I agree with Santhosh, with due support from the posts of Debashish and Anuradha, after all only equals can sit together, mull things over and talk, when the distribution of power is not same then there is only a compromise between the two parties where one bows down to the other's demands. Here, what started as a negotiation ended up in a compromise, where ultimately ICC had to succumb to BCCI (courtesy Ankit Agarwal's post "Only Heroes....."), which at that time was a sort of puppet in the hands of Indian players (our demi gods) who knew their worth as brands and weight in money( Ayan's post of Tatas in Singur gives a good example of a similar tussle). More so, BCCI would have had a bigger headache to tackle if Master Blaster and other of our prized players don't come down on pitch, to see whom the entire crowd has come.
And I beg to differ with Luv as not every student with a strong resume gets into a good firm, everyone has to clear the first hurdle of cut-offs. Not everyone's worth is realised till the right person comes across, as happened in my friend's case the university topper, but almost the last to be placed. Or taking the example from the cricket world, had it not been for IPL would we have realised the talents and worth of players like Ashok Dinda, Manpreet Gony, Ravindra Jadeja, Yousuf Pathan, Pragyan Ojha etc.
Overall, I feel there was nothing heroic about this act, rather it was law which had tied their hands behind their back. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that because of this legal backing only Indian players could boycott this deal and stand against BCCI and ICC, else the richest sports body in the world is surely a tough nut to crack. As the open source development case puts across that facts, otherwise who knows next BCCI would have come up with a rule to share the revenue earned by players apart from playing cricket. Employees really need to draw the line for giving what's due to the employer and retaining what is rightfully theirs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the second question, the brands that players endorse will anyway come to them as long as they continue perform on field, else they lose out on contracts like Saurav Ganguly lost Pepsi after his performance deteriorated on field. They have come here to play cricket and that should be their priority and prime focus, it is cricket which got them recognition and brought these bramds to them and not the other way around. So of course, BCCI should be given what it rightfully deserves, but not in the manner BCCI asked for.
Had BCCI gone ahead with the contract and forced the players to sign above the dotted line, then it should have provided the players with proper compensation, same for OSD, the employee should be given a proper remuneration for his innovation or special contribution which the employer wants to market and propagate as its own with due credits, else we can have cases like "3 idiots and Chetan Bhagat fiasco". On the side of players, they also need to be logical and at least try on their part to avoid any show of competitor brands for the main sponsor of the event, as not only the brand not paying any fees, but also free riding on the advertising part.
Also there is credibility at stake for an organization like BCCI, which has to be maintained at a particular standard thanks to its size, brand and power it commands.
No comments:
Post a Comment