Yeah, there is a clear difference between Pakistani/Bangladeshi workers and Indian from what I could gather. India playing Pakistan over there would be a really interesting series to watch for multiple reasons.
-
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.
Should the ICC pay International Cricketers?
- Thread starter cnerd123
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
Still not quite the same thing. No one is asking the ICC to provide equal opportunities to Bangaldeshi and NZ cricketers. Just asking to ensure that they earn enough playing International cricket to not be lead into abandoning it for the cash of T20 Leagues.
I agree that the ICC does not have the stated objective of ensuring equal pay for all it's practitioners. But ensuring the health of International cricket is. The ICC wants to ensure that Tests and the ODI/T20 World Cups remain the pinnacle of the game, and that requires having the best players available for each country playing. And if that necessitates ensuring equal pay (or adequate pay, if not equal) across the board, then so be it.
Just because other professions don't do this, doesn't make it a bad idea for cricket. You haven't actually argued any possible downsides that would emerge from an idea like this.
And besides, unions exist in large countries to ensure their members are paid adequately regardless of which area they work in.
Shady Slim
International Coach
i think that the icc, if they did pay cricketers, should do it direct and bypass the boards altogether
i think that this qualifying stage for the t20 world cup and stuff like that is worse though
you say that this is the format to try new things
well then you should fricking let the associates just play in it flat from the start, it's india so you can have a bajillion t20s going on at once anyway
i think that this qualifying stage for the t20 world cup and stuff like that is worse though
you say that this is the format to try new things
well then you should fricking let the associates just play in it flat from the start, it's india so you can have a bajillion t20s going on at once anyway
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
I propose we increase the number of months in a year to 20
G.I.Joe
International Coach
You're basically looking for a capitalism vs communism debate. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unions.
Besides, what makes cricket so special that it deserves what the rest of society doesn't have? Unless you demonstrate this moral imperative, there exists no compulsion for cricket boards to make this happen.
Take the gender pay gap, for instance. Sport has recently made attempts to reduce the gap taking it's cue from society which seeks the same end in every profession.
Sport will take the cue on commie wages across national barriers when society does the same for every profession worldwide.
cnerd123
likes this
The reason is because cricket has a central, global governing body whose state interest is to promote the sport (profession) around the world, and that a 'communist' (your words, not mine) wage system would accomplish this. That's the difference between a sport like Cricket and a regular profession.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I think there are some bad analogies being made in this thread.
The difference between what ***** is suggesting and an actual system of communism is fact that the ICC is a voluntary, private association. The individual boards agree to keep their membership of the ICC because the nature of sport is such that having other international teams to play against is in all their best interests. If ICC membership ceased to be in a board's interest - or perhaps more relevant to this thread, the interest of say, all of The Big Three - they'd just leave, take their players, sponsors and customers with them and form a new association. This is in contrast to options available to the rich man or the big corporation in a country that had just turned communist, because that country would have government force available to them that the ICC does not.
This distinction is important for many reasons IMO, but probably only one that still allows me to submit this post in this thread rather than Testing Forum one. I'm going to attempt to avoid the moral diversion and just focus on that one reason.
It primarily just shows why the ICC, even if we pretend it actually is an independent body and not just a puppet of the Big Three, would never try to implement such a system. Members will only continue their ICC membership for as long as it's in their best interests, and if the ICC started handing down decisions like the one ***** is suggesting, the BCCI, CA and the ECB might decide that ICC membership is no longer in their best interests. The other boards are effectively relying on matches against these boards to stay solvent, while those three could just as easily go it alone. End of the day, the reason this isn't viable is the ease of which the boards that lost out would just leave the ICC. ICC decisions will continue to favour these boards as the other boards would go under if they left, even as a pack. It's important to understand the incentives.
In saying all that, I do think the idea that sport is no different to any other profession is a bit off, and I think it applies moreso to cricket than it does most other sports. Cricket is still structured in a way that primarily revolves around national representation for employment. Lucrative domestic leagues now exist but professional cricket at good pay is still primarily played between national sides. The Ashes isn't played between two competing franchises, and it isn't even sold as ECB v CA; it's sold as England v Australia, and part of the allure is players representing their countries and not just their employers. de Villiers for example cannot just decide to take the cash and play international cricket for England, and this restriction is based on a lot more than merely whatever restriction (if any) he'd face in securing a permanent work visa if he wanted to emigrate. This move would be a lot different to a potential move from South Africa to the UK for some other regular profession as he'd not have to represent the UK national competitive team of whatever that profession was to make a proper go of it, and he'd not have to wait eight years to qualify for selection even if he did.
tldr: *****'s suggestion would have adverse consequences he hasn't thought through but Joe is hamfisting the rebuttal.
