Money

Partab Ramchand19-Aug-2002Money. The sound of the five-letter word, even the very mentionof it, governs everything around us. ‘Money makes the world goaround’ went a popular number from the 1972 film ‘Cabaret’. It’sdifficult not to agree with that sentiment, particularly at thisjuncture when cricket faces a new crisis thanks to the ongoingcontract row between the International Cricket Council and theaffiliated units on one hand and the players and the Cricketer’sAssociations on the other. The choice before the latter is,bluntly put, money or country. Such a scenario could not havebeen imagined in the past but with mega dollars governing thegame, perhaps it is not surprising that the situation has led tothe current impasse.’Money is the root of all evil’ is a saying we all learnt whileat school. Apparently, money is also the root of all controversyand misunderstanding. The game has weathered many a crisis in thepast – , the throwing controversy and the vexedquestion of South Africa among others. But over the last 25 yearscricket has encountered more problems than it had come across inthe preceding 100 years.It’s tempting to trace the genesis of the present crisis to KerryPacker’s World Series Cricket. Besides promoting the game in arazzle-dazzle manner, it also brought in more money into cricket,made the players superstars and resulted in greater misbehaviourby the cricketers, which saw the advent of the match referee andmonetary penalties. But in marketing the game in such a colourfulway, WSC also made cricketers a marketable commodity.Soon the prima donnas, besides earning handsomely from the gamedirectly thanks to more money pouring in through televisioncoverage 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 contractswas, as the cliché goes, an accident waiting to happen. Only theword controversy should replace accident.Players and administrators are the twin pillars of the game. Itis true that spectators come to watch the cricketers in actionand it is the players who bring in the large television audience.But without the administrators bringing in more mega bucks intothe game through signed contracts with sponsors, the respectiveboards and, consequently, the players would not enjoy themonetary benefits. This is the stand taken by the ICC in thepresent controversy.Listing impressive figures, the game’s governing body has pointedout that in 2000, all Boards, through the ICC, agreed to a numberof sponsorship and personal endorsement restrictions in returnfor 550 million dollars for the commercial rights to ICC eventsthrough until 2007. The ICC is to distribute a record 102 milliondollars of this income to the Boards and the players from the ICCChampions Trophy to be held in Sri Lanka next month and the WorldCup in South Africa early next year. In addition to this payment,South Africa is to receive tens of millions of dollars to stagethe tournament, including the funding for ground redevelopmentand infrastructure while 13 million dollars is to go directly tofund the development of the game around the world.
© CricInfoIn return, the ICC is seeking to ensure that the agreementspreviously reached with the Boards are adhered to. According toICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, the Boards and the players arethe two of the key beneficiaries of the ICC’s commercialagreements. Under the circumstances, the ICC’s stance inprotecting its commercial partners appears to be consistent withother 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 hadthe view that the player would be free of any obligations to theICC tournament sponsors in the Champions Trophy and the World Cupwhen negotiating any personal endorsements.”To my knowledge no player or his manager at any stage sought theview of the ICC as to the restrictions that would be in placebefore they signed these agreements. If a player now finds that,through his own actions, he has put his commercial interestsahead of his ability to play for his country, he needs to decidewhat is more important to him, the money or playing for hiscountry,” he observed in a letter send out the various boardsaround the world.The fact that it could come to a point wherein the player putsmoney ahead of playing for his country shows the serious extentto which the controversy has reached.According to the ICC, under the Participating Nations Agreement(PNA) signed by the affiliated units for the Champions Trophy andthe 2003 World Cup, each Board is committed to sending its bestteam to these events. The ICC expects each Board to meet thesecommitments by securing their players agreement to participate.It must be mentioned here that the negotiation of payments andother terms and conditions for players is the responsibility ofthe individual Boards. The game’s governing body has also advisedplayer representatives that it is not in a position to modify theambush marketing restrictions in these agreements.But the players have taken a diametrical opposite viewpoint asexemplified by the statement of Tim May, the former Test offspinner and chief of the Australian Cricketers’ Association.Terming ICC regulations preventing players from endorsingproducts conflicting with official sponsors as illegal, May saidit would mean a player would have to breach an existing contract.”That’s not only unreasonable, it’s unlawful” he said, mincingno words. According to May, the players want to play in theChampions Trophy tournament in Sri Lanka next month, but theyremain very concerned about that one clause. “It isn’t about amoney grab, it’s about a fundamental principle,” May is quoted tohave said.”A player is not being allowed to endorse any product or servicewhere that product or service conflicts with that of an ICC majorsponsor. There are some international cricketers who will beaffected by this. For the Champions Trophy, there’s not oneAustralian player that would have a direct conflict with a majorsponsor,” May said. “However the players have taken thisparticular stance (of not signing the ICC contracts) because,just because they don’t have one now, they may well have one inthe future.”
© CricInfoIndia’s players, in a rare show of unity, have followed thisstand. Star cricketers like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly,Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and Anil Kumble endorse a widerange of products through newspaper and television advertisingand would stand to lose a huge sum of money if they agree to theICC contract. Players from several other countries have alsorefused to sign the contract.The cricketers are of the view that their case is strengthened bythe fact that they were given the contracts just one month beforethe Champions Trophy tournament and also their contention is thatthere is no precedent for such a one-sided contract in any othersport.David Graveney, chief executive of the Professional Cricketers’Association (of England), has admitted that the existingagreement would leave high-profile players in breach of existingcontracts. In a succinct comment, he pointed out that playerscould not be expected to second-guess ICC sponsorship deals inadvance. He is of the view that England players would sign theagreement if ICC relented on a couple of conditions.The conflict of commercial interests, therefore, is very much outin the open and with both sides unrelenting, the deadlock may notbe resolved for some time. Given the paucity of time, it ispossible that only an ad hoc agreement or an unhappy compromisemay be arrived at. The saddest aspect of the controversy is thatthe players, instead of keeping their minds on events on thefield, have been forced to concentrate on monetary matters. Howdeeply all this will affect their performances remain to be seen.