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 atleast for the time being. That’s precisely what the contract rowbetween the three principal “characters” the International CricketCouncil (ICC), the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) andthe players resembled. And like any soap opera, it got tiresome veryfast. Initially the questions were many. Will the players sign? Will asecond-string team be sent? Will Jagmohan Dalmiya come down from hishigh horse? Will the ICC succeed in brokering a peace agreement? Whois right and who is wrong? The debate went on endlessly. Towards theend, however, there was only one question being asked. When will allthis end?
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. They should realise that the image of the game hassuffered 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. Whathas been put together is a hasty ad hoc patch-up for the Colombotournament. Once the competition ends on September 29, it is on thecards that there will be another protracted battle on the issue,possibly affecting the run-up to the World Cup in South Africa earlynext year.With the monetary angle being a ticklish subject especially whenmillions of dollars are at stake there is no guarantee that therewill be a quick and early end to a controversy that threatens tobecome one of the most serious the game has faced. Cricket has hadmore than its share of problems of late, and it has severely damagedthe fabric of the once-noble game. But who cares when personal egosand 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 maybring in the large television audiences. But without administratorsbringing in more bucks through attractive packaging and lucrativecontracts with sponsors, the respective boards – and consequently theplayers – would not enjoy the monetary benefits. The two are interdependant on one other, and it is thus imperative that there betransparency and trust on both sides. The players should not keep adistance from administrators, who for their part should not let thecricketers feel alienated.The lack of trust that the players feel towards officials has almostalways been present, and if anything, the present sorry episode hasproved that this attitude has not been unjustified. The officials havebeen less than transparent in their dealings with the players, and thecontracts row is only the latest in a long line of deals that hashelped sow greater mistrust between players and administrators. Thetwo have to work closely together for the betterment of the game, andthis is perhaps the most important lesson driven home by thecontroversy.The television rights market was a major factor in influencing thefinal deal. If any proof was needed, it was provided when the board ofdirectors of the IDI – the financial arm of the ICC – taking part inthe marathon one-hour-45-minute telephone conference that wasessentially to be between the ICC, the BCCI and the boards of othercountries. With so much money emanating from Indian sponsors, there islittle doubt that fielding anything other than a full-strength Indiansquad would have caused a major problem. Thus it is imperative thatthe BCCI takes the players into confidence, almost as partners, as theofficials are fully aware that the major stars have contracts of theirown.But administrators generally have been living in an ivory tower, faraway from the players and from the reality of any given situation.This in a nutshell is the genesis of the unhappy episode that, with asome give and take on all sides, could have been solved quickly. Itwas a comparatively simple issue that became complex throughmishandling by the main protagonists. It snowballed into a matter ofprestige and with no-one wanting to lose face, it just dragged on andon.For all one knows, it may even drag on once negotiations are resumedafter the end of the Colombo tournament. A permanent solution has tobe found before the conduct of the World Cup in South Africa earlynext year. The second episode of the controversy could last evenlonger unless the central players in the drama are willing to learnfrom the mistakes committed over the last month.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. They should realise that the image of the game hassuffered and endeavor their best to plug the holes. To achieve this,an understanding approach from all sides is necessary. A rigid stancewill not help matters.To be sure, all the parties had seemingly valid points of view. Therow centered on a conflict between official tournament sponsors andthe players’ own individual sponsors. The players had to safeguardtheir contracts and not for a minute is anyone suggesting they shouldnot make as much money as they can. The ICC on their part had theprotection of the ambush marketing clause uppermost in their minds.They too had signed contracts running into millions of dollars and sothey could not back down. The BCCI, after asking the ICC to talkdirectly with the players in an effort to find a solution to the vexedproblem, rejected the compromise deal, arguing that it could provokelegal action from sponsors.But there is little doubt that the image of all the three involvedparties took a dent to some degree or other. Ultimately BCCI chiefJagmohan Dalmiya climbed down after member countries of the ICCassured him that the Indian Board would not have to pay any damages,should they be sued by disgruntled tournament sponsors. It finallytook an international tele-conference with just over two days for thestart of the tournament to reach an uneasy truce surely not the bestway to handle a sensitive issue.