The ICC controversy explained
By Anil - 24 August, '02
August 24 2002
Lots of people have been asking why it is that India is in the middle of the ICC contract controversy over the Champions Trophy and World Cup, whereas the other teams have been far less involved.
The reason is quite simple. The $550 million that the ICC has procured for the next 5 years comes primarily from Indian companies, or companies targetting primarily the vast Indian market. These companies would love to recruit Indian players, if not for the fact that their competitors have already snagged them. The solution? Get to them via the ICC.
Naturally, the players are furious that the ICC - which claims that the original sponsors of the players are indulging in "ambush marketing" - is in fact guilty of ambush marketing themselves, because it is them who are trying to break into contracts already signed and not vice versa.
India is the key
Australian and English players (and their unions) have tried to make their own splash in this row, but the truth is that they have none of the problems that the Indian players do. And it is these problems which makes the ICC contract controversial, indeed by many accounts illegal and unethical. This is why comments from the Aussies and English - as well as all other teams except India - are rendered somewhat irrelevant, and it hardly matters whether those teams agree or don't with the ICC terms. At the end of the day, it is the companies targetting the Indian market paying the ICC who are footing the bill - and they want to see Indian players on TV endorsing their products, not foreign ones.
In fact, it is said that the earnings of Sachin Tendulkar alone significantly exceed the combined earnings of the entire Australian and English squads. In such a situation, it is hardly surprising that the comments from those countries players and unions have gone unnoticed. Upon being sent documents from the Aussie players union, which claims to being close to a deal with the ICC, Niranjan Shah, BCCI secretary, politely accepted them but remarked: "We are studying the material, but the problems of the Indian and Australian players are different to a large extent. Cricketers in Australia and other countries don't have big sponsorship contracts like cricketers in India. Whatever documents Australia has sent us are welcome but it's unlikely the Australian resolution with the ICC will be used as a template for us because the problems might not be the same." In other words, it is the Indian players whom the companies want advertising their products, not Aussies or English.
There may be those who believe that Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, and Virender Sehwag - who are at the greatest risk from the ICC contract because they are being asked to break extremely lucrative pre-existing contracts - are overpaid. On the other hand, the recent brilliant performances of these four cricketers may suggest otherwise to their 1 billion Indian supporters, and that's what matters.
Australia and England are both insignificant in the global cricket market. India is the majority financer of the sport, and where all the money is. In this sense, the ICC with its $550 million contract through the end of 2007, is acting as something of a Robin Hood by redistributing wealth from India to the rest of the worldwide cricketing fraternity.
Why does ICC need $450 million for itself?
A question that must be asked is why the ICC has decided to return only $102 million to the teams and retain $448 million for itself. What other sport management organization retains 80% of the revenues from the game? Why does it need so much? It is quite another matter that teams in world cricket other than India have little to complain about, because the money they will receive, even as a fraction of the 10% earmarked by the ICC, is well beyond their wildest dreams.
More than half that $550 million will come from SET, an Indian TV broadcaster of a stable of TV channels that cater to Indian audiences, as well as to Indian diaspora throughout the world. Leading Indian companies contribute heavily to the rest of that revenue. The real question is, why shouldn't the majority of that revenue be returned to India? In the fairest of worlds, shouldn't $450 million go to India and the remaining $100 million shared between ICC and the remaining countries?
ICC should return most to India
The Indian players must not relent on their demands in any circumstance. In fact, the demands should now exceed just the present monetary and contractual issues. There is no reason why the ICC should not earmark a portion of its revenue to fund Indian domestic cricket and infrastructure, thus returning a portion of the money to where it came from in the first place. That would strengthen Indian cricket even more, allowing new fast and bouncy pitches to be constructed throughout India in addition to the classical spin-friendly Indian pitches, and domestic cricketers to be paid much better than they now are. The resulting improvement in Indian cricket can only benefit the sport worldwide, since it will bring even bigger audiences (more money) into it. The ICC must recognize the wisdom of helping in this way so that India can become as dominant as it promises to be, and the fruits from that shared by the ICC (for development of the game) as well as other teams, which would otherwise struggle to make ends meet from the revenue generated by their own countries.
Clearly, the ICC eventually will be forced to come around to the terms dictated by Indian players before the Championship Trophy, but I for one would love to see India go in without its best team, and see that particular championship crash into losses and mass withdrawal of sponsors due to lack of the 1 billion strong TV audience from one of the strongest and largest economies in the world. That would prove once again, for the few who still doubt it, who controls world cricket.