19 August, 2020

Player Wage Cuts - Daily Telegraph



 

County cricketers face reduction in minimum wage as domestic game's finances hit by Covid-19


Tim Wigmore

The minimum wage for full-time professional players in county cricket is to be temporarily lowered to £24,000 in an attempt to keep more players employed during the financial crisis facing the game. New summer contracts – with players only employed for seven or eight months a year – will also be introduced, as Telegraph Sport revealed last week (see below).

The Professional Cricketers' Association have been in talks with the England and Wales Cricket Board and the 18 first-class sides in a bid to avoid the mass release of out of contract players at the end of the current campaign. There are 134 county players out of contract after this summer – around one-third of the total. 

Moving to summer deals for some players is a further attempt to prevent mass redundancies in the county game, with summer contracts now permitted for those with other employment or in education.

The previous minimum wage for county players aged 21 and over was £27,500. Young players aged 18 will be eligible to re-sign one more year on a reduced starting wage from £16,000 for the 2021 summer. 

“We need to be flexible and do everything to protect jobs for our members,” said Daryl Mitchell, the PCA chairman and Worcestershire player.

"I understand these measures are not ideal but given the situation presented to us by the ECB and the first-class counties, they are necessary to maintain as many members in employment as possible in 2021 and to enable them to continue their careers beyond.

"It is important for us as players to understand the gravity of the challenge the game now faces and act as responsible stakeholders in the game as we move forward together."

As Telegraph Sport first revealed, the cuts to salaries will be the first of a series of radical changes to the county game. These have been driven by Covid-19 – ECB funding to counties could be reduced by in the region of 20 per cent, depending on how the Covid-19 situation develops in the coming months and into next summer. Yet there is also a feeling that there is a chance for a reset to improve how county cricket operates both for spectators and the counties themselves.  

There are serious discussions about abandoning two divisions in the County Championship in favour of a regional format like that used in the Bob Willis Trophy, which has proved popular this season. The Royal London One-Day Cup could expand from 18 teams to 32, with a series of national counties joining the first-class sides in regional groups, and Ireland and the Netherlands already publicly declaring their support for joining a revamped competition. Changes to the format of competitions ultimately need a two-thirds majority of the 18 counties.

County cricket braced for biggest shake-up in a generation with 20 per cent cut in funding from ECB

The County Championship could be replaced with a regional format while some counties could move to just playing limited overs cricket

County cricket is braced for the biggest shake-up in a generation amid fears that the 18 first-class sides could lose at least 20 per cent in their funding from the England & Wales Cricket Board.

As the financial fall-out from Covid-19 continues to escalate, counties are privately discussing a series of radical potential changes to the domestic game. 

Areas understood to be up for discussion include:

  • Adopting a variant of the regional format of the Bob Willis Trophy as a replacement for the two division model of the County Championship which has been used since 2000
  • Creating a new 32-team domestic 50-over competition involving a number of the national counties
  • A reduction in the number of professional cricketers in the game and moving away from 12-month-a-year contracts for domestic players
  • The long-term future of 18 counties playing the first-class game, and the possibility of some moving to just playing limited overs cricket in the years ahead

The ECB are currently meeting with first-class counties to discuss the financial situation of each county, and the ECB themselves, which will inform discussions in the months ahead. 

Each county currently receives around £3.5 million a year from the ECB, including the £1.3m a year they gain as part of the agreement to launch the Hundred. But the ECB is now consulting with counties over the future, and clubs are bracing themselves for a 20 per cent cut in their funding, which could see their annual provision from the ECB cut to around £2.8m.

To be ratified, any changes to the format of the domestic game would need the support of 12 of the 18 first-class counties.

Yet while financial pressures are a driving force behind the potential changes, there is a belief that the pandemic has provided the county game with an opportunity to reset.

“Everybody accepts that a review of what next season looks like is desired and all are happy to take part in that discussion,” said one county chief executive. “Certainly there is a willingness to not just go with the status quo.

“This is a great opportunity to seize the moment and build on what looked like a write off season two months ago.” 

Five questions that will determine the future of county cricket 

How many professional cricketers can English cricket afford? 

On a conference call with county representatives earlier this month, the ECB chairman Colin Graves posed a simple question: can the English game afford 400 professional cricketers?

Over the years ahead, the number is certain to be reduced. Dozens of the 136 professional cricketers out of contract at the end of the season will lose their jobs. With reducing total number of employees - both on and off the field - the easiest way for counties to cut costs, there will be smaller squads in England in the years ahead.

A more flexible employment model is also possible. Counties are discussing whether it is really necessary for all their players to be on 12-month-a-year contracts, or if these could be reduced to, say, eight months a year with players making up the shortfall by seeking out playing and coaching opportunities overseas. 

What does the future of first-class cricket look like?

