It is important that the ICC, the BCCI and the other boards, and theplayers do not think in terms of victory or defeat, of having scored apoint or two
Partab Ramchand10-Sep-2002One of the longest-running soap operas in Indian cricket is over at
least for the time being. That’s precisely what the contract row
between the three principal “characters” the International Cricket
Council (ICC), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and
the players resembled. And like any soap opera, it got tiresome very
fast. Initially the questions were many. Will the players sign? Will a
second-string team be sent? Will Jagmohan Dalmiya come down from his
high horse? Will the ICC succeed in brokering a peace agreement? Who
is right and who is wrong? The debate went on endlessly. Towards the
end, however, there was only one question being asked. When will all
this end?
|
It is important that the ICC, the BCCI and the other boards, and the players do not think in terms of victory or defeat, of having scored a point or two. They should realise that the image of the game has suffered and endeavor their best to plug the holes. To achieve this, an understanding approach from all sides is necessary. |
So is it a case of all’s well that ends well? Unfortunately not. What
has been put together is a hasty ad hoc patch-up for the Colombo
tournament. Once the competition ends on September 29, it is on the
cards that there will be another protracted battle on the issue,
possibly affecting the run-up to the World Cup in South Africa early
next year.With the monetary angle being a ticklish subject especially when
millions of dollars are at stake there is no guarantee that there
will be a quick and early end to a controversy that threatens to
become one of the most serious the game has faced. Cricket has had
more than its share of problems of late, and it has severely damaged
the fabric of the once-noble game. But who cares when personal egos
and one-upmanship become the governing factors?Players and administrators are the twin pillars of the game.
Spectators may watch the cricketers in action, and the players may
bring in the large television audiences. But without administrators
bringing in more bucks through attractive packaging and lucrative
contracts with sponsors, the respective boards – and consequently the
players – would not enjoy the monetary benefits. The two are interdependant on one other, and it is thus imperative that there be
transparency and trust on both sides. The players should not keep a
distance from administrators, who for their part should not let the
cricketers feel alienated.The lack of trust that the players feel towards officials has almost
always been present, and if anything, the present sorry episode has
proved that this attitude has not been unjustified. The officials have
been less than transparent in their dealings with the players, and the
contracts row is only the latest in a long line of deals that has
helped sow greater mistrust between players and administrators. The
two have to work closely together for the betterment of the game, and
this is perhaps the most important lesson driven home by the
controversy.The television rights market was a major factor in influencing the
final deal. If any proof was needed, it was provided when the board of
directors of the IDI – the financial arm of the ICC – taking part in
the marathon one-hour-45-minute telephone conference that was
essentially to be between the ICC, the BCCI and the boards of other
countries. With so much money emanating from Indian sponsors, there is
little doubt that fielding anything other than a full-strength Indian
squad would have caused a major problem. Thus it is imperative that
the BCCI takes the players into confidence, almost as partners, as the
officials are fully aware that the major stars have contracts of their
own.But administrators generally have been living in an ivory tower, far
away from the players and from the reality of any given situation.
This in a nutshell is the genesis of the unhappy episode that, with a
some give and take on all sides, could have been solved quickly. It
was a comparatively simple issue that became complex through
mishandling by the main protagonists. It snowballed into a matter of
prestige and with no-one wanting to lose face, it just dragged on and
on.For all one knows, it may even drag on once negotiations are resumed
after the end of the Colombo tournament. A permanent solution has to
be found before the conduct of the World Cup in South Africa early
next year. The second episode of the controversy could last even
longer unless the central players in the drama are willing to learn
from the mistakes committed over the last month.It is important that the ICC, the BCCI and the other boards, and the
players do not think in terms of victory or defeat, of having scored a
point or two. They should realise that the image of the game has
suffered and endeavor their best to plug the holes. To achieve this,
an understanding approach from all sides is necessary. A rigid stance
will not help matters.To be sure, all the parties had seemingly valid points of view. The
row centered on a conflict between official tournament sponsors and
the players’ own individual sponsors. The players had to safeguard
their contracts and not for a minute is anyone suggesting they should
not make as much money as they can. The ICC on their part had the
protection of the ambush marketing clause uppermost in their minds.
They too had signed contracts running into millions of dollars and so
they could not back down. The BCCI, after asking the ICC to talk
directly with the players in an effort to find a solution to the vexed
problem, rejected the compromise deal, arguing that it could provoke
legal action from sponsors.But there is little doubt that the image of all the three involved
parties took a dent to some degree or other. Ultimately BCCI chief
Jagmohan Dalmiya climbed down after member countries of the ICC
assured him that the Indian Board would not have to pay any damages,
should they be sued by disgruntled tournament sponsors. It finally
took an international tele-conference with just over two days for the
start of the tournament to reach an uneasy truce surely not the best
way to handle a sensitive issue.
