Vastavam web: The Federation of International Cricketers Associations (FICA) today extended its support to the Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) and its members in their pay dispute with Cricket Australia.”FICA is concerned with CA’s desire to end the percentage revenue sharing model that has so successfully underpinned the partnership between the players and administrators in Australia for twenty years,” FICA said in a media statement.According to FICA, 230 professional cricketers, whom it represents, have been rendered unemployed following the ending of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the players and CA and the failure of the latter to negotiate a new agreement with the ACA based on the same partnership principles of the previous MOU.
“FICA is also seriously concerned with CA’s approach to its dealings with the ACA throughout this ongoing process.The cricketers’ federation said CA has given indications that it may attempt to restrict now un-contracted players from competing in other cricket events by refusing to grant them a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or threatening them with future playing bans and has opposed it.”FICA reiterates its strong opposition to any artificial restrictions that unfairly attempt to prevent players from earning a living and that have not been agreed with players or their representatives. FICA believes that such restrictions would be open to legal challenge in most jurisdictions as a restraint of trade,” the statement added.
Cricket is at a crucial moment in its history, with new and competing markets for players, fans and broadcasters. I believe that boards should be working more collaboratively with players in the current cricket landscape, not pushing them away,” said FICA chief, Vikram Solanki.Former South Africa skipper and FICA Independent Board Member Graeme Smith said, “I was part of a revenue share partnership model for many years as a player and this was a critical factor in fostering the relationship between Board and players. In the current cricket environment where players have other options I don’t understand why a board would want to change a partnership that has proved to be successful.”