The decision by the Australia A team to support their unemployed teammates and not go on the tour to South Africa is a direct result of Cricket Australia's disturbing refusal to show any inclination to negotiate a resolution to the Memorandum of Understanding impasse.

These players desperately wanted to tour.

They have loved and lived the game their whole lives and have now passed up an opportunity to pursue higher honours. They did so because they won't allow Australian cricket to be held to ransom by a governing body that has been unwilling to listen, let alone consider, viewpoints other than their own.

To be clear; this issue has nothing to do with players being greedy.

It's about transparency, accountability and ensuring money is directed fairly and smartly.

Steve Smith, Meg Lanning, David Warner and Ed Cowan (among many others) are standing up for those most at risk if CA is allowed to become an unchallenged behemoth.

They've taken a stand for the state rookie on $40,000 a year, the state contracted player on $65,000 a year, the Big Bash League player who brings in new audiences.

They've taken a stand for women to be included in revenue sharing for the first time. While the positive direction of female cricketers' salaries is welcome (after many decades), improving all female players' terms and conditions is a must, and robbing them of access to a fixed percentage of revenue in the game is wrong.

They've taken a stand for significant increases in grassroots cricket. With projections for cricket revenue in the next five years to top $2 billion, and the players wanting to fix their payment pool at 22.5 per cent, it beggars belief that the responsibility of funding grassroots cricket is being levelled at the players.

The players have rightly told CA to fix a percentage of revenue to grassroots cricket, so that the historic underfunding in this area is immediately addressed. This is why pitting the players' earnings against grassroots funding is all the more disingenuous. Apart from being blatantly wrong, I believe it's a massive distraction from CA's own mismanagement. The administrators of the game have the responsibility to properly invest in grassroots cricket, but to suggest that this should be the reason the players' percentage share should decrease, or be removed, is to shift the blame from CA's chronic overspend in administration.

This week we have seen many comments along the lines of "can't you guys just sort this out?"

Well, we agree!!

If CA was willing to listen it would find that the players want to set up a modernised revenue-sharing model that ensures the ongoing health of the game, especially at grassroots level.

The players have put their money where their mouth is, especially over the last five years. The players have invested $29 million of their own money into programs that benefit the health and wellbeing of their fellow male and female members, with $10 million of that going to grassroots cricket.

And the players have stated their willingness to work with CA on specific one-off investments that may arise, to be flexible in any above-forecast revenue increases in the game, and to share in the downside risk should it occur.

This week has been a sad one for cricket. Having to miss a tour is a situation that we hope is never repeated. However, by making this decision, the Australia A players have sacrificed their own ambitions for the collective; an incredibly selfless act that shows their strength and overall commitment to the group.

The players genuinely have the health of the game at heart, and will continue to stand united until this dispute is resolved. The game is owed that much and we hope the administrators agree.

Simon Katich is a former Australian test cricketer and the Australian Cricketers' Association player liaison manager.