There would have been a massive public outcry if the salaries of the players were bumped up at this stage and SLC wouldn't have been able to justify it by any means. In that scenario, talking of transparency would have been irrelevant. Talk about a performance based pay structure has been in the pipeline for a while but consecutive administrations hadn't taken up for various reasons. The current cricket committee had the backbone to go ahead at a time when the performance of the team had hit rock bottom. In my opinion, what they did in principle is correct but certain aspects and points criteria are questionable.
Australian and English players have agreed to a pay cut up to 15% for 2020/21 due to loss of revenue to their respective boards. Both countries have Players' Association which look after player interests, it's they who negotiate with the administration. Our players don't have anyone to look after their interests other than their respective managers. This time, I think for the first time 38 players have come together collectively under one umbrella (one lawyer) to fight for their rights. It's well documented the players were OK with the pay cut, it's always been the lack or non existence of transparency of the new process.
Cricket Australia, ECB and BCCI pay between 26-27% of their revenue to the players but their revenue is much, much higher than that of SLC and all other cricket boards around the world. You can't make a fair comparison or assessment when the revenue of the ''Big 3'' is way higher than rest of the test cricket playing countries. I guess player salaries took up around 70% of SLC's revenue initially but it was reduced to around 60% later if I remember correct.
Australian and English players have agreed to a pay cut up to 15% for 2020/21 due to loss of revenue to their respective boards. Both countries have Players' Association which look after player interests, it's they who negotiate with the administration. Our players don't have anyone to look after their interests other than their respective managers. This time, I think for the first time 38 players have come together collectively under one umbrella (one lawyer) to fight for their rights. It's well documented the players were OK with the pay cut, it's always been the lack or non existence of transparency of the new process.
Cricket Australia, ECB and BCCI pay between 26-27% of their revenue to the players but their revenue is much, much higher than that of SLC and all other cricket boards around the world. You can't make a fair comparison or assessment when the revenue of the ''Big 3'' is way higher than rest of the test cricket playing countries. I guess player salaries took up around 70% of SLC's revenue initially but it was reduced to around 60% later if I remember correct.