"The executive of the ACA will recommend to Australia's male and female cricketers to accept a renewed MOU secured under an in-principle heads of agreement between CA and ACA", Nicholson said. Although the players had offered to sacrifice up to A$ 30 million (US$ 24 million) of their pay to grassroots cricket, CA stood by its stance and chose not to offer the revenue-sharing deal, which left the players disappointed.
The Aussies are scheduled to fly to Dhaka on Aug 18 for a two-Test series.
The ABC understands the deal includes a version of a revenue share model, which the players were fighting hard to keep.
CA bosses said the cricketers would receive a higher salary to make up for this, but players claimed they would lose out in the long term. "We've reached a good compromise, one that we can both live with".
The players said they felt they had not been consulted enough on major decisions, like scheduling and rule changes, and were not treated as the game's prime asset.
"The prospect... comes with a Test series in Bangladesh next month in increasing danger of not going ahead and with Australia desperate to avoid the commercial and reputational fallout that would accompany having to pull out of a short-form tour of India in October", says The Age.
"Relationships with the game have been tested and I know that has been a bit of a turn-off for fans", added Sutherland. We are restoring certainty and beginning to fix relationships, especially with the fans.
Both the board and the players' union were bruised in the tortuous 10-month negotiation but ultimately the deal represents an emphatic win for the players and a huge back-down by the board. The ACA and Cricket Australia are delighted to be genuine market leaders in Australian sport in this regard.
It is widely believed that the revenue-sharing model the players wanted retained has been kept.
"Today's agreement is the result of a sensible compromise from both parties", Sutherland said. As a part of this protest, Australia A had also boycotted a tour of South Africa.
Under CA's proposal, only male global players would have had the chance to share in any surplus revenue, while other domestic male players and women at both domestic and worldwide level would have had to settle for fixed amounts which would have not fluctuated according to the game's income.