-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
ICC Champions Trophy: Top players threaten to boycott. Are the players right in taking such a stand?
- Thread starter Anil
- Start date
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
For ICC to impose such a stupid clause which would effectively force these payers to break their existing contracts, is a really shortsighted decision and it needs to back down for the good of the game.
By making the players to break their existing contracts the ICC is forcing them to commit an illegal act, IMO.
By making the players to break their existing contracts the ICC is forcing them to commit an illegal act, IMO.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I remember when I was playing that the issue of conflicting sponsorships came up so to fix it, all of us had to stick to the agreed upon 'team' brand of say bowling shoes. If we had a sponsorship with a competitor, we had no choice but to black out their name on our shoes or top etc.
Either way, there was one sponsor we could legally show publically in a match. I'm pretty sure the Aussie players have a similar thing happening so that's why we probably won't hear much of this from them. Adam Gilchrist's sticker on the back of his bat is a possible conflict, though.
Using one sponsor but displaying another is nothing new. In all the years Alec Stewart had been using Kookaburra bats, apparently he'd actually been using Slazenger but with Kookaburra stickers on it.
Either way, there was one sponsor we could legally show publically in a match. I'm pretty sure the Aussie players have a similar thing happening so that's why we probably won't hear much of this from them. Adam Gilchrist's sticker on the back of his bat is a possible conflict, though.
Using one sponsor but displaying another is nothing new. In all the years Alec Stewart had been using Kookaburra bats, apparently he'd actually been using Slazenger but with Kookaburra stickers on it.
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
Quote from an article on www.rediff.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ICC must renegotiate: Tim May
---------------------------------
The International Cricket Council has advised all national cricket boards that it will not change the ambush marketing protection given to the ICC's commercial sponsors.
Former Australian Test cricketer Tim May, chief executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association and joint CEO of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, discusses the repercussions of the controversial move.
The nature of the negotiations with the International Cricket Council concerned pre-existing contracts that some players may have with companies that conflict with the ICC's major sponsors.
In short, the terms being offered to players for the Champions Trophy and the World Cup will not allow them to honour their obligations to their personal sponsors (where such sponsors conflict with the ICC's own) for the duration of any ICC tournament and 30 days before and after it.
This will place players in a position where, to participate in such a tournament, they will have to breach their existing sponsorship agreements. The players will most likely then have their existing contracts terminated and face possible legal action from such sponsors.
FICA supports the protection of ICC major sponsors. However, where players have pre-existing obligations, one cannot just ignore them. Any protection of major sponsors must be subject to the pre-existing obligations of players.
Any attempts by the ICC and the various cricket boards to induce players to breach their existing contracts are unlawful.
FICA's position to the ICC is to acknowledge the players' legal rights and amend the player agreements for the ICC tournaments accordingly.
The ICC, which has already sold these rights, needs to go back to the Global Cricket Corporation, which holds the television rights, and re-negotiate.
The GCC, not surprisingly having already bought these rights, is not keen to have them diluted.
Therein lies the problem.
It is a very difficult situation. Sponsors have paid prices based upon the protection detailed by the ICC, but such protection is unlawful where players have pre-existing obligations.
The ball is now in the ICC's court and we await a proposal from them to address this major issue that threatens the participation of a number of the world's leading players in the upcoming ICC Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cricinfo news was only about Indian players. But the above article seems to indicate that players from other countries will also be affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ICC must renegotiate: Tim May
---------------------------------
The International Cricket Council has advised all national cricket boards that it will not change the ambush marketing protection given to the ICC's commercial sponsors.
Former Australian Test cricketer Tim May, chief executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association and joint CEO of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations, discusses the repercussions of the controversial move.
The nature of the negotiations with the International Cricket Council concerned pre-existing contracts that some players may have with companies that conflict with the ICC's major sponsors.
In short, the terms being offered to players for the Champions Trophy and the World Cup will not allow them to honour their obligations to their personal sponsors (where such sponsors conflict with the ICC's own) for the duration of any ICC tournament and 30 days before and after it.
This will place players in a position where, to participate in such a tournament, they will have to breach their existing sponsorship agreements. The players will most likely then have their existing contracts terminated and face possible legal action from such sponsors.
FICA supports the protection of ICC major sponsors. However, where players have pre-existing obligations, one cannot just ignore them. Any protection of major sponsors must be subject to the pre-existing obligations of players.
Any attempts by the ICC and the various cricket boards to induce players to breach their existing contracts are unlawful.
FICA's position to the ICC is to acknowledge the players' legal rights and amend the player agreements for the ICC tournaments accordingly.
The ICC, which has already sold these rights, needs to go back to the Global Cricket Corporation, which holds the television rights, and re-negotiate.
