Add Category
It's been 10 days since Super Netball's previous collective player agreement (CPA) expired and after both sides of the tense negotiation process made their arguments public, it's clear the sport is a long way off signing its next deal.
Domestic players are headed into their second week without pay, imports are starting to worry about what will happen with their visas and athlete signings have been delayed – preventing all eight teams from announcing their 2024 rosters and getting stuck into their pre-season plans.
So why are these negotiations dragging on, despite beginning way back in February? We explore the ins and outs of the pay dispute below and answer the most FAQs.
How will this affect the Diamonds' campaigns?
Don't fret, the Aussie Diamonds' upcoming Constellation Cup and South Africa series won't be affected and will run ahead as planned.
The national team's CPA is a separate agreement to the Super Netball league and although there was conflict surrounding the former in June – when Netball Australia (NA) refused to name the World Cup team unless players signed a proposed three-year deal, later backflipping and extending the current Diamonds CPA until August 31 to cover the tournament – that interim agreement has now been extended until the middle of next year.
It means there is one less conflict to deal with right now and that all Diamonds players will be paid their national wage for the back end of the international cycle.
Clubs unite with Netball Australia
One of the glaring parts of the statement released by the national governing body came in its opening line, uniting the Super Netball teams with NA's stance.
"We've worked with the teams throughout the entire negotiation, making sure everything we've put forward is within the realms of what the sport can afford," chief executive Kelly Ryan told ABC Sport.
"So, the parts that Netball Australia contributes directly, the parts the teams have to contribute directly, we've worked through this methodically and are 100 per cent aligned on the offer we've been able to put on the table."
It's an interesting time for the entities to align themselves so publicly, as the details regarding Super Netball's new team player agreement (TPA) is also being negotiated and believed to have been held up by teething issues regarding commercial ownership.
NA says the TPA deal is now very close to being signed and although it is a separate matter, Super Netball player contracts are contingent on each of these being finalised – meaning no team can sign players for 2024 until both deals are sorted.
What the aligned stance does do, is create very clear battle lines between the two parties disputing the CPA, pitting the clubs and NA on one side and the Australian Netball Players' Association (ANPA) and athletes on the other.
From the outside, the players have appeared to be 100 per cent aligned on their stance too, judging by the number of athletes – from the highest paid to the bottom – that shared the ANPA's statement on their personal social media accounts.
That was until player agents raised concerns with the ABC that the emerging talent and fringe players on their books don't seem to be exactly sure what they're fighting for. But more on that later.
Profit share vs revenue share?
To an outsider, the most recent deal offered from NA looks pretty good.
Sure, the rises are all on the smaller end of the scale, but those who know the financial struggles the sport has faced over the past few years might be thinking 'at least it's something'.
The real sticking point has been the type of share model the sport has been willing to enter into partnership with the players and this has no doubt been the hardest part of the negotiations for everyday people to understand.
For the very first time, NA has offered the players a profit-share model, giving them a 25 per cent cut of the league's generated profits, after NA retains the first $500,000 as a buffer.
What the players are holding out for is a 20-25 per cent revenue-share model that offers them a slice of the larger pie generated by sponsorship before expenses are subtracted to determine profit.
The reason they are so hell-bent on this is that the total revenue number is harder to manipulate, giving players greater control and transparency as to how the sport has performed commercially.
Whether netball can actually afford a revenue-share model though is the bigger question. If you ask Netball Australia, an independent report they had conducted says no.
"We've tried to explain on multiple occasions why it doesn't work for our sport and that's purely because we don't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost of the league," Ryan said.
"The league runs at significant losses, as we sit here today, the model we have proposed would help us work closer together and then when we start generating more of a profit, they will become significant beneficiaries, but to carve out revenue before we've actually paid our expenses is a huge financial detriment to the sport and would put us further behind.
"Our offer might not be what they want, but it is something better than what they have today … About two weeks ago, they actually accepted our profit-share mechanism barring working through some of the specific details, then as of a week ago, they re-tabled a revenue-share model and we're somewhat confused why we're back talking about this when we thought we'd made progress.
"We completely understand what other sport models offer, but they are irrelevant to the position netball is in and the fact that our sport is bankrolled by our own sport, we are not bankrolled by a men's sport, which continues to be used as a comparative measure for what we should be doing."
