Shaken, not stirred!

Faisal Shariff

When, in Bangalore the other day, five senior Indian cricketers met BCCI representative Prof Ratnakar Shetty and presented him with a demand for a contract system, it came as a considerable surprise to the Board.

A surprise, because the BCCI had all along been thinking along completely different lines. As early as September 2000, the BCCI in its general body meeting had discussed the question of graded payments for players.

The recommendations of the general body were then put foward to the board's finance committee, and Prof. Shetty, honorary secretary of the Mumbai Cricket Association and member of the finance committee, was given the job of preparing a report after consultations with captain Saurav Ganguly, vice captain Rahul Dravid, and other senior players.

Shetty thus put forward the proposal of a graded system of payments. According to which, a player who has played between 1-20 Tests would get X amount, those amounts to increase exponentially with each 20-Test slab.

"The players were not happy with the scheme, they expressed their displeasure," Prof. Shetty told rediff.

Shetty explains that from the players' viewpoint, it was felt that while the payments -- especially for the experienced players -- would be significantly higher, it did not cover the security angle which was the main thrust of the proposed contract system. The players, for instance, argued that while a play-and-pay system, graded or otherwise, did not resolve the central question: What happens to a player, of whatever seniority, who is injured playing for the team, and has to spend a season out of action?

For their part, the players insisted that the BCCI put in place a contract system modelled along the likes of the successful ones in use in Australia, South Africa and elsewhere, the central point of which would be monthly payments.

The board for its part is of the view that such a system has serious legal implications. Also, the board believes that paying out monthly amounts to 20 or 25 contracted players could be very expensive.

Another spin the BCCI has given the question, thus far, is the question of retention of employment. The board contends that in order to become professionals, the players will have to give up the jobs they hold in various companies.

"In a country like India it would be impossible for the players to let go of their jobs for a one-year contract. It would simply not make logical sense," argues Prof. Shetty.

On the face of it, the argument is specious. For one thing, the Sri Lankan board has a readymade model that tackles just such a situation, and allows nationally contracted players to retain their jobs while also being on the payroll of the UCBSL. And experts in taxation and company law point out that there is nothing to stop a person being 'employed' by one company, and simultaneously holding a 'contract' with another, as long as neither company has any objection.

Another question the board has thrown up relates to endorsements. Will the players share their endorsement money with the Board, is the question. By every test of logic, the question defies logic -- you might as well ask if the board's president will throw into the BCCI kitty the net annual income of his company.

As far as the money angle is concerned, in 1994 the board signed a five-year, Rs 400 million, dal with Trans-World International (TWI) for television rights. In 1999, Doordarshan paid six times that amount, and bought the television rights for Rs 2540 million. And that is just one source of revenue -- factor in sponsorships, in-stadia advertising, et cetera et cetera, and the board certainly has the money to pay the players.

As one cynic pointed out, if the BCCI can foot Purushottam Rungta's liquor bill and pay for the Diwali sweets distributed by him, the board can then certainly pay the players what they have earned by the sweat of their brow.

Interestingly, while the BCCI keeps talking of how well the players are paid, the fact remains that the board pays the players only a small fraction of their actual earnings. For instance, the BCCI tells you that it pays a player Rs 180,000 per five-day Test. The fact, though, is that the BCCI pays only Rs 40,000. The other Rs 140,000 is the player's share of the logo money.

Here is how it works. The sponsor gives the board Rs 5.2 million per Test and Rs 4.2 million per ODI, in return for which, the board will ensure that players wear on their clothing the logo of the sponsors.

The board collects this money, and promptly pockets 40 per cent of it. Only the other 60 per cent is distributed to the players. That has been typical of how the board operates -- no matter where the money comes in from and for what reason, no matter who the money is paid to and for what reason, a certain percentage always sticks to the board's hands.

Interestingly, the board has dreamt up another spin as well, to maximise its earnings. The player gets only Rs 40,000 at the end of a Test. The logo money, which is actually part of his payment, is not paid to him for a period of six months.

Which raises the question -- why not? The player wore the logo, he played the game, the sponsor has already made the bulk payment, so why does the board hold on to the logo money for six months?

Try a simple calculation to get the answer: Rs 140,000 per player, into 14 players. That amount, in a short term deposit for six months, earning interest. In other words, not only does the board keep for itself 40 per cent of the logo money that should by all logic go directly to the players, it even holds back the other 60 per cent for a period of time, and earns the interest on it while depriving the players of the same.

Given this situation, the board's argument that it does not have the money to pay the players as per contracts does sound a touch specious.

When last heard from, Prof Shetty is due to present, before the board, yet another report -- this one, looking not at the original proposal of graded payments, but at a contractual system for the cricketers. Indications are, though, that if the players really want this, they have a long, hard, bitter battle ahead of them.