The GCC, not surprisingly having already bought these rights, is not keen to have them diluted.
Therein lies the problem.
It is a very difficult situation. Sponsors have paid prices based upon the protection detailed by the ICC, but such protection is unlawful where players have pre-existing obligations.
The ball is now in the ICC's court and we await a proposal from them to address this major issue that threatens the participation of a number of the world's leading players in the upcoming ICC Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cricinfo news was only about Indian players. But the above article seems to indicate that players from other countries will also be affected.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I never understood the whole 'conflicting sponsor' thing. If individual players have different sponsors to the official tournament sponsors, then so be it. To me, it just seems like a bit of muscle flexing from the tournament sponsors to get their way and end up with TOTAL domination in sponsorships.
I always thought that if someone wants to decorate themselves with a million sponsors then so be it. Just give players the choice. Trouble is, as I said, tournament sponsors want total coverage and the only way they can get it is to sponsor a tournament on the basis that it is to the exclusion of all others.
I always thought that if someone wants to decorate themselves with a million sponsors then so be it. Just give players the choice. Trouble is, as I said, tournament sponsors want total coverage and the only way they can get it is to sponsor a tournament on the basis that it is to the exclusion of all others.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Its not only about Indian players.The Aussies and the English team are also affected with players reluctant to sign the ICC deed.
Players from five(Aus,NZ,WI,SA,ENg) of the seven nations who are part of the international cricketers association have not signed.Indian players are not even part of that association.
Players from five(Aus,NZ,WI,SA,ENg) of the seven nations who are part of the international cricketers association have not signed.Indian players are not even part of that association.
herein lies the double edged sword of big money commercialism & television rights in sport and it's not just restricted to cricket as i think just about every major sport event has run into this sort of issue at one time or other...
if the player's deals are in accordance with the rules and these are new conditions being imposed by the organisers, tv stations & sponsors - the respective national & governing body should be supporting the players. if it is the governing body that is imposing new rules then they should be acknowledging existing deals, with the new rules to apply once the current deal ends - eg you do not change the playing rules once the season starts.
the players appear to be being vicitimised as they are individuals and do not have the same money or clout involved as the big corporate deals - divide and conquer!
those responsible for creating the conflict of interest need to take their heads out of their ass - the regulations re all sponsorship (tv, tourneyment, team & individual) needs to be sorted so we do not go thru this all the time.
there needs to be a continuity throughout the sport from international, national, state, club & player levels to avoid subsequent conflicts of interest. conflicts of interest are usually the result of piss poor planning or risk management strategies by the governing bodies.
if any deals are in breach of the existing rules then they should suffer the consequences, whether they be players or not. i would even go so far as to suggest that any body that is in breach of the rules & regulations & refuses to comply should be banned from sporting contact with those that are in compliance, until they decide to conform. this would be regardless of being any player or team.
if the governing body is at fault and refuses to acknowledge the members, the members can leave and set up a rival body to run a break away comp.
No individual concern should ever be more important than the game, unless it involves issues such as safety.
(hows that for being idealistic!!!!)
!
if the player's deals are in accordance with the rules and these are new conditions being imposed by the organisers, tv stations & sponsors - the respective national & governing body should be supporting the players. if it is the governing body that is imposing new rules then they should be acknowledging existing deals, with the new rules to apply once the current deal ends - eg you do not change the playing rules once the season starts.
the players appear to be being vicitimised as they are individuals and do not have the same money or clout involved as the big corporate deals - divide and conquer!
those responsible for creating the conflict of interest need to take their heads out of their ass - the regulations re all sponsorship (tv, tourneyment, team & individual) needs to be sorted so we do not go thru this all the time.
there needs to be a continuity throughout the sport from international, national, state, club & player levels to avoid subsequent conflicts of interest. conflicts of interest are usually the result of piss poor planning or risk management strategies by the governing bodies.
if any deals are in breach of the existing rules then they should suffer the consequences, whether they be players or not. i would even go so far as to suggest that any body that is in breach of the rules & regulations & refuses to comply should be banned from sporting contact with those that are in compliance, until they decide to conform. this would be regardless of being any player or team.
if the governing body is at fault and refuses to acknowledge the members, the members can leave and set up a rival body to run a break away comp.
No individual concern should ever be more important than the game, unless it involves issues such as safety.
(hows that for being idealistic!!!!)
!
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Fair points.. but the vast majority of major tournaments in any sport have the "ambush protection" situation, and the ICC are within their rights to enforce it.
Each full member nation is receiving US$8.85m from the event, and the block is only on sponsors in direct competition with tournament sponsors.
Does give an interesting issue on Sahara (India's main sponsor) v South African Airlines (WC2003 sponsor)..
Each full member nation is receiving US$8.85m from the event, and the block is only on sponsors in direct competition with tournament sponsors.
