ICC takes its eye off the ball
Daniel Laidlaw
The origin of the evolving ICC vs players contract dispute appears to be a
simple, embarrassing case of communication breakdown. Two years ago, when
the member boards reportedly signed the agreement preventing "ambush
marketing" against the ICC's official sponsors, something relatively
important had evidently taken place. It seems that the controversy has
principally erupted because it was not until recently that anyone in
authority realized it.
The timing of the dispute, around a month before the first tournament it
would affect, makes one suspect the ICC was caught with its eye off the
ball. Had the ICC been aware throughout of the implications of the agreement
it initiated, it surely would have anticipated the imbroglio and sought to
ensure the players were fully aware of their obligations well in advance. It
really appears, though, that the ICC did not discover it had a considerable
problem until just a few weeks ago, when the first hints of trouble were
revealed.
The ICC cannot truly have expected the players to be aware of the anonymous
agreement. A more realistic interpretation of recent events is that the ICC
failed to communicate its significance to player representatives at the
time, and with subsequent administration changes simply forgot about it
until someone realized $US550 million in sponsorship dollars could be in
jeopardy, whereupon the panic button was pressed with the resulting
conflagration.
While the ICC deserves the admonition it has received for its oversight, the
broader reason for the dispute is essentially the influence of sponsorship
money on international cricket. Once upon a time, it seemed that advertising
deals were signed to generate income for the good of the game. Now, it's
more like the advertisers are controlling cricket for the good of
themselves.
Amateur vs Professional, money vs honour has been a contentious issue for
about as long as cricket has been played. Previously, though, it has always
been between players and their self-appointed governors. In ceding some
authority to vested third parties, as the ICC has been done, cricket has to
be careful it doesn't expose itself to injury from outside in its quest for
the dollar, or rupee, as the case may be.
Really, if television and advertising money did not have such an influence
over the very existence of tournaments, such as the metamorphosized
Champions Trophy, the controversy would not have arisen, though admittedly
this is a naïve complaint. Joint FICA CEO and ACA chief Tim May, after
making it clear how the blame lay with the ICC in its failure to consult
player representatives before signing away their rights, put it more
realistically when he was quoted by The Australian as saying: "I think
cricket has a responsibility to deliver the best possible players to the
best possible tournaments and not necessarily maximise the best possible
revenues out of the events." He is exactly right. Unfortunately, the raison
d'etre for the Champions Trophy is to raise revenue.
In attempting to secure the best deal it could with Global Cricket
Corporation, the ICC's intentions were most likely honourable. But in
agreeing to that same deal without consulting the players over their rights,
it was naïve at best and cynical at worst.
The month-before-and-after clause is important. If it was indeed agreed upon
by the member nations two years ago, then both the boards and the ICC
executive from that period have questions to answer as to why the player
representatives were not informed to pass that crucial information on to
their members. But if former BCCI boss A C Muttiah's memory is correct and
that clause was not actually agreed upon at the time - which would be a
rather more insidious occurrence, and we can only speculate on why it was
done - then whoever was responsible for surreptitiously inserting it should
be brought to account. If it's true, then the players have indeed been
ambushed and the game nearly snookered out of $550 million.
The ICC and the ACB would like to see the agreement of the Australian
players to sign the Player Terms as a template for another nations,
including India. However, overlooked is that a key reason for the
Australians' agreement is the money that flows through to them from the ACB,
as per the Memorandum of Understanding between the ACA and ACB.
"Australian and state players will receive 25 per cent of the dividend that
the ACB receives for the Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup and we
believe this is an effective way of providing consideration for the
substantial rights the players have given up in relation to the events," ACA
CEO Tim May said.
It was no surprise whatsoever, then, to see BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah
comment on how the Australian model was incompatible for India because of
the "differences" between Australian and Indian players. Differences indeed.
Beside the fact that India's players are apparently the only ones with
contracts that specifically conflict with the sponsors of the forthcoming
event, and thus actually have something to lose before the terms are
potentially altered prior the World Cup, they are not guaranteed a
percentage of BCCI revenue. Unlike the Australians, sponsorship money
received by the BCCI from the ICC's deal with GCC does not flow through to them in any way.
If the ACA-ACB agreement is to serve as a template, and if players are not
to be compensated for income lost by their board, then it would seem a
similar distribution deal would first need to be reached.
The ICC contract controversy - the complete coverage
More Columns
Mail Daniel Laidlaw