Thursday, August 15, 2002 The most striking - and outrageous - aspect about the sponsorship-rights controversy that now threatens the ICC Champions Trophy and the World Cup is how the situation was allowed to develop into a crisis in the first place. For this, the lion's share of the blame must be apportioned to the member boards of the International Cricket Council who, while being privy to ICC's sponsorship deals in 2000, left the matter unattended until the time came to ask their players to sign on the dotted line.

Such are the legal complexities of the issue that it is impossible to assume a black-and-white stand on it. It is understandable that the sponsors who have forked out enormous sums of money for exclusive rights for these two one-day extravaganzas should be extremely concerned about their rights. Ambush marketing - when rival companies take the cheaper route by sponsoring individual players or teams in an attempt to associate themselves with the main event - is a nightmare for official sponsors of high-profile events.

During the recent World Cup, football's governing body FIFA went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the hijacking of its official sponsors' rights by what they dubbed "parasite" companies. There was legal action, and physical patrolling at the various stadiums in Japan and South Korea. But they could do little as 50 Chinese fans walked in to the ground in Kwangju, South Korea, in red caps bearing the logo of Samsung Electronics, even though it enraged Phillips, an official sponsor.

Soft-drinks giant Pepsi went a step further, releasing advertisements featuring some of the world's top soccer players, including David Beckham, under a banner that read "Tokyo 2002". It wasn't a coincidence that Coke had already paid nearly $US20 million to secure sponsorship rights. Charged with brazenness and unethical conduct, Pepsi laughed off the accusations by claiming that its campaign was focused on big stars and not any specific events.

Ironically, the boot is in the other foot now - Pepsi, along with LG, Hero Honda and South African Airways, are one of the major sponsors of cricket's World Cup, which starts in South Africa next February.

The truth about ambush marketing is that although it is cheeky, mean and shameless, it is also perfectly legitimate. Most companies are careful enough not to use protected trademarks or symbols associated with the main event itself. Before the soccer World Cup, clever advertising by Nike, using soccer stars like Ronaldo and Luis Figo, convinced two of ten football fans into believing that they were one of the official sponsors - much to the chagrin of their rivals Adidas, who were an official sponsor.

It is therefore reasonable that ICC, having extracted a record $US550 million from sponsors for the rights to its tournaments (and having committed to share a large portion of that cash with its member bodies), should be extremely cagey about ingenious buccaneers. But ICC and the various cricket boards must not forget that individual players have rights too. In many ways cricket is a semi-professional game - and most cricketers have to supplement their direct earnings from the sport with income from several other sources, including corporate endorsement. It is a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution of all the participating countries. The spiel by Malcolm Speed, ICC's chief executive, about players putting their national interests above their personal interests is nothing but a gimmicky attempt to turn this into a moral issue. Let's not get conned here: this isn't a question about whether the players are bigger than the game, it's a question of pure commerce. Common sense demanded that a potentially thorny issue such as this should have been sorted out much earlier.

The Indian Board contends that, although the broad agreement was signed in 2000, the final contracts with the player terms were sent to them only recently. If that is true, it is a staggering lapse on the part of ICC, further compounded by the insistence on a blanket ban stopping the players from endorsing products of companies perceived to be rivals to the official sponsors. This is not only restrictive, it's also grossly unreasonable.

Ambush marketing is globally defined as unethical attempts by companies insidiously to associate themselves with an event without forking out millions to secure the official sponsorship. By no stretch of imagination can any of Sachin Tendulkar's existing advertisement deals be construed as an infringement of ICC's rights. On the other hand, the ICC stipulation that seeks to deprive companies of the use of their star attractions for the best part of six months - 30 days either side of the Champions Trophy and the World Cup, as well as during the actual tournaments - is arbitrary in the extreme, and is very likely to attract legal action.

The buzz is that a compromise will be reached in next few days to allow all the countries to field their best teams. Logic dictates it. The stakes are just too high: for ICC, for the players and for cricket. If Adam Gilchrist, Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne and Virender Sehwag don't turn up in Sri Lanka, it will be everybody's loss.

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden.com India and Wisden Asia Cricket magazine.

More Indian View

India must always play their best team
Up, but far from the top
Holes at the top
Put up or shut up, Scyld

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd