Every sportsperson would love to represent their country. It is one of the greatest honours that can be bestowed upon a player.
It is important to remember that it is an honour, one that only a very small percentage ever get to experience. It is equally important to never forget that word, ‘represent,” that you are representing not only your country by name, but also all those who share that nationality.
In today’s sporting world with centralised contracts at international level it is sometimes easy to forget who you are representing, and that it is in fact an honour, as it may feel more like an exclusive club. Certainly, in many cases this is how international representation is beginning to look.
Players publicly stating that they will decide when they call an end to their career rather than the axe falling on them when they cease to perform.
In cricket the centralised contract was put in place to ease the financial burden on the counties, provinces and states in various countries. In the days of years gone-by these sides paid the players wages. When they were selected to represent their country they were still paid and receive an additional fee for playing internationally. There was no compensation for the sides paying their wages who lost a key player which could impact a championship. They lost a drawcard player which could impact their gate on certain fixtures. Worst of all sometimes these players would be injured while on international duty and then their club sides were without them for a lengthy period, and were still paying them.
The centralised contracts were supposed to identify a pool of players that were in the mix to be selected for international duty and their wages were paid by the National body. Sadly, in some countries the gulf in wages between the two levels has blown out to such an extent that now the International bodies do not want these players dropping back down to play, because they could get injured.
Some players simply do not wish to go back and play at that level, and what is the incentive when you are receiving six figures sums just to be a part of this elite group?
The money on offer is another reason why we are seeing careers lasting longer. Players do not want to leave, and who can blame them?
While the centralised contracts made sense in the cricketing world with test matches lasting a maximum of five days and tours used to be three to four months, there is a very strong feeling that the current situation is no longer beneficial for the game. It benefits the players, but they are the only ones coming out ahead.
In Football in most countries the national coach knows the core players that he wants in his squad. There are in very few countries centralised contracts to play internationally as the players are often well remunerated at club level.
When it comes to national teams the coach selects players in form, or players who will fit into the style of football he or she wishes to play. If a striker is banging in goals every week a national coach would be foolish to ignore such a player whose confidence will be sky-high.
In Australia there used to be centralised contracts for the Socceroos and at the Matildas. This previous system of tiered annual contracts for International players has been replaced with a model that rewards match participation.
The new collective bargaining agreement which was announced in November 2023 now sees 70 per cent of player payments being derived from match fees, with another 30 per cent coming from a yearly commercial payment.
This deal is for both the men’s and women’s teams, and means that players can earn up to AUD$200,000 a year before any share of tournament prize money, if they play most of the matches.
Players are entitled to 40% of the prize money received upon qualifying for a FIFA World Cup, which rises to 50% if they reach the knockout stage of the competition.
This agreement makes the two Australia sides two of the highest paid in international football. It has been claimed that this agreement now costs Football Australia in the region of $250,000 every game that the Socceroos or Matildas play once all the players have been paid.
As many lower down the pyramid have been asking, can the sport really afford this money? Time will no doubt tell, as the World Cup bonuses after costs will leave little to reinvest in the game.
In many of the second tier sports they would love to have even half of the money that the first tier sports pay their international players. Many of these sports rely on government support. Much of that support being based on their performances. When they fail to perform at the benchmark tournaments funding is cut.
These organisations are then forced to apply for funding from government projects aimed to win votes and satisfy minority groups, and that is why we see matches being branded accordingly. Something that has been known to alienate the bulk of fans who often feel that they are being ignored for a small section of the sport’s fanbase.
Hockey is a prime example where funding has been cut. However, the individuals that are fortunate to be selected for the national High Performance squads are not contracted players. They are scholarship owners within the Australian Institute of sport. So they do not receive any superannuation or holiday pay throughout their careers.
In fact currently it is claimed that the Kookaburras receive $300 a week when they train and $75 per day when they play in a tournament such as the FIH Pro League. If they do not train one week due to work or studies they do not receive the $300.
So these players are truly passionate and committed, and clearly not playing for the money.
In 2012 FIFA and its various Confederations sat down to try and find a solution to prevent the major clubs losing their international players at key moment in a season. The result was the FIFA International Match Calendar which was introduced in 2014. This calendar sets out which dates can be used for “official” and “friendly” international matches. These dates are now referred to by all as “international breaks,” when the top league pause for a fortnight.
