In the mid-1990s, cricket was on the crest of a new wave.

Shane Warne was taking the world before him, the Waugh twins were established members of the Australian eleven and the lanky legs of Glenn McGrath had just earnt him the nickname "Pigeon".

Those stars were increasing the popularity of the sport, broadcast revenue and the game's coffers.

Yet state-based players — the lifeblood of the game — were toiling away, combining part-time jobs with the pursuit of cricketing excellence. Many were on a minimum wage of $24,000 per annum.

It was a mix similar to the one that helped create the Packer revolution in the mid-'70s and it brought on a bitter industrial dispute between the Australian Cricket Board (now Cricket Australia) and a newly formed body representing the players — the Australian Cricketers' Association.

In an attempt to win the players' trust, ACB chairman Denis Rogers took unprecedented action. He invited all six state captains to the table for a financial briefing in October, 1997.

Sorry, this video has expired Take a look back at the cricket finance debate in 1997

After 10 months of fierce debate and posturing, a historic agreement was signed the following year, which set the tone of the partnership for decades to come.

It saw the establishment of standardised contracts for first class players and the introduction of a fixed-revenue sharing arrangement, signalling to the players that the game viewed them as key partners in cricket's future.

What the players' association wants: Retain revenue sharing model which is about 26 per cent of CA revenue

Retain revenue sharing model which is about 26 per cent of CA revenue For CA to act transparently around the forecasted $2.6 billion it will earn over next five years

For CA to act transparently around the forecasted $2.6 billion it will earn over next five years Mediation to take place, with six weeks to go before current MOU expires

Numerous agreements have followed but central to all of them has been a commitment from the game's administrators to commit to a player pool amounting to about 26 per cent of the game's revenue.

Now, with the success of the Big Bash, Cricket Australia's revenue from TV is set to grow and the players are adamant that the principal of revenue sharing should continue.

But with the latest deal ending in June the parties are at loggerheads — and not for the first time.

Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland had just begun work as the organisation's general manager when the first pay deal was struck in 1998 and had the top job when the next major deal was signed in 2004.

On each occasion he's publicly questioned the revenue sharing model, warning that players' incomes could actually shrink if the game's income doesn't grow.

Tabling the latest offer in March, Sutherland said "the previous model has done its time".

He promised more money for women and grassroots development.

What Cricket Australia wants: Update current revenue share model

Update current revenue share model Establish gender equity between male and female players

Establish gender equity between male and female players Address anomalies that weaken the game, including lack of grassroots development

Cricket Australia is offering more money for the state-based Sheffield Shield cricketers.

But Tim May, who brokered the original agreement in 1998, isn't buying.

In an article for Cricinfo he said the logic was fundamentally flawed.

"The model has not done its job," May said.

"It is doing its job, and that job is to keep cricket healthy, growing viewership and participation year on year."

Sorry, this video has expired Talk of possible cricket player strike action in 1997

Since the stalemate, reports have emerged that Cricket Australia has offered some of the game's highest profile players lucrative three-year contracts, but these have been rejected.

The international stars are firm in their belief that the new offer won't benefit the state-based cricketers in what they believe is the nursery for test cricket.

Cricket Australia is arguing that the Sheffield Shield simply isn't paying its way.

In any industrial dispute, unity is paramount and thus far the players are holding firm.

Australian sportsmen and women have threatened to strike on numerous occasions in the past, but never before has that threat seemed so real.