West Indies Cricket

The last few days have been interesting in the Cricket world - though Pakis were hammered by the Sri Lankans, the other two test series (Ashes and WI-Bangladesh) were different for reasons distinct to each.

The Ashes has till now been very uniformly contested, with more masala added to it with Flintoff's retirement plans. Moreover, who does not like the Aussies getting bashed up? :)

The second one is the one that is of deeper significance in terms of the changing relations between money and cricket. WI, playing their second string team, underestimated the Banladeshis, who obliged them by trashing them in the tests (first series win). The one day series too seems to follow the same lines till now.
Which brings us back to the main question - what is happening between the WIPA (WI player's association) and WICB (WI Cricket Board)? I went to cricinfo to get to the genesis of the problem.

Flashback to Jan 2005:
WIPA protests on a few clauses put in by the WICB which could lead to "commercial exploitation" of the players. Moreover, WIPA felt that the players were pressurised to sign the contract leading to friction amongst these bodies.


Digging deeper into the "commercial exploitation" part leads to the real reasons for the dissent - Cable & Wireless (a former sponsor of the West Indian side) and Digicel(the new sponsor)

I'll add some excerpts from that blog here:


Digicel entered the regional market in 2001, and operates in seven countries, with its headquarters in Jamaica. It has aggressively pursued market share, with promotional offers and sponsorships of major sports like cricket, football and the Special Olympics. In July 2004, Digicel signed a five-year US$20million sponsorship deal with the WICB in London, becoming the official sponsors for the Test and one-day teams, event sponsors for all home and away Tests and ODIs played by West Indies (a first for the board, since Cable & Wireless only sponsored home matches), and the official mobile and communications provider for the WICB.

Two months earlier Cable & Wireless had signed up to become one of the official sponsors of the World Cup in 2007. The company had re-directed its strategic positioning after its US$10million offer over three years did not find as much favour as Digicel's US$20million promise. As an official sponsor of the World Cup, Cable & Wireless assured itself of continued regional presence in cricket. Following its individual endorsement contract with Brian Lara in 2003, it signed Ramnaresh Sarwan, Chris Gayle, Dwayne Bravo, Omari Banks, Fidel Edwards, Ravi Rampaul and Dwayne Smith.

Generally, while a sponsorship contract like Digicel's covers the team, unless there are specific terms, it does not include individuals, who have the right to negotiate their own terms for use of their personal image and intellectual property. That is why in advertising, for example, players would be shown in groups of four or more, with no obvious predominance of any one player.

A few weeks ago, during negotiations over retainer contracts, the WICB offered to buy out any contracts the players had which would be in conflict with their new sponsorship, and WIPA had not objected. But that offer has been replaced by one, according to WIPA, that seeks to have the players end their contracts for free or face non-selection.

The WICB has now found itself in a curious position. Obviously there was no support from Digicel for the board's initial offer of a buyout. But by insisting that the players break their individual contracts, which had been signed with the WICB's knowledge, it is also placing itself at odds with one of its official sponsors for the World Cup. The ongoing impasse could also force the ICC to ask questions about the manner in which the World Cup will be organised, and might even make it look at an alternate venue. The Cable & Wireless contract is with the CWC WI 2007 Inc., the organising body of the World Cup, but that is a fully owned subsidiary of the WICB, and the contract for hosting the World Cup lies between the WICB and the ICC.

WIPA issued a statement refusing to end their personal deals, saying that this constituted a restriction of the players' rights to practice their trade. "WIPA's position is that the board wants to unilaterally assume indefinite ownership of the players' endorsement rights and is effectively threatening to ban them from working (participating in the tour) if the players do not immediately concede." The WICB responded by saying that it "has never sought to assume ownership of the individual rights of the players or requested them to forego these rights." Also, while the WICB may be contemplating compiling a substitute team, they should consider that the WIPA represents under-19, first-class and international players, the bulk of their possibilities.

The question is this: has the WICB sold rights to Digicel that it cannot deliver? What exactly is included in the Digicel package is anybody's guess. And while the arguments go on about the principles involved, there might yet be another twist in the tale. Since Digicel has signed a contract that is not restricted to home matches, and has an all-year effect, the players still individually contracted to Cable & Wireless might find themselves restricted by clauses which ask them to limit their performance of these contracts to time periods surrounding matches. So, if it is normal to ask that they hold off for two weeks say, before and after a sponsored event, they might find that Digicel's year-round presence could make it difficult for them to fulfil their individual contracts.


A few very interesting things apart from the screw up that WICA did:
1. The players have private advertising contracts with companies who could be rivals to the tournament/association sponsors. This has an interesting parallel example in IPL team sponsorship v/s individual player sponsorship. Even there, the same problem is reappearing in a different manner. Everyone (companies/players) are indecisive on how to sort out the confusion.
2. WICB trying to "own" a players. This reminds me of the BCCI-ICL tussle that happened a couple of years back. ICL, though started well, fell into oblivation, with the advent of IPL.

The future of advertisement marketing and contracts in the world of cricket is sure to undergo a sea of change in the next few years. A few pointers could be:
1. Established players opting out of contracts with their boards.
2. More private tournaments diluting the ownership of a player - Andrew Flintoff retiring for IPL could be the indication of things to come.
3. More stringent clauses in the private player's contracts trying to fill the loopholes. This could lead to lot of legal dogfights amongst the corporates.

Let's see how does it sort itself in the long run...

Sidvish