Wednesday, 9 April 2008

£8000 a week

For reasons that are not immediately obvious the salaries of England cricketers are kept under wraps. I am not sure why this is; it is quite common in the sporting world for salaries to be common knowledge. Sportsmen and -women do keep information about their sponsorship deals to themselves but that may well be at the request of the sponsor. Some information has leaked out and a central contract plus selection in most matches looks to be worth about £400,000 ($800,000) a year. This is a lot of money by most people’s standards but does not even count as beer money to Premier League footballers, tennis or golf players or F1 drivers. Personally I do not think cricketers are overpaid and lets face it, if the money was not paid to them it would go into the pockets of much less worthy individuals: cricket administrators, management and coaching staff – not one of which hits a ball or takes a catch.

There is however, one thing which I think should be considered and that is the length of a central contract. In my opinion a year central contract is far too long. I think it breeds complacency and makes team selection when a player is not performing difficult. For example, Andrew Strauss was picked for the tour of New Zealand and played in all three matches despite not deserving being considered for the tour. I think this is a direct result of him being on a central contract – not picking someone who is centrally contracted appears like an admission of failure for the selectors and a waste of money; so they pick him. I would like to see four month central contracts. It would mean there was no comfort zone for contracted players and give opportunities to players just outside the central few.

4 comments:

Jrod said...

With Harmy you could offer him a over by over contact.

Nice blog, have rolled you.

Rob said...

A few years ago, probably the previous Ashes campaign in Australia, England were getting whooped. Someone sent around a list of changes to the laws like 'one bounce one hand' for Australian batsman. Another I recall was 'You are out if Harmison pitches it on the wicket'...

Suave said...

It should be a performance related contract, that allows the powers that be to revoke the contract once dropped.

With Strauss, he got six months pay as a fully qualified England player, yet he was relaxing in Brockett Mansion, whilst his compadres, were toiling away in the Sri Lankan sun!!

Straight Point said...

let me present alternate view...

longer contracts while in a way breeds complacency but on another hand give assurance to player as well that your contributions and talent is recognized and you are on board...

if the pressure of playing at international level...always touring away from home (even in your country)...are not enough we don't want another axe hanging on their heads...

sportsmen life can be very short and i think they need some assurance as well for thier efforts...and for that i think one year is neither too long nor too short...

also i feel complacency is accidental not norm...

if you are out of team for long... even if you get money at times for not playing...i cant think of any player in the world who will be happy receiving it...knowing that your contract wont be renewed...next time...and with it goes the chance of earning those bucks you are accustomed to...

and hence you see, not by coincidence, that when given chance again player like strauss scores...heavily...again...