The independent report that backs up NA's stance has been deemed commercial in confidence and unable to be shared publicly for that reason, but those on the other side of the argument who have managed to get a look at it say they believe the document holds little evidence.
Are the players' gripes bigger than the CPA?
Two-time Super Netball champion and former ANPA vice-president Maddy Colebrook (née McAuliffe) said there were a couple of things at play that are potentially influencing the athlete's and ANPA's decision to play hardball.
This time last year, there was the well-documented Hancock sponsorship saga that surrounded the Constellation Cup and over the past 18 months there have been several other moments where the players and administration have clashed, including the decision to sell the Super Netball grand final and NA withholding World Cup selection during the Diamonds CPA negotiations.
"There is a complex relationship that's played out between NA and ANPA over the past five years … the players feel undervalued and not like a true partner, and that's a big part of what this deal appears to be about," Colebrook told ABC Sport.
"The revenue-share model is something ANPA has been pushing for since I was involved, so it's not a new concept, it's something that has previously been conceded by the playing group and it always gets to a point when you need to consider whether that is a direction we are ever going to get to.
"Look, I read NA's statements too, things sometimes sound better than they are and a 10 per cent increase sounds fantastic for pay, but when it's on $40,000, that's only four grand, so it's not a lot of money … A three per-cent increase is just over a $1000 extra, so it's not all as it seems.
"I do think the broader issue is the relationship between NA and the players, the alignment of the strategic vision and a real desire for the players to be partners in that process and getting that recognition for their role in growing the sport.
"There has always been a real lack of financial transparency between NA and ANPA and that has made it difficult to assess the situation … The rebuttal in most negotiations is that there isn't enough money, and it's now gotten to the point where ANPA is starting to say, 'okay well if there isn't enough money, why not and how can we help be a part of generating more?'."
What's athlete IP and can it be withheld?
At the bottom of the ANPA statement there is a line that has troubled some player agents.
"The players have assigned their Intellectual Property rights to ANPA, which we will now meet with players to discuss the management and use of until a new CPA can be agreed."
This alludes to player image and would prevent the Super Netball league, its clubs and NA from using photos or videos of the athletes to promote the competition and the sale of memberships.
The concerned agents view the assigning of IP as a drastic measure and are confused as to what it will mean for an athlete's individual brand sponsorships.
Beyond this, they say some of their players can't even explain the ins and outs of the revenue-sharing model the ANPA is fighting for and are instead just following the senior players' lead.
Meanwhile NA believe its latest offer hasn't yet been put to the athletes and was instead knocked back by the ANPA on their behalf.
"We are unbelievably disappointed that this offer has not even been put to the players yet, when we think they should have that chance and the ability to understand the detail of what we're talking about," Ryan told ABC Sport.
Despite retiring at the end of 2021 and no longer being privy to current discussions, Colebrook said she doubts the ANPA wouldn't give athletes a proper opportunity to have their say.
"ANPA process is always that each team has two delegates that sit on the board, one is the main board member, but two people should always be on the board and anything that comes to ANPA would be shared with the board and then those two players would distribute that information to their wider playing group," Colebrook said.
"For things that are a bigger decision, for example, during my time it was when it was floated that we would take a pay reduction around COVID, they would try and get all 80 players onto a call to allow them to ask further questions so that responsibility didn't entirely sit with the two player delegates.
"In my time as a player, I felt like ANPA provided great information to the players, despite it being difficult to get all of them in a room for a quick turnaround on decisions … If players don't understand there is a process where they can flag that with their delegates."
Is mediation the only way forward?
It looks as if independent mediation may be the only way forward from here, given the relationship has become so fractured.
NA say they are open to mediation, but that it will only drag the process out further.
"We hadn't wanted to go down that road yet primarily because we've been having conversations in good faith on a weekly basis," Ryan said.
"When you're finding ways to move through things it doesn't warrant mediation and that's the space we still thought we were operating in, we're only going public now because ANPA did.
"The best-case scenario for us moving forward is that the players actually have a deeper understanding of our offer … We are happy to go to mediation, but we just need to make it clear that it is going to slow the process down."
Colebrook believes mediation might be a good idea.
"Obviously no-one is really winning with the way it's playing out and I don't think mediation is the only way forward, but I think it's a good move to get both the parties in a room and sit down with a third party impartial that can have a say on the root issues of it," she said.
"I think there's a broader piece around mending that relationship between the players and NA, and I think that only really comes from a true partnership between the two of them."