“Based on new proposed system of ICC [International Cricket Council] revenue sharing for the upcoming eight-year cycle (2015-2023) WICB [West Indies Cricket Board] projects to receive at least 100 per cent increase on the previous eight year cycle (2006-2014).”
That poorly-constructed bullet point is from a WICB news release issued on January 28 this year.
It was the first day of the ICC board meetings at Dubai to discuss the restructure of the game as proposed by India, Australia and England.
New Zealand’s board signalled their approvals earlier, but the WICB were the first of the smaller boards to come out and put an estimated figure on how much their situation would improve financially once they approved the changes.
That decision has no direct bearing on the situation the WICB find themselves in now.
No senior team and a peeved Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) threatening to eat into – if not entirely wipe out – that “100 per cent” increase with a potential lawsuit of US$65 million (Dh238.7m).
This is a recurring internal dispute, a roadblock to which the West Indies keep returning with depressing frequency.
This is the fourth time a pay dispute has affected a playing commitment of theirs since 1998. But oh, the irony: to be so eager to jump on the bandwagon, to be so sure of the financial benefits of the change and to be the first to feel the financial wrath of a rearranged world order.
It is a double whammy.
The ICC has not procured the kind of rights deal it had thought possible: the new broadcast deal is $1.8bn according to some reports, and probably up to $2.2bn with commercial sponsorships.
It had hoped for upwards of US$2.5bn, so, as a result, members, such as the WICB, will not receive as much as they have projected.
To be fair, the situation would have played out much as it has even before the revamp.
The BCCI would have been angry, and they have every right to be.
To cut short a series because the opponents cannot settle upon a basic financial contract is about as avoidable a reason as there can be.
The BCCI would have threatened, as they have done, to pull out from future tours to the West Indies (that is another hit into West Indian projections).
They would have threatened the future of bilateral ties between the two, as they have done.
The board would have worked out an immediate cost of curtailment and threatened a legal claim, as they have done.
The only difference is that this time last year there was at least the option of going to the ICC disputes resolution committee, which, if the two boards decided to go – a big if, given how irrelevant the ICC is clearly perceived to be by its members – there would have been an independent arbitrator.
Bilateral tours are based on a contract purely between the two sides, which, presumably, identifies a way forward in situations such as this.
They will talk to each other and come to a solution, but given the disparities in strength and influence between the two boards, it is easy to see who will emerge the winner.
In this case, the BCCI have a rightful claim to compensation.
But imagine the situation reversed. What if India pull out of a tour, say with Pakistan in the UAE, because of a sudden shift in political climate?
If they attempt to resolve that situation, what are the odds of a financially emasculated Pakistan board coming out the happier, especially without independent arbitration?
That is for the future. For now, nobody is coming out of this a winner. The pull-out has triggered alarm, some of it excessive, and if it affected the West Indies participation at the World Cup – as one venerated observer of Caribbean cricket, writer Tony Cozier, said it will – then the situation must be serious. For some, the temptation might also be to look at bodies such as the West Indies Players’ Association and see them as counter-productive.
That seems possible, particularly in this case where the West Indian players say they have been misrepresented by the group that is supposed to protect their interests.
That would be folly, though.
More than ever, now is the time for a body such as the Federation of International Cricketers’ Association, the global players’ body, to step in.
The loyalties of players are being stretched as never before.
Domestic Twenty20 franchise leagues all over the world contest with national sides for the attentions and time of players.
They are the new power-brokers in the game, tussling with the older, established boards for influence. So tensions between playing for country or a franchise, or even for one particular franchise over another, are rife.
In some leagues, non-payment is rife, while some players are prevented from participating in leagues by their boards.
Amid this new power-scape, it is essential players are another centre of influence and not just in the shape of big stars, such as Chris Gayle and Kevin Pietersen, who already have their own power.
It must be as part of a collective, which, in looking out for the interests of that collective, by default looks after the interests of every individual, superstar or otherwise.
osamiuddin@thenational.ae
Follow us on twitter at @SprtNationalUAE
