Updated May 24, 2017 14:16:35

Photo: The players' union and Cricket Australia are locked in a death spiral over image rights. (AP: Tsering Topgyal)

Not only might Cricket Australia lose the players' labour — now it stands to lose their faces.

In the latest power play in these endless negotiations, the players' union, the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA), has upped the ante with the creation of The Cricketers' Brand.

This is a company which would own and control the intellectual property of players — their images, trade mark, names, voices — if the pay deal isn't finalised, come July 1.

It's telling that this company has been 'months' in the making. In fact the principle behind it isn't new: there has been talk about having the union step in to broker deals for individual players on certain aspects of their brand.

But the venture is a striking move, beyond its exemplary use of an apostrophe.

It stood to reason CA would, come June 30, lose the right to exploit the intellectual property of players past the expiry of current contracts. Players only give up that right once they sign a contract.

But the establishment of The Cricketers' Brand is a more formal, sophisticated move than has been previously seen by the union. The ACA says it is now an entity to be grappled with in the MOU negotiations.

ACA chief Alistair Nicholson says it may well continue to play a role in commercial arrangements under a new MOU, and there are similar arrangements in other countries like the US and South Africa.

But as much as this is part of a 'natural' move towards a new model, the timing also makes it a naked ploy in the current stand-off.

Photo: The stoush threatens to hurt cricket in Australia and reduce the value of both players and CA. (AP: Tsering Topgyal)

The ACA wants to take a sharper tool to the table, and it believes this move forces CA to put a value on IP rights. At the moment, it accuses CA of allocating "zero per cent" of digital media revenue received by CA.

The CA though has given this latest move a cool response. Nothing new here, it says.

It believes the union is confused about that digital revenue — that the amount it receives from Channel Nine to run a website in their joint venture is for "expenses", not revenue, and that players already get a cut of the deal with the broadcaster anyway.

It would say it doesn't know what Channel Nine's digital profits are.

The ACA believes by conjuring the chilling image of cricket without elite cricketers, it can force CA's hand.

But at the moment, the parties are two in a death spiral, and it beggars belief either will let it get that far. But let's say it does — the post-MOU life is guaranteed to hurt the game and reduce the value of both the players and CA.

The risk for both parties is that each being intransigent will erode the public's interest. Come June 30, how many people will still be caring about how this happened and whose fault it is? They will want high-class cricket.

But instead, cricketers will own their faces, but not their own baggy green, while CA will be left with nothing but archival shots of their greatest assets.

Topics: cricket, sport, australia

First posted May 24, 2017 14:08:27