Two divisions have been used in the County Championship since 2000, a period that has coincided with a striking uplift in England’s Test fortunes. From 1980-2000, England won 5.6 Tests for every 10 they lost; since 2000, England have won 14 Tests for every 10 they have lost.

There is broad acceptance that two divisions in the County Championship have worked well. Yet the Bob Willis Trophy - played in three regional groups of six, with a Lord’s final - has also given a glimpse of another model. The regional model also involves significantly less travel - with some away teams even able to commute from home for away games - and so is cheaper.

While spectators have not been able to attend, viewing figures for the online streams that counties have used - a number have invested in extra cameras to previous seasons - have far exceeded expectations. Surrey’s home game with Middlesex attracted 764,000 views over four days - 66 times more than one Surrey County Championship home game in August last year, which attracted 11,500 views over four days. 

For all the unique circumstances of this summer, so far the Bob Willis Trophy has informed the thinking of county decision-makers in several ways. First, it has shown the virtues of a competition in which all 18 counties can win, with second division counties appearing reinvigorated. Second - from an admittedly small sample size - it has suggested that the on-field gap between divisions may be less than thought: second division sides Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Middlesex have all begun impressively. 

“It would be really good for the game if one of the second division teams manages to make it to the final,” says one county chief executive. “If that does happen it’s bound to cause some debate about what should we do next year.” 

A simple model would be for the format of the Bob Willis Trophy to be modified, with each team playing the others in their group home and away before the season ends with semi-finals and a final - both played over five days to maximise the prospects of a result. This would guarantee each county 10 first-class games, from the current 14. This could potentially be expanded to, say, 12, with each county playing two games against sides from different regions, using a seeding system.

Will there continue to be 18 first-class counties?

Financial pressures have reopened the debate about whether 18 counties should continue to play first-class cricket. The reception to the Bob Willis Trophy - and the performances from less heralded counties - means that, at this stage, there is little doubt that there will be 18 first-class counties next summer. But whether there will still be 18 sides playing County Championship cricket in, say, 2025 remains a very real question.

Any county that declared they no longer wished to play the first-class game would feel their status downgraded. But it is possible that this perception could change if, say, any county making this decision was guaranteed long-term involvement in the Twenty20 Blast and Royal London One-Day Cup and retained a good chunk of their funding. Such a model could become attractive to some counties, who would retain their lucrative fixtures and cut their costs; it would be cheaper for the ECB, too. 

“All want to play first-class cricket,” says one county chief executive. “Whether they can afford to is another matter.” 

What is the future of domestic 50-over cricket?

The original fixture list for 2020 featured the Royal London One-Day Cup, the domestic 50-over competition, being played alongside the Hundred. It was planned that the 18 first-class counties would compete against each other in two groups of nine, while missing their players selected for the Hundred draft - a full 11 players, in Sussex’s case.

Rather than a competition that could find it difficult to shake the feel of being a glorified county second XI competition, there is a desire to create a tournament with a fresher and more dynamic feel. The tournament is seen as a way to engage parts of the country who have previously been ignored by the first-class game. 

National countries (previously called minor counties) played against first-class sides in one-day cricket from 1964 until 2005, before being excluded when the county game was restructured. Now, serious thought is being given to allow national counties to compete in the same competition as first-class counties once again. 

Preliminary proposals for the future of the Royal London One-Day Cup are understood to involve 32 teams in four groups of eight, with leading teams then progressing to the knockout stages. Alongside the 18 first-class counties, there would be a number of national counties and potentially also representative teams from Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands, who were all previously involved in the county game.

The intention is to use the One-Day Cup to make domestic cricket a prominent local event in areas that do not currently host first-class teams, by pitting national counties against local first-class teams - for instance, Cornwall could host Somerset and Cumbria could host Lancashire. Such a competition would create the possibility of upset victories and could be billed as cricket’s version of the FA Cup. It might also unearth new talent previously ignored by the first-class game. 

And what about the Hundred?

Ian Watmore, who will take over from Colin Graves as ECB chairman next month, plans to review all of the governing body’s expenditure, and spending on the controversial Hundred - the new eight-team, 100-ball-a-side tournament - will not be exempt. But there is a broad feeling that Covid only makes one of the central aims of the Hundred - to reduce the ECB’s reliance upon international cricket to generate revenue - more important. Aspects of spending on the Hundred - like player salaries, reduced by 20 per cent for 2021 - will be trimmed. But there is absolutely no indication of the Hundred being scrapped before it is launched.

16 comments:

  1. Stonewall JacksonSunday, 16 August, 2020

    I heard from a Foxes member, Leicestershire were already contemplating just becoming a white ball outfit in future years, even before this unprecedented set of events this season. Deeply worrying, sad and disturbing when we've all been brought up with the traditional County system down the years. Good for them that Baz(Hales) and Harry of Gurneyshire have already made their dosh out of the game?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lots to think about in that article, It's clear I think to anyone that the game in it's present form ( pre Covid)is not financially substainable and hasn't been for some time.