Does give an interesting issue on Sahara (India's main sponsor) v South African Airlines (WC2003 sponsor)..
i must admit that i am not familiar with the rules & regulations. as i do not know enough about the specifics (the wording, when it was introduced etc) i am neither for or against either side.
all i am saying is that there needs to be clarification and consistancy across the board to minimise these conflicts. you have already identified a potential conflict for the WC next year. the problem with these 'ambush' clauses is that they so often seem to be a stop gap measure (similar to the old "conduct unbecoming" charge), and never really rectify the situation from reccuring.
if any existing deal has been made in compliance with the existing rules & regulations, then any potential sponsorship deal should not take precedence over the existing deals - regardless of their value or stature. if these rules apply to the existing deals then those involved should comply or face the consequences.
the two things i am against are big business trying to flex it's muscle at the expense of the sport & any group or body that tries to hold the sport to ransom for self serving interests - be it players, member nations, the governing body or sponsors.
i do not want to sound too inflamatory, but too often it appears that the term 'boycott' is brought up in an attempt to hold whomever to ransom, whether it be in sport or unions or whatever.
as i said in my earlier post - whomever is responsible for creating this situation needs to pull their heads in.
:P
all i am saying is that there needs to be clarification and consistancy across the board to minimise these conflicts. you have already identified a potential conflict for the WC next year. the problem with these 'ambush' clauses is that they so often seem to be a stop gap measure (similar to the old "conduct unbecoming" charge), and never really rectify the situation from reccuring.
if any existing deal has been made in compliance with the existing rules & regulations, then any potential sponsorship deal should not take precedence over the existing deals - regardless of their value or stature. if these rules apply to the existing deals then those involved should comply or face the consequences.
the two things i am against are big business trying to flex it's muscle at the expense of the sport & any group or body that tries to hold the sport to ransom for self serving interests - be it players, member nations, the governing body or sponsors.
i do not want to sound too inflamatory, but too often it appears that the term 'boycott' is brought up in an attempt to hold whomever to ransom, whether it be in sport or unions or whatever.
as i said in my earlier post - whomever is responsible for creating this situation needs to pull their heads in.
:P
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
Whatever ambush protection ICC wants to give to its sponsors cannot happen overnight where players already have a lot of their own contracts which were signed and terms agreed upon, when this ambush protection bull was still in the bush.
Now these players face the prospect of violating those contracts, whereas if they knew beforehand maybe these ambush protection issues could have been accomodated in their contract terms.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Do the ICC have a stickytape sponsor?
Because I think that company is going to get quite a bit of 'coverage'
Because I think that company is going to get quite a bit of 'coverage'
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
With neither the ICC nor ther players backing off, it looks like an absolute second string team going to Colombo for the champions cup under Robin Singh and it also looks like India will be the only under strength side in the tournament. I guess we shouldn't expect much in the way of an Indian performance. Looking on the positive side, promising players like Gautham Gambhir, L.Balaji, Murali Karthik, Sodhi, Rohan Gavaskar & Badani will get a chance to play against the best players in the world and stake claims in the senior side.
ICC is very wrong in doing this. They are effectively asking the players to violate their existing contracts. Don't you think its just crossing the line?
About Sahara vs SAA , Sahara is not just an airline company, they have a tv channel, housing and other stuff.. so I think they are using that to work out the problem.
I don't think this is right. Money brought problems to Baseball, to Football and now ultimately it has reached Cricket.
About Sahara vs SAA , Sahara is not just an airline company, they have a tv channel, housing and other stuff.. so I think they are using that to work out the problem.
I don't think this is right. Money brought problems to Baseball, to Football and now ultimately it has reached Cricket.
lord_of_darkness
Cricket Web XI Moderator
all i hope is this incident doesnt get the teams to boycott out of the tournament or the tournament closed down ... that would be shameful , i think the contracts of the players should be left aside and let them continue on with it , while the other contracts from the icc should be added upon the player contracts too
Gotchya
State Vice-Captain
Well whatever the consequences, the indians seem to be very lonely now. England and Australia (rather reluctantly) have agreed to sign the contract (whatever it is!) Pak,Nz and Zim have already done so.
Indians are set to field a B team in the tournament now, will formally announce a team in four days time (perhaps giving some more time to the big three!)
Where does the ICC and even Ganguly,Tendulkar and dravid wish to go with this??
!) Pak,Nz and Zim have already done so.Indians are set to field a B team in the tournament now, will formally announce a team in four days time (perhaps giving some more time to the big three!)
Where does the ICC and even Ganguly,Tendulkar and dravid wish to go with this??
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I think that you only have to see the way the Indians are supporting each other at Headingley to know precisely where they stand.