Players Vs ICC

Cricketers hold a very special place in Indian society. They are idolised by whole nation and thus when a message comes from them more people in this country are willing to listen and follow. So it makes sense for businesses to use this image of cricketers to market their products in Indian market. But looking at cricket, can every player or every country have equal bargaining powers with ICC. Players like Sachin and Saurav were the main players in the Indian team when this incident took place in 2002. It is similar to a scenario where a person develops skills and knowledge which make him indispensable by the company. Similarly, it is these players who attract large crowds and thus are responsible for large fan following of the game, which leads to more sponsorship for cricket tournaments.

In this case, players have not asked for anything new, just continuation of the earlier contract specifically removal of this clause which requires them to relinquish their personal commercial rights. If we put aside bargaining power of players and look at what has ICC done with this clause and how it will affect players, BCCI and ICC.

Players: Comparing them to employees of BCCI, players are paid for every match as per the grade they are placed in. Asking them not to model for brands would be denying them their individual rights. They have brand value and it is their right to make money from it. If their employer, BCCI or ICC, pays them according to their brand value and makes up for the lost earnings they can stop marketing products. On the other hand players should realise that their priority should be playing for nation.

In a company not all employees can come up with critical and innovative ideas, so it’s the individual talent and knowledge which is a major factor when we consider IPR and brand management.

BCCI & ICC: Any player, who plays for his country, is not in the team because cricket board hired him to play but mainly because of his performance. Neither can we say that board made him the player he is, though good coaching provided by board actually helps in development of skills. But that is nurturing of talent and if team plays well, board gets its return in form of tournament victories and expensive telecast and sponsorship rights. They are right in opposing a deal by players with competitor of their sponsors but cannot allow sponsors to use images of players for their advertising without compensating players for such personal endorsement.

So, the conflict cannot be forcefully resolved and the terms need to be negotiated. Asking players to not endorse competing brands only during the course of tournament can be a solution. Since players are not expected to endorse any products they should be compensated from the sponsorship earned by the ICC. And any future decision which affects the interest of players should be made in consultation with a Player’s representative body.
If they agree on not having such a clause, ICC may ask BCCI to pay for any claim of compensation by sponsors arising out of action taken by Indian board(players).