    No doubt many members and supporters of the game will throw up their hands in horror at the thought of major changes to our summer game.

    Yes it would be lovely to carry on as before but the reality is that change is needed, Not in a few years time but now.

    If the game chooses to ignore the many warning signs it will surely pay the penalty If we act now rather than later,Then we have a greater chance of keeping the game we love in a format that might be not what everyone wouldwants

    ReplyDelete
  3. Continued.... But at least it would have a future, Which given the events of 2020 is perhaps the best we can hope for....

    ReplyDelete
  4. The covid issue has focused the minds of the decision makers and the beaurocrats at the ECB.

    A leaner and meaner structure for future cricket in whatever format ultimately transpires, is no bad thing, if it ensures the future of the game.

    The existing ECB hand outs, have also helped to fund wasteful top heavy management and coaches, that counties will no longer need, or will be able to afford,if the full time playing staff is reduced.


    One downside could be the discouragement of potentially talented young cricketers looking at other career paths, if the financial inducements, down the line , do not look overly attractive.

    Whether we like it or not, this pandemic has changed the way both business and sport operates, and financial constraints, are likely to be paramount,in any future decision making.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perish the thought that the DoCs and Head Coaches may actually have to become more accountable for their decisions at county level with presumably less funds to slosh about when assembly their squads of players ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. More akin to a dose of life in the real world ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Party s over lads

    ReplyDelete
  8. On a different tack, the extra lockdown has apparently been lifted in Leicester ? So, presumably I can have a skin full inside the pub near the ground and get my nails done inside a nail parlour but still can't sit, socially distanced, outside in Grace Road on Saturday? Assuming I've got this right, it seems a strange and bizarre set of parallels by our beloved Govt. ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Make the most of it if you are over 60 before they lock you down altogether

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps someone could correct me but I think the annual wage bill at Trent bridge for last year as printed in the Annual report was over £6 million?
    This was an increase of almost £1 million on the year before that ?
    That was a massive increase and you wonder if the extra money was well spent when you consider the results on the playing surface for 2019 .
    I think the good old days of bringing a player over from overseas to play in three or four matches and be paid circa £40,000+ have now gone . There will now be more opportunities for local players to make good . Foreign "stars" cost a lot of money - money that perhaps will not be there next year ..
    So it will be time for the Top Table and Committee to sit down and thrash out what the Club can now afford and cant afford . Its obvious that gate money from the Blast 20 competition ( plus perhaps the 100 Ball Comp) will be drastically reduced next season . Even with the ECB handout to each County Club (£1.5 million ?)it will be difficult to present a decent balance sheet and keep each Club on a level footing .Some of the 18 Counties have good reserves and are wealthy but the great majority will be scratching their heads and wondering where expenditure savings can be made .
    No one likes to take a wage cut but if it means keeping other vital staff members in position then its a worthwhile sacrifice .
    SO THE $64,000 QUESTION IS THIS ?
    WHO SHOULD NOTTS CCC GET RID OF AND WHY ?
    Remember its someones job and income that is being bandied out but some staff members will have to go in order the Club is put in a stronger financial postion . Long term survival is what all cricket fans want -
    Its a fast changing world alright ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. For players it is a time of great uncertainty
    This is so for everyine, but it does not make it any easier for them

    I am acutely aware when I talk about individual players in a negative way, I am talking about real people with families and friends. Maybe I should be gentler ?

    Also aware though, for young players everywhere this is a deeply troubling time. Will they be able to stay in the game professionally ? If not very hard times getting employment elsewhere

    ReplyDelete
  12. I would love to see a list of all employees on the Trent Bridge payroll . To see what they actually do and the amount the Club is paying them . A list of personel and salaries of the ill-fated SIX Restaurant would be a start .
    The Club are saying the SIX will re-open at the beginning of September . I just wonder if it actually will - because of on-going losses . If it could not be made to pay prior to "virus " lockdown"then it certainly will not now with reduced capacity and higher operating expenses .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well the Michelin Chef is reputedly on £100K for 10 days actual presence in the Restaurant!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A criminal waste of finances.

      Delete
    2. That figure is likely to be correct, as someone told me that the Director of Cricket is on £200k for 20 days work a year. Both on £10k per day.
      Cheap at half the price.

      Delete
  14. Whoever made the decision to employ a top Michelin rated Chef to oversee the SIX restaurant on a retaining salary of £100K a year ?
    Was it a Committee decision ? What was the YES /NO vote ? Anyone know ?
    Any fool could see the potential losses on the horizon .

    ReplyDelete

Please share your thoughts...