - the importance of particular elements of the EBA, of the perceived treatment by management, and of the perceived reasonableness of the union.

Now, I don't actually accept your premise - I don't think anyone (that matters) is saying that it's wrong for AFL players to be paid more, particularly at the bottom end of the scale (low paid players and newly drafted players/rookie listed players). But if I were to accept that premise for a moment, I'd say that the AFLPA never actually explained to the public at large (ie. the media) why revenue sharing was important, and why they deserved a greater stake in the game. They just went straight to players like Dangerfield publicly saying that a strike was a genuine possibility.

The ACA is in the opposite position - they already have revenue sharing, and as such it was up to Cricket Aust to explain why it doesn't work for the game, and why players would be better off under a different model. They failed to do so, and on the contrary CA handled their negotiations as badly as any other sporting association that I've seen - they didn't even try to explain why revenue sharing didn't work. They arrogantly told the players that this is what they would have to accept, then they went down this bullshit path of trying to separate the national team players with the industrial clout from the first class players and the women that they were advocating for all along.


I also think the media have had a bit to do with it. To put it simplistically, the AFL media landscape - as in the most well read, well known media - is a right-leaning News Corp paper. The cricket media landscape - as in, the paper that probably covers cricket the best and has the most respected journalists (with a few exceptions) - come from the left-leaning Fairfax stable.

 

[Damon_3388]

I thought the lack of AFL player endorsements came down to poor management and lack of vision for life and income streams outside of footy. Didn't know there was a specific rule against them (essentially) having a second part-time job.

 

[DrEvil_]

Because, OLED...

 

[Yellow Paint]

Cricketers have other forms of revenue. Dave Warner can advertise his OLED TV, and Ricky Ponting whored himself on many an ad, which would make John Laws proud. AFL players aren't allowed to do endorsements, except for club sponsors, because it then constitutes a third-party deal, and goes against salary cap rules.

When is the last time you saw an AFL player endorse a product that was not an AFL or club sponsor? You don't see Gary Ablett, for example, in a Gillette ad, or an AFL player in a Nike ad.

You've obviously never seen this.

 

[GTOA]

There are 20 or so cricketers in the whole country who get paid AFL level salaries.

Until you factor in IPL, endorsements and "image rights" for cricketers, then cricketers make a truckload more than AFL players.

 

[GTOA]

Right there, you've kind of answered your own question.

As someone who deals with these issues on a day to day basis, bargaining is all about getting your message out there and winning public support.

Whether it's Joe Blow voting on the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement that his employer has put to a vote, or whether it's the highest paid sports person in the country, what's important is the message you sell - the importance of particular elements of the EBA, of the perceived treatment by management, and of the perceived reasonableness of the union.

Now, I don't actually accept your premise - I don't think anyone (that matters) is saying that it's wrong for AFL players to be paid more, particularly at the bottom end of the scale (low paid players and newly drafted players/rookie listed players). But if I were to accept that premise for a moment, I'd say that the AFLPA never actually explained to the public at large (ie. the media) why revenue sharing was important, and why they deserved a greater stake in the game. They just went straight to players like Dangerfield publicly saying that a strike was a genuine possibility.

The ACA is in the opposite position - they already have revenue sharing, and as such it was up to Cricket Aust to explain why it doesn't work for the game, and why players would be better off under a different model. They failed to do so, and on the contrary CA handled their negotiations as badly as any other sporting association that I've seen - they didn't even try to explain why revenue sharing didn't work. They arrogantly told the players that this is what they would have to accept, then they went down this bullshit path of trying to separate the national team players with the industrial clout from the first class players and the women that they were advocating for all along.


I also think the media have had a bit to do with it. To put it simplistically, the AFL media landscape - as in the most well read, well known media - is a right-leaning News Corp paper. The cricket media landscape - as in, the paper that probably covers cricket the best and has the most respected journalists (with a few exceptions) - come from the left-leaning Fairfax stable.

Firstly, the AFL didn't handle negotiations well either. Gil didn't show up to the first few meetings, showing disrespect and contempt for the players, and only did it when he was forced to.

Also, the footy media is in bed with the AFL Commission. Look at how Demetriou got hit with a wet feather whenever he did anything.

Also, many have said that AFL players get paid too much, and somehow compare their own measly job as a comparison for getting paid more themselves, and AFL players getting less.

Besides, the public should do more research, and stop believing whatever the media tell them without question.

 

[GTOA]

I thought the lack of AFL player endorsements came down to poor management and lack of vision for life and income streams outside of footy. Didn't know there was a specific rule against them (essentially) having a second part-time job.

The thinking is that a team can entice a player away from a club by offering a big advertising endorsement, which won't be covered under the salary cap. So the AFL generally don't allow it, because it will be used as a bargaining chip to poach talent.

 

[GTOA]

You've obviously never seen this.

I don't think that an ad for Fox Footy, which is an AFL-endorsed TV station, and the players have to give time to, since the station is part of the footy media, counts as an endorsement promotion.

 

[Damon_3388]

The thinking is that a team can entice a player away from a club by offering a big advertising endorsement, which won't be covered under the salary cap. So the AFL generally don't allow it, because it will be used as a bargaining chip to poach talent.