The difference between what ***** is suggesting and an actual system of communism is fact that the ICC is a voluntary, private association. The individual boards agree to keep their membership of the ICC because the nature of sport is such that having other international teams to play against is in all their best interests. If ICC membership ceased to be in a board's interest - or perhaps more relevant to this thread, the interest of say, all of The Big Three - they'd just leave, take their players, sponsors and customers with them and form a new association. This is in contrast to options available to the rich man or the big corporation in a country that had just turned communist, because that country would have government force available to them that the ICC does not.
This distinction is important for many reasons IMO, but probably only one that still allows me to submit this post in this thread rather than Testing Forum one. I'm going to attempt to avoid the moral diversion and just focus on that one reason.
It primarily just shows why the ICC, even if we pretend it actually is an independent body and not just a puppet of the Big Three, would never try to implement such a system. Members will only continue their ICC membership for as long as it's in their best interests, and if the ICC started handing down decisions like the one ***** is suggesting, the BCCI, CA and the ECB might decide that ICC membership is no longer in their best interests. The other boards are effectively relying on matches against these boards to stay solvent, while those three could just as easily go it alone. End of the day, the reason this isn't viable is the ease of which the boards that lost out would just leave the ICC. ICC decisions will continue to favour these boards as the other boards would go under if they left, even as a pack. It's important to understand the incentives.
In saying all that, I do think the idea that sport is no different to any other profession is a bit off, and I think it applies moreso to cricket than it does most other sports. Cricket is still structured in a way that primarily revolves around national representation for employment. Lucrative domestic leagues now exist but professional cricket at good pay is still primarily played between national sides. The Ashes isn't played between two competing franchises, and it isn't even sold as ECB v CA; it's sold as England v Australia, and part of the allure is players representing their countries and not just their employers. de Villiers for example cannot just decide to take the cash and play international cricket for England, and this restriction is based on a lot more than merely whatever restriction (if any) he'd face in securing a permanent work visa if he wanted to emigrate. This move would be a lot different to a potential move from South Africa to the UK for some other regular profession as he'd not have to represent the UK national competitive team of whatever that profession was to make a proper go of it, and he'd not have to wait eight years to qualify for selection even if he did.
tldr: *****'s suggestion would have adverse consequences he hasn't thought through but Joe is hamfisting the rebuttal.
Last edited:
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
Seems bizarre that at the other end of the scale you have the ECB having to subsidise players that it wants to play IPL.
Who?
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
Doens't name names but this cricinfo article
Moeen Ali in frame for IPL auction | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
cricinfo said:
I don't think there needs to be separate window of T20 leagues, just that the boards have to smart about it.
Say (T20 leagues),
IPL in April & May
English Blast in June
Caribbean League in July
NZ Super Smash in November
SA Ra Slam in November
BPL in December
Big Bash in December-January
Pakistan Super League in January (or is it February)
I kinda think actually English Blast and Caribbean League are overlapping so above might be wrong.
Doubt Zimbabwe will have a lucrative one any time soon and I don't see any current SL ones.
International tournaments seems to be mostly on February and March.
August, September and October seems extremely free and should have max number of international action if possible. They also seem to be late summer & fall for northern hemisphere while late winter and early spring for southern hemisphere.
Many teams could avoid touring on April & May especially if they have to call in IPL players.
Other leagues might not see that many foreign players as things stand now so playing through them seems possible. Perhaps overlap English Blast and Caribbean League and free either June or July for domestic T20s.
Say (T20 leagues),
IPL in April & May
English Blast in June
Caribbean League in July
NZ Super Smash in November
SA Ra Slam in November
BPL in December
Big Bash in December-January
Pakistan Super League in January (or is it February)
I kinda think actually English Blast and Caribbean League are overlapping so above might be wrong.
Doubt Zimbabwe will have a lucrative one any time soon and I don't see any current SL ones.
International tournaments seems to be mostly on February and March.
August, September and October seems extremely free and should have max number of international action if possible. They also seem to be late summer & fall for northern hemisphere while late winter and early spring for southern hemisphere.
Many teams could avoid touring on April & May especially if they have to call in IPL players.
Other leagues might not see that many foreign players as things stand now so playing through them seems possible. Perhaps overlap English Blast and Caribbean League and free either June or July for domestic T20s.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Yeah, I'm undecided on whether I really believe in the argument I've made or am simply playing devil's advocate. Probably more of the former, stillI think there are some bad analogies being made in this thread.
The difference between what ***** is suggesting and an actual system of communism is fact that the ICC is a voluntary, private association. The individual boards agree to keep their membership of the ICC because the nature of sport is such that having other international teams to play against is in all their best interests. If ICC membership ceased to be in a board's interest - or perhaps more relevant to this thread, the interest of say, all of The Big Three - they'd just leave, take their players, sponsors and customers with them and form a new association. This is in contrast to options available to the rich man or the big corporation in a country that had just turned communist, because that country would have government force available to them that the ICC does not.
