CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

The ICC was meant to be a regulatory body, the game's supremo. It was never intended that it should itself go into marketing. It is, as if, a civil aviation authority decides to float its own commercial airline.

It was bad enough that the ICC should have set up a private detective agency by way of an Anti-Corruption Unit to combat match-fixing, a vote of no-confidence in the police of the respective cricket playing nations, will it be long before the ICC goes into the business of manufacturing cricket equipment?

I recall, with some horror, ICC's plans to take cricket to Disneyland. Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya was then at the helm of the ICC and there was much talk of the globalization of the game. Globalization was not then the 'dirty' word it has now become. The world may have become a global-village but the heads of the village are the same, old multinationals and the villagers themselves the cheap-labour work-force.

It is necessary to provide this background so that the contract row can be put into perspective. However, it is resolved, one fact has emerged that the cricket world is a shadowy one and the cricket boards have been less than open with the players. The contracts that they have been asked to sign and which affect their livelihood were sprung on the players and there was an innuendo of coercion.

When the cricket boards signed on board the merchant-ship of the ICC, were they unaware that many of the players would be affected by the 'ambush' marketing clause? It is no secret that the players have sponsors of their own and, of all persons, Mr Dalmiya who now heads the BCCI, should have known this and being a businessman, should have seen that there would have been a conflict of interest in the ICC contracts. Good management is about preventing fires and not about putting them out when they have started.

Sunil Gavaskar said on ESPN that the main problem was that the Indian players did not have an Association and in his loud-thinking recommended that the subcontinent players should get together and form a collective-bargaining association. This is all very well but in the impasse created by the Indian government in not allowing the Indian team to play against Pakistan, the Indian players have remained silent.

Not a word of support for the Pakistan players who have been financially affected because there is no cricket between the two countries. On the contrary, people like Kapil Dev have been at the forefront of backing the Indian government's boycott of cricket with Pakistan nor have they said a word about the refusal of countries like Australia to tour Pakistan.

All this has seriously hurt the finances of the PCB and is bound to affect the earnings of the Pakistan players. Some show of solidarity with Pakistan cricket would have been welcome. But this is a different matter but it does create road-blocks in finding a common cause.

But it is a matter of principle and I have backed the players in the present row. There is one aspect that I find intriguing. There seems to be some resentment in our psyche that cricket stars should be making so much money, as if, by doing so they are defiling the game and are being unpatriotic in the bargain. We don't seem to resent lawyers and doctors and accountants making money. Somehow, we feel that because cricketers represent the country that should be honour enough. In our heart of hearts, we have not accepted that cricket is a profession.

When the question of paying Test cricketers match fees first came up in Pakistan, this was many many years ago, the then Pakistan cricket board was headed by a civil servant and in a column I had asked him whether as a civil servant he drew a salary? If Sachin Tendulkar has become a very rich man, it is because he has cashed in on his talent, he hasn't robbed a bank or received back-handers for awarding government contracts.

While making money, Tendulkar gives the cricket public a great deal of joy. I know of many who make fortunes but give no joy at all to anybody except themselves. The cricket boards should back their players against the ICC's bid to go into business for itself. The ICC contract is bad in law and is a violation of the right of players to earn a living. The ICC is not a business concern.

The Australians have named a full strength team for the Test series against Pakistan to be played at, not one, but two neutral venues, Colombo and Sharjah. The Waugh brothers are included and Steve Waugh retains the captaincy. On paper, it is a terrific side and it should be a very good series.

Obviously, we are disappointed that the home series will be played away from home and we will have to watch it on television. One way of compensating the cricket public in Pakistan is for Pakistan to win the series. But in order to do so, Pakistan will have to match Australia in mental toughness.

The Australians play their cricket hard and they play to win. But before Pakistan takes on Australia in a Test series, there is the triangular in Nairobi and Pakistan will be up against Australia. All one can say is that Pakistan will have to raise their game several notches.

The way that Pakistan played at Morocco will not do. Pakistan will be strengthened by the return of Shoaib Akhtar but it was not Pakistan's bowling that was wanting in Morocco. It was the batting and the key, one feels, will be Inzamam-ul-Haq. It is important that big man runs into form. And one hopes that this time Saeed Anwar will not be dropped to make way for Shoaib Malik.

The Australians will not allow Imran Nazir the freedom he needs and he will have to devise means to break free. It will be a supreme Test for him, a choice between abandon and a more circumspect shot selection. No one questions his talent.

© Dawn