In sync with the previous posts general opinion that the issue here is more than that meets the eyes. As a first opinion one would believe the dispute is of money and sponsorship and ownership issues all of which can be conveniently dealt with the rules in the ambit of Sports Jurisdiction. The issue underlying here is Players personal rights being violated by the ICC.As a consequence the players are left stranded in this freewheeling melee of contracts and sponsorship clauses, many of which they need the help of an external agent to explain to them.
The owner of Fulham FC and Harrods owner Mohammad Al Fayed says why waste million dollar contracts on players who can barely read and write it raises a much more significant question- Are these sportspersons the players we covet and admire the victims or the unsuspecting benefactors of the melee that is Sponsorship rights. A case in point is the often encountered yet loosely defined Player Ownership rights. Carlos Tevez, a striker for the Argentina National Team was subject of much controversy when he was controversially transferred to West Ham Football Club in The English Premier League .This is a case of third party ownership when Kia Joorabchian, the man who owned economic rights to Tevez loaned them illegally to the club and following the good show of the player, the Club escaped relegation on the last day. As an immediate consequence the relegated club, Sheffield United filed a lawsuit and claimed damages to the tune of more than £ 20 million.
This is just a case in point. Player’s ownership rights are very much a reflection of the Open Source Development Movement where everyone knows the terms and conditions yet aware that the interests of the player, the owners, and the sponsors can all overlap. There is room for ambiguity in seemingly limited scope of sponsorship rights yet undeniably manipulations and manoeuvres can and do happen. In the case the players can be hardly blamed for the stand. They signed on the contract with their individual sponsors and are the laws and conditions in the contract are binding on them. So when the ICC asks them to sign the agreement for the Champions trophy in Sri Lanka they can either pay up to their sponsors for endorsing a rival brand or not sign the ICC agreement and back out of the tournament. More so when ICC asks the players to not endorse any other product 30 days prior and after the tournament. A player like Virender Sehwag who has signed up for Coke is being asked to endorse the rival brand, Pepsi for all promotions for the tournament. This is in direct violation to the terms of his original sponsor, Coke. Even if he agrees to endorse Pepsi for the event would the ICC be paying up for the hefty lawsuit Pepsi would file on him?
The BCCI on its part displayed amateurish behaviour in not understanding the ramifications of the contract and signing it with ICC. While ICC holds the exclusive rights to the event it doesn’t hold rights to the players’ commercial interests. The players are free to promote their brand image to and pursue advertising . This is the right that has been bestowed upon them So when South African Airlines was granted the rights for the event , the Indian team’s sponsor Sahara Airlines logo use was made forbidden. Such decisions and agreements only magnify the loopholes in the system prevalent. As for the question of can we learn from our heroes. Yes we can certainly be more careful and pragmatic in our approach while signing our contract. One may not have the standing or influence to dictate clause additions and modifications in the contract but one certainly can be firm in exercising one right over his/her intellectual capital. Just like the players we need to put our foot down and demand the wages we are paid for. As an employee we have responsibility of devoting our efforts for the Organisation yet the credit for innovation and any work pursued by the employee in furtherance to his work responsibility should be solely on the employee. The IPR is meant to protect the interests of such innovations and these shouldn’t be impinged on by the Company.
No comments:
Post a Comment