It might just be that cricket is a sport unlike any other when it comes to generating passionate opinion. Maybe the administration of the game leaves it open to those for whom vested interests are more important than the well being of cricket. Perhaps there is a naivety about the game that allows it to fall prey to some with less than honourable intentions.

Whatever it is, the game seems to lurch from one crisis to another, and now we are in the middle of one with potentially serious consequences. It is the row between the International Cricket Council and the players' representatives about commercial rights in the build-up towards the Champions Trophy and World Cup tournaments.

The story so far is that the ICC signed a deal worth some $550 million to assign the rights for their tournaments between 2002 and 2007 to a media coalition. It was, on the face of it, a great deal in securing a sound financial future for cricket. Except that it guaranteed sponsors of those tournaments exclusive rights to player images and excluded the players themselves from getting involved in competing sponsorships, not only during the tournaments but for 30 days either side.

Such a clause impinges on the players' opportunity to earn money from sponsorship deals, so they are refusing to sign tournament contracts that they regard as restrictive, but without which they cannot be selected. So the whole sorry saga escalates.

If there is no compromise – indeed, even if there is a compromise – cricket is thrown into crisis. The whole structure of the game is based on the budgets resulting from that $550 million, yet Global Cricket Corporation – the coalition providing the money – are not exactly a band of amateur enthusiasts happy to let crucial clauses of a contract be waived. In a professional world the company is expected to behave in a thoroughly professional way.

So where does it go from here? Is there a way out? It was the Indian players who first became embroiled in discussion with their board on the issue, but now the English and Australian players' associations, and the international players' body, the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, are in agreement with the Indians.

Others are sure to follow, although New Zealand have stated that their existing player contracts cover the situation quite adequately. Chief executive Martin Snedden said: "We have agreed that the ICC sponsorship provisions for the ICC Champions Trophy are covered by New Zealand Cricket's existing player contracts. The issue is an important one for international cricket, and I hope all parties will be able to work towards a solution which allows the ICC to meet its contractual obligations."

Australian one-day captain Ricky Ponting hopes that the impasse can be overcome without damage to the game. Referring to his own team, he said: "I don't think any of the players want a boycott. That's not what we are all about. We all want to play cricket for our country and win these tournaments around the world, that's why we play the game. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope it doesn't get to that."

Now the Indian board has said that, if necessary, it will select a second-string squad to go to the Champions Trophy in the hope that the mess can be sorted out in time for the World Cup in February and March 2003. Others may follow suit – if they can find teams prepared to go. It could be that players' associations in some countries might be strong enough to prevent even a second-string selection appearing.

Even if they do manage to cobble together some sort of representative team from each country, it is doubtful whether the TV companies would settle for such a tournament, and they are the pipers who ultimately call the tune. The word crisis does not seem too strong in the circumstances. Cricket has been notoriously cumbersome when it comes to dealing with such events in the past, but there is simply no time to be wasted when it comes to resolving this crisis. The Champions Trophy begins on September 12th.

© CricInfo Ltd.