The Hindu : Of cricket, contracts, cash and country

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 21, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Of cricket, contracts, cash and country

THE INDIAN CRICKET team's formal refusal to sign the International Cricket Council's (ICC) contract is the most recent development in the face-off between cricketers in different parts of the world and the game's governing body. Unless the problem is sorted out both quickly and amicably, the prestigious ICC Champions trophy, which is slated to kick off three weeks from now, will take place with a hopelessly depleted field. At stake in the not-so-distant future is also the 2003 World Cup in South Africa, which is covered by the same contractual scheme that many cricketers find unacceptable. At the heart of the controversy is the ICC's demand that players sign contracts which bar them from appearing in advertisements or endorsing products of companies which are rivals of those which have officially sponsored these events. The prohibition is in force not only during the course of these tournaments but also extends for a period before and after them.

The ICC maintains, and with some justification, that similar ambush marketing provisions are commonplace in other sports. Moreover, that they are vital in protecting the interest of its commercial sponsors. However, the problem is that some cricket players (for example, India's Saurav Ganguly and Sachin Tendulkar) have pre-existing advertising contracts with rival companies. Signing the ICC's contract will mean breaching their existing contractual obligations, something for which they could be held legally liable. Thus, formally, any attempt by the ICC (or cricket boards of some countries) to pressure players into signing the contract is tantamount to inducing them to commit the unlawful act of breaching existing contracts.

The ICC's defence is that the protection deal with the sponsors was agreed to by the cricket boards of all countries as early as 2000. In other words, why are cricketers and some cricket boards raising uncomfortable questions now when there was an agreement on ambush marketing provisions two years ago? Here, the story turns murky with some cricket board officials claiming that the controversial exclusivity clause was either non-existent or present in a different or modified fashion in the 2000 agreement. However, while the problem may lie in the past, the objective now should be towards ensuring that all the cricket teams, represented by their best cricket players, participate in the two tournaments under jeopardy. With the powerful Federation of International Cricketers opposing the contract and with teams such as Australia and India having formally refused to sign, the need of the hour is to cobble together a quick settlement.

The hope of reaching an agreement will depend critically on the ICC's willingness to soften its stand on at least one issue — namely, that which concerns players with pre-existing contracts. Such cricketers with contracts entered into before a specific point in time must be absolved from abrogating such sponsorship agreements or be adequately compensated for being forced to breach them. This will require the ICC to renegotiate its own contract with its commercial partners in a manner which is suitable to both the sponsors and the cricketers. There is no point in the ICC continuing to act as if the issue only revolves around a basic choice that cricketers have to make — between cash and country. The problem goes well beyond this and it is somewhat insulting to presume that those cricketers opposed to the new contractual scheme are placing the former over the latter. The Australian cricketers, for instance, have no pre-existing contracts which are threatened but have refused to sign because they believe that the scheme is basically unfair. This controversy was not created by the cricketers. They have simply been pitchforked into it because of an agreement signed two years ago between the ICC and their respective cricket boards which they were not even aware of until recently.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Hurriyat and elections

Of cricket, contracts, cash and country

Testing democratic institutions

Needed: a Kashmir policy — I

Boosting Indo-U.S. ties