Money. The sound of the five-letter word, even the very mention
of it, governs everything around us. 'Money makes the world go
around' went a popular number from the 1972 film 'Cabaret'. It's
difficult not to agree with that sentiment, particularly at this
juncture when cricket faces a new crisis thanks to the ongoing
contract row between the International Cricket Council and the
affiliated units on one hand and the players and the Cricketer's
Associations on the other. The choice before the latter is,
bluntly put, money or country. Such a scenario could not have
been imagined in the past but with mega dollars governing the
game, perhaps it is not surprising that the situation has led to
the current impasse.
'Money is the root of all evil' is a saying we all learnt while
at school. Apparently, money is also the root of all controversy
and misunderstanding. The game has weathered many a crisis in the
past - Bodyline, the throwing controversy and the vexed
question of South Africa among others. But over the last 25 years
cricket has encountered more problems than it had come across in
the preceding 100 years.
It's tempting to trace the genesis of the present crisis to Kerry
Packer's World Series Cricket. Besides promoting the game in a
razzle-dazzle manner, it also brought in more money into cricket,
made the players superstars and resulted in greater misbehaviour
by the cricketers, which saw the advent of the match referee and
monetary penalties. But in marketing the game in such a colourful
way, WSC also made cricketers a marketable commodity.
Soon the prima donnas, besides earning handsomely from the game
directly thanks to more money pouring in through television
coverage worldwide, could also make a pile endorsing products.
Major companies signed up the superstars on exclusive contracts.
With such a scenario, the present row over clash of contracts
was, as the cliché goes, an accident waiting to happen. Only the
word controversy should replace accident.
Players and administrators are the twin pillars of the game. It
is true that spectators come to watch the cricketers in action
and it is the players who bring in the large television audience.
But without the administrators bringing in more mega bucks into
the game through signed contracts with sponsors, the respective
boards and, consequently, the players would not enjoy the
monetary benefits. This is the stand taken by the ICC in the
present controversy.
Listing impressive figures, the game's governing body has pointed
out that in 2000, all Boards, through the ICC, agreed to a number
of sponsorship and personal endorsement restrictions in return
for 550 million dollars for the commercial rights to ICC events
through until 2007. The ICC is to distribute a record 102 million
dollars of this income to the Boards and the players from the ICC
Champions Trophy to be held in Sri Lanka next month and the World
Cup in South Africa early next year. In addition to this payment,
South Africa is to receive tens of millions of dollars to stage
the tournament, including the funding for ground redevelopment
and infrastructure while 13 million dollars is to go directly to
fund the development of the game around the world.
© CricInfo |
In return, the ICC is seeking to ensure that the agreements
previously reached with the Boards are adhered to. According to
ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, the Boards and the players are
the two of the key beneficiaries of the ICC's commercial
agreements. Under the circumstances, the ICC's stance in
protecting its commercial partners appears to be consistent with
other sports and based on cricket's previous experience.
Given this well-established precedent, it would be a surprise,
according to Speed, if any elite cricketer or his management had
the view that the player would be free of any obligations to the
ICC tournament sponsors in the Champions Trophy and the World Cup
when negotiating any personal endorsements.
"To my knowledge no player or his manager at any stage sought the
view of the ICC as to the restrictions that would be in place
before they signed these agreements. If a player now finds that,
through his own actions, he has put his commercial interests
ahead of his ability to play for his country, he needs to decide
what is more important to him, the money or playing for his
country," he observed in a letter send out the various boards
around the world.
The fact that it could come to a point wherein the player puts
money ahead of playing for his country shows the serious extent
to which the controversy has reached.
According to the ICC, under the Participating Nations Agreement
(PNA) signed by the affiliated units for the Champions Trophy and
the 2003 World Cup, each Board is committed to sending its best
team to these events. The ICC expects each Board to meet these
commitments by securing their players agreement to participate.
It must be mentioned here that the negotiation of payments and
other terms and conditions for players is the responsibility of
the individual Boards. The game's governing body has also advised
player representatives that it is not in a position to modify the
ambush marketing restrictions in these agreements.
But the players have taken a diametrical opposite viewpoint as
exemplified by the statement of Tim May, the former Test offspinner and chief of the Australian Cricketers' Association.
Terming ICC regulations preventing players from endorsing
products conflicting with official sponsors as illegal, May said
it would mean a player would have to breach an existing contract.
"That's not only unreasonable, it's unlawful" he said, mincing
no words. According to May, the players want to play in the
Champions Trophy tournament in Sri Lanka next month, but they
remain very concerned about that one clause. "It isn't about a
money grab, it's about a fundamental principle," May is quoted to
have said.
"A player is not being allowed to endorse any product or service
where that product or service conflicts with that of an ICC major
sponsor. There are some international cricketers who will be
affected by this. For the Champions Trophy, there's not one
Australian player that would have a direct conflict with a major
sponsor," May said. "However the players have taken this
particular stance (of not signing the ICC contracts) because,
just because they don't have one now, they may well have one in
the future."
© CricInfo |
India's players, in a rare show of unity, have followed this
stand. Star cricketers like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly,
Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and Anil Kumble endorse a wide
range of products through newspaper and television advertising
and would stand to lose a huge sum of money if they agree to the
ICC contract. Players from several other countries have also
refused to sign the contract.
The cricketers are of the view that their case is strengthened by
the fact that they were given the contracts just one month before
the Champions Trophy tournament and also their contention is that
there is no precedent for such a one-sided contract in any other
sport.
David Graveney, chief executive of the Professional Cricketers'
Association (of England), has admitted that the existing
agreement would leave high-profile players in breach of existing
contracts. In a succinct comment, he pointed out that players
could not be expected to second-guess ICC sponsorship deals in
advance. He is of the view that England players would sign the
agreement if ICC relented on a couple of conditions.
The conflict of commercial interests, therefore, is very much out
in the open and with both sides unrelenting, the deadlock may not
be resolved for some time. Given the paucity of time, it is
possible that only an ad hoc agreement or an unhappy compromise
may be arrived at. The saddest aspect of the controversy is that
the players, instead of keeping their minds on events on the
field, have been forced to concentrate on monetary matters. How
deeply all this will affect their performances remain to be seen.