BCCI, players at loggerheads

The Cricket Board is bent upon not yielding even an inch on the new payment formula; the players won't budge on the riders for remuneration. Yet, both insist that there is no confrontation and it will be settled amicably. What is the way out, the time-tested solution, forming a two-member committee to sort the matters out!

Either the Board is unable to explain how the players can still make enough money from the new contracts or the players are unwilling to deviate from the path charted out by the Jagmohan Dalmiya regime when it brought in the contract system.

The bone of contention is that the Board is saying perform and get paid as much as you want whereas the players want that their donkeys' years in the game must get some weightage irrespective of their present form.

Much can be said for both, but in this era of perform or perish, the Board apparently wants the team as a whole to do well and win, not the individuals.

In this era of liberalization and corporate culture, companies have variable pay every month and there is no choice for the players except to work hard and qualify for incentive bonus.

Five years ago the cricket board and the players took up similar positions with guns trained at each other over contracts. Ironically, most of the personae dramatis of that time are still around except Dalmiya.

Dalmiya, who had a knack of timing every move of his with a purpose, was in a tearing hurry to get credit for implementing the contracts which he and his trusted lieutenants had prevented his predecessor A C Muthaiah from doing so, raising all sorts of queries after Prof Ratnakar Shetty and Anil Kumble had meticulously worked out a draft after prolonged discussions.

The only difference in five years is that some of the junior players then are among the so-called seniors today and some principal actors of that time have become voiceless because of their indifferent form.

What the Board and players do not seem to realize is that the process of finalizing contracts is never ending unless a broad formula is put in place on percentages of revenue receipts rather than notional figures and hypothetical assumptions.

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.