More money for Australian contracted players; plus less commitments. Is the national side getting a bit full of themselves, or are they worth it? What do you think?
Let's look at the pros and cons:
1) The 11 players on the field represent our entire country; so therefore they are our elite. This should entitle them to remuneration that acknowledges them as such.
1a) Many players that pursue cricket show enough talent in other sports to put them in a position of having to choose ultimately which sport will serve them best, (or which one they have the most skill at).
2) Money is now flooding into the game via India, if CA are not prepared to ensure a player can effectively secure his financial future, why wouldn't players choose a career playing hit and giggle for the duration of their playing career?
3) With tour and sponsorship commitments (22 appearances a year- no more than 4 in any given month) on top of away time -up to 10 months a year, players need to capitalise on their money earning years to partially negate the lost time with families.
4) Players already earn incredible sums of money, (M.Clarke was 7 figures last year!). If you are in the national side, and are getting $5100-$12750 (plus OS loadings) in match fees, or nearly $700 a run, be grateful you represent your country and are raking it in... other representative sports-people pay their own way!
5) Cricketers are housed, fed, transported and catered for medically as soon as they are in the national side... no additional expenses.
6) On top of their CA money, cricketers receive huge amounts from sponsorships and endorsements- how dare they request less time doing such work.
I for one think that if they can get more from CA, why not! For top ranked players the draw of a few seasons of T20 in India must always be in the back of their minds; if you could earn a yearly income with only three months away, why wouldn't you? The privaledge of having played for your country won't pay the bills when you are too old to earn money from cricket!