Australia's top cricketers are owed $58 million by Cricket Australia (CA) with a lump-sum payment due in October.

That lump sum forms part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement impasse between CA and the Australian Cricketer's Association (ACA) that has left 230 of the country's top male and female players unemployed as of Saturday morning.

It is understood CA wants half of that money back to be rolled over into the next pay deal, at the same time bring to an end the 20-year revenue-sharing model that is used widely in professional sports around the world.

In other words, Cricket Australia wants to take money earned by players between 2012 and 2017 to be put towards the salaries of those who will play in the next five-year cycle.

The ACA executive will meet today to discuss the most pressing issues — including whether 70 state-contracted players will join the unemployed players in an act of solidarity and refuse to play in the upcoming Australia "A" tour to South Africa.

Cricket Australia's tactic of approaching individual players with contract offers — no doubt aimed at splitting the group — has failed.

To this point the playing body shows no signs of fracturing.

It is understood CA has also been briefing numerous people — including former captains and some coaching staff — so they could put the views of the governing body forward if requested for comment by the media.

The most serious questions to be answered now are not to be asked of the players, but instead need to be directed to the governing body in which the players have lost trust.

Why has the CEO of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, refused to sit at the negotiating table with the ACA despite numerous requests?

Why has the CEO of Cricket Australia, James Sutherland, refused to sit at the negotiating table with the ACA despite numerous requests? Why has the man charged by the Cricket Australia board to negotiate a new CBA with the players failed so spectacularly?

Why has the man charged by the Cricket Australia board to negotiate a new CBA with the players failed so spectacularly? Was that man, Kevin Roberts, given any assurances that by stepping down from the board and taking on the negotiators role as the executive general manager he would then be appointed as the next CEO?

Was that man, Kevin Roberts, given any assurances that by stepping down from the board and taking on the negotiators role as the executive general manager he would then be appointed as the next CEO? What is the current state of the relationship between board chairman, David Peever, and his CEO, James Sutherland, and chief negotiator, Mr Roberts?

What is the current state of the relationship between board chairman, David Peever, and his CEO, James Sutherland, and chief negotiator, Mr Roberts? Why, as chair of a not-for-profit organisation, is David Peever so adamant that the players not be regarded as partners with CA in a revenue-share structure but instead become salaried employees?

Industrial relations lawyer, Braham Dabscheck, from Melbourne Law School, told ABC News' The Ticket, Cricket Australia's shift in position was a power play.

"It's a union busting exercise," Mr Dabscheck said.

Prioritising profit and productivity over players

Prior to his role on the board of Cricket Australia, Mr Peever was managing director of Rio Tinto Australia.

In 2012 he described unions as "an elephant in the room".

According to an article in the Daily Telegraph at the time the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) said Rio Tinto was paying union members lower redundancies than non-union members — suggesting an anti-union agenda.

Addressing planned strike action by the CFMEU, Mr Peever's comments at the time might give some insight into his unwillingness to negotiate with the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA).

It might also help explain the tactic of approaching individual players rather than their collective body, the ACA.

"Direct engagement between companies and employees, flexibility and the need for improved productivity has to be at the heart of the system," Mr Peever said.

"Only then can productivity and innovation be liberated from the shop floor up, and without the competing agenda of a third party constantly seeking to extend its reach into areas best left to management."

The difference between Rio Tinto Australia and CA is that the former is interested in maximising profit, the latter is allegedly a not-for-profit organisation. Cricketers are not only employees, they are also the product.

As of Saturday, both Cricket Australia and the players' association remain adamant they will not be backing down.

Yesterday was also the first day of "Cricketer's Brand" — the company established to manage the Intellectual Property rights of Australian cricketers.

Without the players IP rights Cricket Australia's revenues of $300-$400 million a year will take a massive hit.

Several sponsors and at least one broadcasting deal are also in the balance and without being able to provide a top-class cricket team, it remains to be seen how much Cricket Australia can extract for the sale of a product it officially no longer has much control over.