This distinction is important for many reasons IMO, but probably only one that still allows me to submit this post in this thread rather than Testing Forum one. I'm going to attempt to avoid the moral diversion and just focus on that one reason.
It primarily just shows why the ICC, even if we pretend it actually is an independent body and not just a puppet of the Big Three, would never try to implement such a system. Members will only continue their ICC membership for as long as it's in their best interests, and if the ICC started handing down decisions like the one ***** is suggesting, the BCCI, CA and the ECB might decide that ICC membership is no longer in their best interests. The other boards are effectively relying on matches against these boards to stay solvent, while those three could just as easily go it alone. End of the day, the reason this isn't viable is the ease of which the boards that lost out would just leave the ICC. ICC decisions will continue to favour these boards as the other boards would go under if they left, even as a pack. It's important to understand the incentives.
In saying all that, I do think the idea that sport is no different to any other profession is a bit off, and I think it applies moreso to cricket than it does most other sports. Cricket is still structured in a way that primarily revolves around national representation for employment. Lucrative domestic leagues now exist but professional cricket at good pay is still primarily played between national sides. The Ashes isn't played between two competing franchises, and it isn't even sold as ECB v CA; it's sold as England v Australia, and part of the allure is players representing their countries and not just their employers. de Villiers for example cannot just decide to take the cash and play international cricket for England, and this restriction is based on a lot more than merely whatever restriction (if any) he'd face in securing a permanent work visa if he wanted to emigrate. This move would be a lot different to a potential move from South Africa to the UK for some other regular profession as he'd not have to represent the UK national competitive team of whatever that profession was to make a proper go of it, and he'd not have to wait eight years to qualify for selection even if he did.
tldr: *****'s suggestion would have adverse consequences he hasn't thought through but Joe is hamfisting the rebuttal.
I'm not fully convinced of the nation-representation angle. The US bought over German nuclear scientists after the war and the subsequent development of the bomb was a notch on the American bed post, not just one for the particular branch of US military. Most people wouldn't make the argument that scientists all over the world be paid equal wages just to ensure that their nation benefits from their expertise to the fullest. Brain drain cannot be plugged, and it has significant repercussions for nations as a whole. Even sport has it's share of opportunity and market forces crapping on nationalism (Kenyan long-distance runners turning up for every nation on the planet, for instance). In the wider context, the argument for sanctity of national representation in cricket is overblown, IMO.
cnerd123
likes this
Lets assume there is this new multi-millionaire entrepreneur who wants to monetize world cricket. Lets call him Malit Lodi.
Malit Lodi approaches the ICC (AKA the Big 3) and pitches an idea to them that makes International cricket -especially Test matches- extremely lucrative. He has fixtures planned, marketing strategies, financial projections, logistics, everything all worked out. If they follow his plan, Test cricket will be more attractive than it has ever been, and cricket will earn more money and have more fans than it ever has.
There is just one hiccup - in order for his plan to succeed, he needs to ensure that the best and most talented players turn out for their country's Test sides.
The ICC calls for a meeting and gets all the non-Big 3 boards under one roof, and with Malit Lodi, asks them all to do whatever it takes to make the best possible players available for their Test sides. Put aside all squabbles, call guys like Sanga out of retirement, and start paying the players what they are owed.
The last point is a bit of a stickler - these boards would love to pay their players, but they just don't have the funds. Even those who do have the funds -like CSA- don't think they can pay players like ABDV enough to keep them in the side over joining the IPL or BBL.
Malit Lodi then stands up and pitches an idea: why doesn't the ICC step in and help pay these players?
Within a week he draws up an elaborate plan that uses revenue from International Cricket to pay the cricketers directly. This isn't equal salary for everyone - ADBV isn't getting paid as much as Stuart Binny - but is a salary based on a multitude of factors too complex to go into right now. Lets just say it works, it's fair, it's feasible.
He pitches this to the ICC (AKA the Big 3). He tells them they must undertake this plan in order to ensure the success of his earlier plan. Success of the earlier plan means International cricket (especially Tests) becomes bigger and more followed than it ever has been. This means more revenue for the ICC.
It is now in the ICC's (AKA the Big 3's) best interests to pay the salaries of international cricketers.
The question is - should they still do this?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah in a hypothetical where the ICC paying the players would be in the best interests of all the members, I don't think anyone would object to it on principle. I'm not even sure the hypothetical you've invented there actually would be a situation where the ICC paying the players would be in the best interests of all the members, but if we assume it was and they all realised this, it would happen and it would be fine.
From an ideological standpoint that hypothetical isn't even about fairness or equality or sacrifice; it's just voluntary association for mutual benefit.
From an ideological standpoint that hypothetical isn't even about fairness or equality or sacrifice; it's just voluntary association for mutual benefit.
Last edited:
TNT
Banned
No
By paying the players more money is not solving the issue, you will not get more sponsors just because the ICC is giving money to the players, more people are not going to turn up to watch matches because the ICC is paying the players more money.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!