When the protesting crowds of Paris asked for bread, the innocent Queen Antoinette replied, “Why don’t they eat cakes instead?” Perhaps this naive query of Queen Antoinette best epitomises how ICC is viewing the current remonstration by the leading players of the world. Or has the ICC decided to subscribe to George Bush’s ultimatum to the world: “Either you’re with us or against us”?
Whatever the thoughts of the ICC management, it is clear that there has been a remarkable oversight. It is a typical case of forward planning that was done far earlier than its next planned implementation date. Some don’t read into the full ramifications of what they are signing, especially when it either does not affect them, or strengthens their hands. More importantly, officials change and in the confusion of migration in and out of office, significant decisions tend to get immersed into the footnotes. Just ask Jagmohan Dalmiya who, after initially confronting the players’ protest with blatant arrogance, is now shielding himself behind his predecessor’s agreements on the issue. He’s now claiming that he’s only honouring his predecessor’s signature and that he had played his part by minuting his protest on this clause to the ICC in June this year.
The whole controversy, that has given the ICC and the sport a new headache to contend with, concerns the new advertising policy of the governing body. It states that the players would not be allowed to endorse products that were in direct competition to the ones the sponsors of ICC tournaments market. Furthermore, the decision on this agreement had been reached in August 2000. This along with one simple fact that every member board had signed on behalf of its players, without even informing the players of it, highlighted the fact that everyone had been sleeping on the job.
In this age of professionalism it is not only immoral to sign off a player’s destiny, but technically illegal. And in the case of those boards that do not have annual contracts with the top players, this is an act of absolute irresponsibility.
Major One-Day powers like Pakistan, New Zealand and Sri Lanka are fortunate that their players are not into any long term relationships with companies that are not ICC partners. For that matter, the Australians have signed an agreement with the ACB and the South Africans, English and the West Indians are set to follow on the same lines. In fact, with the exception of the Indians, none of the cricketers have been adversely affected. And yet players of all countries have protested on a matter of principle, and the fear that agreeing without condition will set a precedent. And the reason why the Indians are still protesting is the simple fact that the money involved is stupendous. India is a huge market, and endorsements litter the world of advertising. According to one estimate, that garbage is worth USD10 million. It would be impossible for companies that have signed superstars such as Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and the newest sensation, Virendar Sehwag, to let go.
Just how aloof and confused the ICC is on this issue is best demonstrated in the words of Chief Executive, Malcolm Speed, who claimed that no player asked for clarification from the ICC before signing individual contracts. This is ridiculous on its own since laws made, are announced rather than kept in files to be researched. But ICC seems more bigoted with their reply to the question as to why the players were not informed? Simple because the ICC deals with member boards and not the players!
Despite all the ruckus, there are still those who believe that the terms and conditions finalized with the official sponsors, are not being revealed by the ICC management. Adding to the confusion is an observation by someone that the agreement the Australian cricketers have signed to concerns only how they will share the dividends that arise out of the World Cup, should the players not sign individual endorsement deals with non-sponsors of the ICC. That does not mean that they have accepted ICC terms regarding future tournaments organized by them.
Laying down the law is not the answer to ICC’s problem at the moment. They also have to consider the requirements of the sponsors they have the Champions Trophy, and that is that the best player from every country must play in the September tournament. Considering the Indian market is what attracts all companies to sponsor cricket, in this region anyway, the non-appearance of the Indian stars will irk them. Probably to the extent that they might pull out.
This is what makes the fixated stance adopted by the ICC superiors sound so strange. Perhaps the panic button has already been pushed, because the situation has arisen just weeks before the tournament is to commence. If the official sponsors signed up two years ago, their campaigns must have been finalized months back and the money spent on productions and product launches planned for September. This can mean millions of dollars already invested. Likewise advertising dollars have surely been committed by their rivals lining up with their counter products.
The ICC has given way by agreeing to limit their condition to the current ICC event, perhaps only to get it going smoothly and adopting the strategy of crossing each bridge when it comes. However, it appears that the ICC is in a way hijacking the players’ revenue potential to their advantage. It is much like the giant multi-national conglomerates buying out the brand goodwill of smaller companies. Such deals mean that the more the brand sells, the richer the new owner becomes while the creators of the brands are left with scraps that end up with annual profits (or losses), based on remains after (perennially rising) costs of manufacturing and selling these brands.
Specifically to cricket, this would mean that the harder a cricketer drives himself to perform, the richer his parent board and the ICC become through the sponsorship deals they make with companies that sponsor the events in which that cricketer plays. At the same time, he can either go in for short-term sponsorships with rival companies or sign long-term contracts with the clause that doesn’t allow him to run campaigns during the major events like the bi-annual ICC Trophy or the World Cup. In this case no company would commit large amounts, and incase the player loses his place in the side, there is no long-term contract that continues to bring him money until he regains his place.
Players are cornered. On one side there is the prospect they do not appear in ICC tournaments and on the other they forgo lucrative revenues. The ICC may have set out to ‘Ambush marketers’, but in effect they have ambushed the players’ freedom, to better manage their own lives.
Whether deliberately or out of short sightedness, the ICC have also closed the door on smaller companies hoping to make their mark in the open market through player endorsements and related imagery. Cricketers now seem to have become the property of big league companies who are now in competition with their equally powerful rivals. In the process, they have in the process eliminated all hopes of smaller firms that could have broken into their market share by generating trial and purchase of their products and services through player-based imageries.
This could be one reason why the sponsors of both parties, ICC and the players, are holding firm with their contracts. For the moment this is all they have to edge each other out with, at least in the foreseeable future. This is just another battlefield where these huge, impersonal conglomerates are facing off. Cricket is the helpless prize and the cricketer, the unfortunate loser.
When the protesting crowds of Paris asked for bread, the innocent Queen Antoinette replied, “Why don’t they eat cakes instead?” Perhaps this naive query of Queen Antoinette best epitomises how ICC is viewing the current remonstration by the leading players of the world. Or has the ICC decided to subscribe to George Bush’s ultimatum to the world: “Either you’re with us or against us”?
