Give the players a better deal

Andrew Flintoff's decision to reject an ECB incremental contract in favour of becoming a freelance limited-overs cricketer has generated significant debate throughout the cricketing world.

He has come under fire in some quarters for seemingly putting cash before country. But was his decision different to what any other international player would have made in his position, or for that matter any member of the general public?

Professional sportspeople are easy targets, and for some reason critics consider it morally wrong for anyone to earn a good living from a "game". Even more heinous is a sportsperson who tries to maximise his earnings from his very short career by letting the market determine a fair price for him.

Flintoff was reportedly offered a £25,000 contract with the ECB. With this contract comes various obligations on his time and restrictions on his ability to earn income from sources away from the ECB.

Much of the debate has centred on whether Flintoff¹s decision will be a one-off or the first in a wave of players taking this path. In my view it is inevitable that we will see more players following Flintoff, unless cricket addresses some fundamental issues.

The largest issue is the structure of the international game.

As Graeme Smith so rightly said last week, "... the international game is going to have to adapt to its changing environment and cut down on the current glut of meaningless contests if more of the world's leading players are to be prevented from following Flintoff¹s example."

There is too much international cricket being currently played, and too many series have little or no context. When this is coupled with the emergence of a genuine alternative option in the IPL, which in many cases provides far greater financial rewards for players than international cricket for a far smaller time commitment, it should be clear that urgent changes are needed.

The ICC and its member boards are currently in the process of thrashing out a Future Tours Program for the period 2012 to 2020. Here is their opportunity to make the necessary changes that will keep players in the international game.

The Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) and its member player associations are in the process of developing the players' vision for the future structure of the game. This vision will detail a proposed future structure of the international game that addresses the above issues. Central to this vision will be how best to fit international and club cricket together in a way that will make it attractive to players to remain in international cricket while having the ability to also play in club competitions such as the IPL.

The other significant issue is the increasing unattractiveness of the traditional contracts that players sign with their home boards. Why would Flintoff sign a £25,000 contract with the ECB and have to agree to a number of significant obligations and restrictions when he can sign a six-week IPL contract for 35 times the value of his ECB contract amount - an option that allows him to sign various other cricket contracts throughout the world?

Similar dilemmas have arisen with Sri Lankan, New Zealand and West Indies players, where the value of IPL contracts dwarfs anything these respective boards can offer. It's only a matter of time before players from all countries are faced with similar issues.

Don't get me wrong, the contract system we have had in place in Australia for the past decade has been terrific for players and pivotal to the success of Australian cricket. Our players have been easily the highest paid in the game, and they have various non-monetary benefits that are the benchmark in international cricket. It's no coincidence we have enjoyed an unprecedented period of success.

Nonetheless, with the advent of the IPL, cricket's landscape has changed forever. Boards can no longer expect players to sign contracts that prevent them from earning hundreds of thousands of dollars simply because it is their patriotic duty.

Players are potentially the greatest beneficiaries of this change in landscape with the market for their services becoming highly competitive. This is in turn driving player values up both on and off the field.

In a recent article published by Forbes magazine, the top four highest earning international cricketers were all Indians, with the captain, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, leading the way with annual earnings estimated at US$10m, and the other three all earning in excess of US$5m.

Interestingly the majority of total earnings for these top players are derived from off-field endorsements. With so many non-Indian players now playing for Indian teams in the IPL and therefore creating a genuine affinity with Indian fans, one would expect significant increases in the off-field value of these players within the incredibly lucrative Indian market. To counteract this, home-board contracts with international players need to adapt to the marketplace changes. While players directly benefit from and value the support of the game's many commercial partners, if players continue to be restricted from entering into endorsements with third parties to the same degree they currently are, it is very likely that players will choose not to be contracted by their home boards.

Governing bodies, players and player associations all want international cricket to not only survive but prosper. The game is however at a critical juncture and now is the time to develop workable solutions for the future.

If the game wants to avoid more players following Flintoff's path it must ensure its structure prevents competition between the scheduling of international cricket and club competitions such as the IPL and Champions League Twenty20, while ensuring that players also have adequate time away from the game for recovery and to spend with their families. Additionally, the player contracts with governing bodies must be less restrictive, such that the opportunity cost of signing them does not prevent players from doing so.