Facts that give a new dimension to the issue are as follows: a) Top Indian cricketers (our heroes) earn more money from a single endorsement then they earn from match fees in a year, b) India is the single largest source of revenue for cricketing world, c) India has one of the largest fan following in the world of cricket where it is revered as a religion, d) ICC had signed a 7 year contract with its sponsors for $550 million.
Perspective of ICC: ICC in an attempt to protect its sponsors from their competitors who were endorsed by the players, made it mandatory to sign an agreement that prohibited players from appearing in any commercial that was in conflict with the interests of the official sponsors during the tournament and one month before and after the event. This stance was necessary keeping in view the famous “Nothing Official About It” campaign by Pepsi during 1996 world cup that hit very hardly to the sponsors Coca-Cola. So, from the perspective of ICC it was right in trying to safeguard the interests of its sponsors.
From the perspective of BCCI: The stakes were very high for BCCI. There were chances of heavy fine being imposed on BCCI if the players boycotted the event. Moreover it would have lost $ 9 million as its share from ICC from television and sponsorship rights. So, they tried to take the players head on and demanded them to play for the country. In its bid for honouring its agreement with ICC and financial gain, it tried to force the players.
From the perspective of the players: Though BCCI gives match fees to the players based on “grades” of the players, the major portion of the income of hugely popular cricketers in India comes from commercials. Though they are employed by BCCI, they are also free to earn from other sources. Moreover, like ICC they are also obliged to honour their contract with their respective companies. Moreover, there was fear among them that they could be charged for breach of contract if they signed because the tournament was to start in less than a month. So, the cricketers were right in negotiating for changing the clause of the agreement.
From the companies’ perspective: They have invested huge amount of money so that they could generate profits. As, Drucker says profit is the first objective of a company. So they will try to pressurize their partners’ to act according to their interests. So sponsors of ICC will put pressure on ICC and players will be pressurized by the companies they endorse.
A temporary solution could be to sign the agreement for the tournament with protective clauses so that the sponsors cannot charge the players of abuse of agreement. In the long run, what the players endorse should be moderated. If they go one endorsing everything from colas, toothpastes, health drinks, shoes etc, the conflict of interests will definitely be present.
1 comment:
The temporary solution you have suggested is not very feasible if you see the situation from the players' perspective. They seem to have already signed contracts with certain brands and they may be accused of breaching these commercial assignment contracts if they sign this agreement with ICC...an agreement which they feel forces them to give up their IPR...
Post a Comment