ICC takes its eye off the ball

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