Destination Unknown
If anyone thinks the current pay dispute between cricketers and their employer, Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), is over…it’s not. The parties reached a truce a day ahead of the team’s scheduled departure to England last Tuesday on the premise it would be resolved when the team returns next month.
Thirty-eight players, including 14 who have been overlooked for any sort of a contract, are protesting over the new performance-based pay scheme that sees a substantial reduction in retainer fees. They demand transparency over the player grading system used—a fair request given how rigidly they were stacked into four main contract categories.
The Board on Monday used all its authority to get the players to sign at least the tour declaration after they refused to enter into tour contracts. It threatened them with suspension from cricket but they remained unshaken until the Board offered them a written guarantee promising to release the information they want.
Only then did players sign the Voluntary Tour declaration–a mandatory requirement ahead of an international tour–but still rejected the tour contract as it refers to matters of the annual contract for 2021, which is yet unsigned.
The new pay scheme was introduced in good faith by the Cricket Technical Advisory Committee entrusted with putting a system in place to make Sri Lankan cricket great again. There are, however, a number of issues that must be addressed to make it more transparent and acceptable to the players, who are the main stakeholders.
The new pay scheme devised by Tom Moody, the Director of Cricket, in consultation with the Aravinda de Silva-headed Cricket Technical Advisory Committee, sees points allocated on five attributes–performance, fitness, leadership, professionalism, and future potential and adaptability.
The Cricket Technical Advisory Committee which also includes former greats in Roshan Mahanama, Muttiah Muralidaran and Kumar Sangakkara announced new central contracts for 24 players—seven less than the previous year with retainers ranging from $25,000 to $ 100,000, last month.
According to the system adopted, the performance during the last two years carries 50 points while 20 points are given for fitness. The other three attributes carry ten marks each. The allocation was done by the coach, the three selectors and the physical performance manager.
The Board will officially release information to the players when they return. Whether this would end the ongoing dispute remains uncertain as players are now demanding a total revamp of the system. They want them to be graded only on performance and fitness, two attributes that can be measured and assessed, as opposed to future potential, leadership and professionalism (which collectively carry 30 points).
Although cricketers had principally agreed to take a pay cut given the global economic environment due to the global health crisis, they weren’t happy with how the 24 players had been graded.
For instance, former skipper and all format player Angelo Mathews was graded in A-2 with a retainer value of $ 80,000 while Test skipper Dimuth Karunaratne was graded further down in A-3 with a base value of $ 70,000. Both Mathews and Karunaratne along with Suranga Lakmal, who was offered a B-1 contract, have performed reasonably well during the two years in consideration.
Therefore, their demotions to lower categories were a bone of contention. Some cricket analysts argue that no matter what formats they play in future, they should have been offered top contracts given their contribution, seniority and commitment shown over the years.
On the other hand, the Technical Committee argue that these three cricketers will only play Test cricket this year–that too, just two matches–and, hence, have been duly rewarded considering their seniority and contribution to the game.
The players also find it hard to understand how Niroshan Dickwella gets a top category A contract when he has not performed well in the ODI format, and how Pathum Nissanka and Kasun Rajitha leapfrogged to the $55,000 and $50,000 pay brackets despite playing too little international cricket. And, how Nuwan Pradeep, Sri Lanka’s leading bowler in T20 cricket could not find a place in any of the four categories.
They argue that failure to answer these questions will create disharmony, raise reasonable concerns in respect of favouritism, and cast doubt as to the validity of the entire process.
Another point of argument is the involvement of Head Coach Mickey Arthur in the grading process. Arthur, who has coached three high profile teams in the past, including the once-invincible Australian cricket team, has a history of being accused of “promoting favouritism and selecting a player based on likes and dislikes”. Sri Lankan players seem to have lost confidence in the coach, who they say cannot be “trusted”. This is a serious issue going forward as lack of trust between the two parties would derail whatever plans implemented to take cricket forward.
With India scheduled to tour Sri Lanka soon after the England tour, it’s best that egos are left behind and all parties concerned–cricketers, the Board, the Cricket Advisory Committee, the selectors and the head coach–iron out the differences and come up with a solution on which everyone could agree.