But if the company has nothing to do with the club, and the player or their management organise the endorsement off their own bat, what's wrong with that?

 

[Pessimistic]

Apparently the cricket TV rights are losing value each year. Big bash excepted

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

But if the company has nothing to do with the club, and the player or their management organise the endorsement off their own bat, what's wrong with that?

Try finding somewhere in Geelong that has nothing to do with the club or has no interest in it. Good luck.

 

[Damon_3388]

Try finding somewhere in Geelong that has nothing to do with the club or has no interest in it. Good luck.

I was thinking more along the lines of national or international brands, advertising cars, clothes, sports brands, etc.

 

[The 747]

Until you factor in IPL, endorsements and "image rights" for cricketers, then cricketers make a truckload more than AFL players.

Thats 20 cricketers though vs 600 AFL players.

 

[Lensen]

when cricketers start calling lapsed members begging for their money or trying to flog off raffle tickets etc to members then we can compare

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I was thinking more along the lines of national or international brands, advertising cars, clothes, sports brands, etc.

Clubs always seem to have members that can open doors in one way or another.

 

[bluebob1]

the cricketers dispute is not about the test players it is about revenue sharing of the big bash players, ie the non elite players of the afl. they are trying to take from the 2nd tier and give to the grass roots. Whilst Dave Warner has many alternative sources of revenue as op as pointed out i doubt ben cutting has that many.

 

[jatz14]

Firstly, the AFL didn't handle negotiations well either. Gil didn't show up to the first few meetings, showing disrespect and contempt for the players, and only did it when he was forced to.

Also, the footy media is in bed with the AFL Commission. Look at how Demetriou got hit with a wet feather whenever he did anything.

Also, many have said that AFL players get paid too much, and somehow compare their own measly job as a comparison for getting paid more themselves, and AFL players getting less.

Besides, the public should do more research, and stop believing whatever the media tell them without question.

It isn't normal for CEOs to turn up to these meetings, especially at that stage of negotiations. I thought it showed a lack of respect for Gil from the players, basically saying the CEO needed to be at their beck and call, like a puppy.

 

[jatz14]

But if the company has nothing to do with the club, and the player or their management organise the endorsement off their own bat, what's wrong with that?

I am not across the restrictions, but off the top of my head, I can think of a number of things wrong with that. Mainly, Eddie sends a message to player A, that if he signs with Collingwood, and his management (completely of their own accord) was then to approach a particular company, then they were going to find them receptive to a nice big promotional deal (absolutely nothing to do with Collingwood of course).

 

[Scotland]

Firstly, this:

There are 20 or so cricketers in the whole country who get paid AFL level salaries.

Secondly, cricket is international. Footy is not. Footy is effectively a closed system within Australia. The AFL is a not for profit organisation and revenues go to grassroots footy. I'm on board with players getting more money as a percentage of revenue, and even now the percentage is low relative to other international competitions with salary caps (e.g. NBA).

Guys like Dirk Nannes, Brad Hodge, Shaun Tait etc. ****ed off playing FC cricket because they can go on the T20 circuit and make more in a year than they'd get from CA in a career. Similar to rugby it's love for the game that keeps players staying local and playing in the Shield. Someone like Michael Klinger has been playing Shield cricket for nearly 20 years and only recently played 3 T20Is. He'll never get a test cap. He would've made more money from County and IPL stints than playing in the Shield. Mike Hussey scored 15,000 runs at FC level before playing a test.

Cricket functions in Australia around 6 states having squads of 20-30 playing FC and LA cricket, and the Big Bash for T20. The Big Bash has taken off but the Shield and Matador Cup are not commercially successful. The test, ODI and T20I sides come from this pool, and these are the guys who make decent money. The weaker that pool becomes, the weaker we become internationally and in theory the less revenue comes in.

We're a long way from that point, but the Windies are a prime example of what can go wrong if the central body and players aren't aligned. They were a powerhouse in the 80s and 90s and now a bunch of their top players aren't even interested in playing test cricket. If we're serious about being a force in international cricket then being a state cricket should be a viable career path.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

I think a million dollars a year becoming normal for topline players is ridiculous when it means the middle rung players (often indispensably crucial) are always taking pay increase cuts to keep these 1-2 players under the party-line "it's for team success..." -- I would PREFER stars like Pendles, Danger, GAblett, Buddy, Fyfe get their perceived value from outside deals. Even if it meant those players got $2M endorsements and dominated our meager markets.

The salary cap could then go to pay players more evenly/fairly at the club level. Having, say, a $350K base for senior listed and topping out at around 750K for your Buddy, Tom Boyd types. You could pay your starting midfield group, and 2 keys at either end the maximum $750K under the new CBA, and still be sitting pretty.

If you're a star, and you only make upwards of $7M dollars during your playing career because you're shitty at branding yourself elsewhere? Even factoring in taxes, and living luxuriously and traveling in the off-season ... You'd still be a freaking millionaire in assets, investments or both and should be setup for life.

 

[Deep]

Make the season 34 weeks in the AFL to make the players earn what they make

AFL would be all for it because $$ whereas the AFLPA would call a strike. That's ok though because there's another 800 guys in this country who would willingly step in for a chance of a quarter of the average AFL salary

Don't care about cricket