This came about as the players were frequently being asked to chose between their club and their country. Despite having in his contract with a European club that he would be released for international duty one former Socceroo was dropped after opting to play for Australia at the 1988 Olympics; before the age limit was introduced.
There were concerns in Hockey over 20 years ago when the first players headed to Europe to play and be paid to play. Now it would appear that this issue is likely to come to a head again.
As covered previously the domestic Hockey One League was supposed to generate income for the players, but hasn’t. The FIH promised that the PRO League was going to make all of the players full time professionals, that was seven years ago and they are probably further away from that than ever with the cost of participating in a global league. (All we Want For Hockey Is...)
Not surprisingly many of the top Australian players have taken up the opportunity to head over to Europe and where they are paid to play, while others were fortunate to be picked up to play in the Hockey India League.
In this year’s edition the issue of club versus country came to the surface once again and looks like it may well lead to the need for the players to sit down with Hockey Australia and nut out some understanding as to where they stand.
One player who was signed by his franchise for 28 lakhs (approx AUD 49,432), picked up a groin strain in the latter stages of the tournament.
The franchise which had onboard top sports support staff were keen for their import to play in their all important semi-final match. In fact the staff involved in monitoring and assessing the player have been a part of Olympic and World Cup medal winning hockey sides. It is understood that they even shared the scans with a top overseas doctor involved in hockey for their opinion.
These professionals had monitored the player over a number of days, and as mentioned consulted with a number of experts outside of those in their employ in order to have a balanced understanding of where the player was at.
Their staff felt that the best approach was to give the player in question limited minutes in one half of the semi-final game. They suggested four blocks of three minutes. They would then assess the player after that involvement as to whether they were up to playing in the final or the bronze medal match.
Hockey Australia staff who were back in Australia had told the player that he could play in one game or the other, but not both. They allegedly made this extremely clear to the player involved and advised that if they ignored this request their place in the Australian World Cup squad in August 2026 could be in jeopardy.
It was also made clear that if the player disobeyed the Kookaburras program would review whether it would be involved in the player’s rehabilitation process.
The player in question did not play the semi-final match, his team lost. They did play in the bronze medal match.
Should a player who is only on a scholarship with the national team, not employed, be put in such a position when they are under contract to a side who is paying them twice the annual value of that scholarship?
As it turns out the player in question, who is playing for a club in Europe is no longer on an AIS scholarship. So how can a National Association have such a hold on a player? Presumably they can only threaten players with non-selection.
The demands of the High Performance program put the contracted player in a very difficult position. Some would say a no-win situation. Their place in the national team was being placed on the line, possibly so too was their place with their employee in the Hockey India League.
Certainly when news of this situation became common-knowledge the general feeling was that the Australian hierarchy had been heavy-handed. There was talk that they had shown a lack of respect for the support staff being employed at the franchise.
Some even stated that if this was to be the attitude of Hockey Australia some franchises would think twice in the future about signing Australian players.
The Hockey India League was approved to be played in this window because there were no international matches. However, hot on the heels of the final matches are FIH Pro League matches. Understandably International teams do not want to lose their players for these games even though the league has little or no relevance in the larger scheme of things.
Sadly, Belgian and German players did pick up injuries that will see those players miss out on this round of Pro League matches. Will that mean that these National Associations will stop their players playing in the Hockey India League? Or will it be their clubs at home who stop them as they are contracted and paid by them?
The situation that arose this year should never have happened. There should be a clear understanding as to where the players stand in terms of to whom their loyalty lies first from a legal perspective. As they have signed a playing contract, but in Australia they have no doubt also signed a scholarship agreement.
Like Football, Hockey needs to have International breaks in which International matches are played. Domestic fixtures – if the international players are playing for club sides – should be suspended on those weekends. This would also allow those players team-mates to go and watch them in action in the national colours. The same should apply with Hockey One which has seen under 21 players no longer available due to Junior World Cup preparations and the Sultan of Johor Cup.
While an international calendar may take a bit of time to work out, it would benefit the game immensely in the long term. As for the players the reality is that some will at some point opt for loyalty to their clubs who pay them a wage over meaningless Pro League matches. The flipside of that is that the clubs themselves may start to seek compensation from national associations if they release a player who then gets injured while on international duty.
Whatever the outcome this situation is clearly coming to a head.
