Players and administrators must work together

One 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.