I agree to the fact that an individual is free to earn in any legally possible way. But in the above case where the Indian players denied to play international matches for some advertising obligations with certain companies is also not something to be encouraged. As players representing a nation they shouldn’t forget the basic fact that, they are here to entertain and people prefer to see them on the field rather than in some flashy advertisements for some colas. On the other hand it is also harsh on the players where the contracts overlap for the 30 days before and after the competition and I think that can be negotiated with ICC.
In the above case it is also mentioned that the “Indian cricketers refused to signed the agreement” Does that mean all the players refused? The only reason for my curiosity is that not all the players get advertising contracts. How many “Romesh Powars ” we see on TV ads? We only see the “MS dhonis” and “Tendulkars”. So I wonder if the lesser known players declined to sign agreement for peer pressure?
One of my friends in the above posts coined the term “standing out of the crowd” and he also explains this by giving the example of IITs and NITs in comparison to any grade-II college. But we have also witnessed how the same IITs and NITs lost their negotiating power in the recession times.!!!! I agree to the fact that it’s rare for the freshers to negotiate on the salary. But after attaining a certain level of expertise employees get an upper hand in bargaining provided the economy goes through a better phase.
I have a friend who works with a pharmaceutical company and at frequent intervals he converts an interview with some other company and negotiates with his current employer that to continue the service they must pay him an amount greater than or equal to his new achievement. And it has happened twice that his employers retained him. I wonder if an employer should maintain relationship with such employees who have a frequent tendency to leave the job?