The shadow boxing which the Indian players appear to be currently practicing in the ongoing tussle with the International Cricket Council over the contracts issue is not likely to lead anywhere.

Reuters has reported Indian cricket board chief Jagmohan Dalmiya as saying "there is no clause to stop the players if they have signed conditionally", but I would be extremely surprised if the ICC buys that argument. The conditions that have been struck out by the Indian players concern image rights before and after the tournament and these are among the basic issues over which the Indian board and the ICC have been struggling to come to an agreement now for almost half a year.

Having been a player myself, I announce myself unequivocally on the side of the players. They are the ones who bring in the big bucks and administrators all over the world have yet to realise that the spotlight they enjoy along with the considerable perks and privileges is all thanks to the game and big names who have made cricket a multi-million dollar sporting industry today.

Attitudes of administrators towards cricket have changed over the years, but unfortunately their attitude towards cricketers has not. In the old days, administrators used to work for reasons of personal prestige and the love of the game also had something to do with it, albeit in varying degrees; today, there is considerable financial benefit to be had, patronage to be distributed and, if one sets one's mind to it, even an empire to be built.

Unfortunately, one thing has remained constant over the years, and that is the desire on the part of administrators to be in a position of authority over the players. This relationship continues to be bound in a hierarchical pattern in which the administrator feels he knows best with regard to schedules, itineraries, contracts and indeed all else that he considers to be within his domain, which pretty much includes everything. The attitude, unfortunately, is still of superior officers telling juniors what to do and what not to do as the superior knows best -- the classical 'mai baap' attitude of the British Raj.

I think it is this attitude that has caused much of the logjam in the current contract crisis with Indian players. Nobody, not even the ICC, should have the right to sign away avenues of legal income for the players; between these avenues and the ICC's own interests there should not have been the gap that has now crept in if the ICC and indeed administrators worldwide recognised the need to consult players and their representatives before arrangements were finalised. This is essential, for in the ultimate analysis it is the players who have to deliver. I find it strange that the ICC contract with the sponsors should have had a clause requiring the contesting sides to send their best teams for the World Cup. Which country in the world would not want to send its best team for the premier cricketing event in the world?

Why would any country want to send anything less than its best squad for the World Cup? Was the clause then inserted because the ICC had a creeping feeling that issues like this may arise, in which certain provisions of the contract it was singing would be in conflict with contracts signed by cricketers, for no real effort had been made to ensure that this would not be the case. Indeed, we are still uncertain whether in case of such a conflict, which contract would be deemed -- legally -- to be the operative one; the one signed by the players or ICC's contract with its sponsors. In some cases the players' contract even predates that of the ICC.

The fact of the mater is that the ICC was offered a sum of money which in cricket would have been unthinkable some years ago. Faced with riches of such unimaginable magnitude, the ICC perhaps did not proceed as cautiously as it should have, and neither perhaps did the Indian board. In the middle were the Indian players, who, as a result of lack of co-ordination among officials, mingled with more than just a dash of imperial administrative haughtiness, found themselves in a position in which incomes which should have been perfectly legal may have to be forgone.

They are in the unenviable position of having to put this on one side of the scale while on the other is the prospect of opting out of the World Cup squad which would have untold repercussions on issues as far apart as their commitment to the sport, their future careers, their love for their country and, last but by no means least, their ability to earn in the short to medium term. That they should find themselves in a position where all these grave issues should be staring them in their faces -- and that too on the eve of a tournament which will be the focus of the sporting world with an estimated audience of over one and a half billion -- is most unfair, and they have my fullest sympathies.

There is a mindset, not just with cricket administrators but the cricketing world at large, which looks askance at any attempt by players to increase their legitimate earnings but accepts without a murmur the rapidly expanding cricketing empires that are being built all over the world, with its armies of advisors and consultants and air-conditioned offices and endless perks.

The phrase 'player power' is almost always used in a derogatory sense and yet, it is this player power that has improved the lot of the game and those who play it at a variety of levels almost beyond recognition compared to the chill penury of a few decades ago.

Having gone through the Packer era, I have felt the effects of this attitude first hand and I regret to say that unless it changes, rows of the sort which are in the process of what can only be described as an undignified progress at the moment, will simply keep happening.

Courtesy: The News International, Pakistan.