It is "unrealistic" of Australia's cricketers to insist that revenue-sharing is the only way forward, says the man who signed off on the first revenue-sharing deal 20 years ago.
Malcolm Speed was then chief executive of the Australian Cricket Board and later CEO of the International Cricket Council. In 1997, after long and tense negotiations, he reached an agreement with the newly formed Australian Cricketers' Association that has held to this day, but which Cricket Australia now wants to scrap.
![Australian cricketers 'unrealistic' in insisting revenue-sharing is the only way forward, says Malcolm Speed.](http://web.archive.org./web/20170703154929im_/https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/v/r/r/8/j/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gx0i7d.png/1498694303870.jpg)
"The players are entitled to ask for revenue-sharing to continue, but they have to recognise that a lot has changed," Speed said. "No one said then the new system will be there forever. That's unrealistic. Things have changed. Cricket has changed significantly. It doesn't make sense for the cricketers to say, 'We like this model, we want to stick with it come hell or high water'."
In 1997, CA's revenue was $40 million a year, split evenly between gate money, sponsorship and broadcast rights, Speed said. Now it is more than $400 million a year, 80 per cent of it from broadcast rights. It necessitates another look.
Originally, players received 20 per cent of the $40 million, rising to 25 per cent if and when revenue reached $60 million. Immediately it did, providing a windfall for all. "Until then, players were  genuinely underpaid, especially Sheffield Shield players," Speed said. "The good thing was that they weren't any more.
"But business and sport in the past 20 years has gone through lots of changes."
On this, Speed is not yesterday's man. He is executive director of the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports, an umbrella body, and sits on the boards of Golf Australia and the Richmond Football Club.
Speed said that throughout the history of revenue-sharing in cricket, the mix always had changed. Some streams counted in one agreement, but not in the next, and vice versa. New streams emerged, altering the mix again. It was up to CA now to present a cogent new model. "There has to be some give and take," he said.
Pay negotiations were like heavyweight bouts, Speed said. They were scheduled for 15 rounds, but only sometimes went all the way. He thought the AFL and its players had shaken hands on a draw well inside the distance. He thought CA and the ACA were at about round 10.
Meantime, former Australian coach John Buchanan said CA and the ACA both were paying only lip service to the importance of grassroots cricket in a new deal.
"Both sides are showing little leadership and stewardship of the game," he said. "The expenditure on grassroots growth and development ranges from six to 10 per cent per annum, pending whose figures you read. This compares with nearly 40 per cent spent on elite players and programs and over 50 per cent on the administration and operational management of cricket."
Buchanan said that as a starting point, the bodies had to agree that minimum expenditure on grassroots should be 30 per cent, then start talking from there.
"While I have read both parties arguing for greater grassroots spending, I have not seen any percentages mentioned," he said. "Yet both parties seem to be able to come to specific numbers when it comes to  revenue sharing, or profit sharing for players. Of course, this does not mean that it is not happening. It would seem that it is more noteworthy what is happening at the elite end, rather than at  grassroots sport."