Smith bats for women's cricketers, reiterates stance on player revenue

Won't ‘give up’ on revenue sharing model, says Aus captain

Australian skipper Steve Smith has reiterated that the players will not back down from their demand to retain the revenue sharing model, which has been a reason for pay dispute between Cricket Australia and the Australian Cricketers Association for quite some time now.

Smith said that the cricketers of the men's and women's national teams - including David Warner, Meg Lanning and Alex Blackwell - are unanimous in fighting for the longstanding revenue-sharing pay deal, which is directly linked to the game's overall financial fortunes.

The 28-year-old, however, said that the players are ready to make important changes to modernise the existing model for the good of the game.

"I'll say what we as players have been saying for some time now: we are not giving up the revenue sharing model for all players. But, through the ACA we are willing to make important changes to modernise the existing model for the good of the game. We are and have always been willing to make those changes," Smith wrote on Instagram.

"Changes for how the model can be adapted for the even greater benefit of grass roots cricket, which is after all where we all started. We are determined to keep revenue sharing for all because we must take care of domestic players in Australia. As leaders that's what David [Warner], Meg [Lanning], Alex [Blackwell] and I have been fighting for: a fair share for state players who are also partners in cricket," he added.

Meanwhile, Smith also spoke in favour of Australia women's cricket, saying that the female cricketers should earn the same chance and incentives to grow the game as their male counterparts.

"Also as Women's cricket gets bigger and bigger in Australia women players must also be able to share in what they will be earning. They must have the same chances and incentives to grow the game as the men have had since revenue sharing started," he said.

"And I know I speak for all of the men that we want women cricketers in the one deal with the men as well. It's time to get a deal done. It should be and can be an exciting time for the game," the skipper added.

Smith's comments came few days after players had opted to boycott the upcoming Australia A tour of South Africa following Cricket Australia's failure to take any action to resolve a bitter pay dispute between the two governing bodies.

Australia A were slated to play a pair of four-day matches against South Africa A as well as a limited-overs tri-series against the Proteas' and India's A-teams.

Players, having central contracts and state players without multi-year deals, were left unemployed after the deadline for a new MoU was not brokered by June 30. Players are due to be paid next on July 15.

More than 200 leading cricketers are affected by the dispute between CA and the ACA.

ACA had earlier rejected the new pay offer from the game's governing body, saying the proposal will be a win for cricket administrators but a loss for the game.

In March, CA made an offer, proposing that the average pay of Australia's international women's players would rise from $A79,000 to $A179,000, while the average remuneration of state cricketers would more than double to $A52,000.

Under CA's proposal, only male international players would have the chance to share in any surplus revenue, while other domestic male players and women at both domestic and international level would have to settle for fixed amounts which would not fluctuate according to the game's income.

However, the ACA pointed out a series of concerns with the proposal, saying that it "disrespects the value of domestic cricketers and the role they play in Australian cricket".

The major reason behind the ACA's opposition is CA's proposal to scrap a shared revenue model for player payments, which has been in place for nearly 20 years.

Cricket Australia had in May threatened that players would not be paid beyond June 30, the date of expiry of their current five-year financial deal, if they don't accept the governing body's new proposed offer.