BCCI, players at loggerheads

If it was the NatWest triumph and a good Test series in England gave the players the upper hand in 2002, this time around the World Cup disaster has disarmed them.

The Board cleverly and, perhaps, rightly so took the populist route by announcing that the Board cannot dole out easy money to players when it needs huge sums to improve the infrastructure and broad base its developmental schemes to promote the game.

The Board has decided to utilise 60 percent of the television rights money for the purpose and pay the players 26 percent of the remainder. But the players insist on a share of the total earnings. Here, the Board is on a stronger wicket as players can't say they have a limited shelf life and so they should get more money, shelving other programmes.

Surely, their argument cannot be that the Board should only look after the 11 or 16 players who play for India ignoring hundreds of others playing at all levels.

The players have also a weak case when they say, as alleged, that the gap between international cricketers and domestic players cannot be marginal but substantial. The same international players used to say that the lot of domestic cricketers must improve.

Isn't it an incentive for international players to play domestic cricket instead of worrying about where their next endorsement is going to come from? In any case, players can't ask for a fat retainer even when they get dropped from the side the whole season.

The players have a legitimate grievance about capping their endorsements, but then the Board has a valid point when it says the players are wittingly or unwittingly walking into ambush marketing. The Board says it is not opposed to the players making a few chips more per se, but not at the expense of the Board's sponsors.

After a multi-national sports apparel company entered into a deal with the board for kitting the players its rival has suddenly found interest in eight to ten India players and offered them lucrative endorsements.

Moreover, the players seems to have all the time to attend the promotional ventures, private functions and ad shoots of their individual sponsors but have little time for the Board sponsors. On a moral plane that's not on.

What is not being explained properly is that the cap on ads is besides what players earn through their gear like bat, gloves and shoes.

This could easily be sorted out with a bit of give and take. In any case the cap affects only the super stars and the others cannot crib about it assuming they will be in a similar position some day.

The Board is also firm on not allowing players to sign on exclusive contracts with media houses for speaking and writing on the games in which they are playing. But some players see it as a major source of revenue with the mushrooming channels and their hunger for TRP ratings.

What if the Board decides on the active players giving interviews only to its own channel? Food for thought.

More Headlines from Columns

• Bland matches will kill one-day game

• Why Zimbabwe has become an issue

• Ramakant Desai left cricket young

• It felt like we won the World Cup yesterday

• Who needs the Asia Cup?