LONDON, Dec 19: India were given an ultimatum by cricket’s ruling body on Thursday to accept their final offer over sponsorship deals for next year’s World Cup or face a substantial compensation claim.

The Indian players refused to accept a stipulation by the International Cricket Council (ICC) insisting that previous individual sponsorship agreements be frozen if they clashed with World Cup sponsorships for the tournament in South Africa and Zimbabwe during February and March.

The Indian board had delayed announcing an initial 30-man squad as required by the end of last month and wished to postpone beyond the Dec 31 deadline the naming of a final party of 15. It is threatening to send a much-weakened party.

This has been rejected by the ICC who warned in a statement on Thursday that if the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) failed to send its best team and its players sign the individual sponsorship agreements by Jan 14, it would face a substantial damages claim from cricket’s governing body.

BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya told Reuters he would not respond to the statement from cricket’s ruling body until Friday.

ICC president Malcolm Gray said: “The discussions with the BCCI have been both exhaustive and, to date, fruitless.

“The ICC has sent two delegations to India to discuss the issue, negotiated a number of significant concessions with its sponsors and sought at all times to be both flexible and pragmatic in its dealings with the BCCI.

“Despite these steps, the BCCI remains unable or unwilling to meet its contractual obligations and if anything it has gone backwards on what it is prepared to accept from the ICC.

“In light of the stance taken by the Indian Board, the ICC World Cup Contracts Committee had no option but to advise the BCCI there were no further concessions possible and that on the basis of what is on offer the BCCI has clear and compelling contractual agreements the ICC is now looking for it to fulfil.”

He said the ICC offers of concessions included shortening the period when individual deals would have to be frozen and also a revenue-sharing agreement with the players.—Reuters