The key issue here is whether the Socceroos should even be included in the CBA under discussion. Coming under the same umbrella as A-League players and the Matildas allows the PFA to suggest it is using the bargaining power of its biggest names to ultimately help and support the little guys and girls. And partly, it is. But that's disingenuous. Tom Rogic of Australia controls the ball during the World Cup qualifier against Bangladesh in Perth on Thursday. Credit:Getty Images While A-League players - and especially the Matildas - can legitimately claim they don't always get paid what they're worth, that doesn't apply to the Socceroos. And hasn't for a long time. During the term of the last CBA - from the 2011 Asian Cup to June 30, 2015 - these are some of the payments and conditions received by the Socceroos: Cumulative income of $468,269 per player (including match payments and prizemoney) between 2011 Asian Cup and 2014 World Cup for any player who was named on a teamsheet for every fixture;

One-off payment of $114,609 per player for the 2015 Asian Cup (including commercial payments and bonuses);

Business-class travel with sleeper beds, five-star hotel accommodation (single rooms) and 10 free tickets per game per player.

In general terms, the Socceroos receive better pay and conditions than most national teams in the world because these arrangements are guaranteed irrespective of performance. At the last two World Cups, they might even have been the best-paid team to exit the group stage. In Brazil, for instance, the 23 players walked away with $205,000 each. Just for turning up, for any fixture, they receive $6,500 as a match fee. As a passionate unionist, I believe in CBAs. But that's for my primary employment. For secondary employment, it matters a lot less. The Socceroos effectively freelance when they wear the green and gold, and most are handsomely rewarded in their day jobs with their clubs. Tim Cahill, you'd argue, has effectively become an industry. Effectively an industry: Tim Cahill after the Bangladesh qualifier. Credit:Getty Images So why do they need to drive such a hard bargain to represent their country, which individually and collectively they always refer to as an honour? And, please, don't talk about sacrifice. When you play for Australia there is no such thing. Period. The right thing for the PFA to do is to separate the Socceroos from the rest of the game, and negotiate a new CBA accordingly. Maybe they'd get more, maybe they'd get less. But at least we'd see the real cards on the table.

Right now, the A-League players and Matildas are much more deserving of the PFA's time and energy. At this embryonic stage of the World Cup cycle, the Socceroos shouldn't derail a much more pressing process. Why the FFA hasn't pushed this is beyond me. During much of its impressive journey, the PFA has taken a responsible, intelligent, approach to building the game. But I wonder if it has lost its way. So much changed after qualifying for 2006 World Cup, and perhaps it is simply reflecting the view of the new breed of player, especially the ringleaders of the so-called 'Golden Generation'. A collection of multi-millionaires who, to my knowledge, have yet to pass on much of that wealth to the local game - a true test of their philanthropy. If the FFA was getting rich on the back of the Socceroos, the environment might be different. It is not. For a spend of around $14million per year, it is struggling to break even. Right now there is no major sponsor, no soft drink sponsor, no beer sponsor, for the national team. That's a $5million black hole, at least. Gone are the days of 70,000 crowds for a match against China. The FFA struggled to sell-out 18,000 tickets for this week's World Cup qualifier against Bangladesh. But still, for every Socceroos shirt sold, the PFA collects 25 per cent. You've got to be kidding me.