Sponsorship Rights -- Who's Right?

The International Cricket Council (ICC) and corporate business entities are in the middle of a fight over the rights to sponsor cricketers for tournaments such as the ICC Champions Trophy and the World Cup which will attract millions of dollars from television revenue.

Not since the advent of Kerry Packer has the ICC received such a challenge to its authority over its control of the sport and the outcome of this wrangling over $$$$ could have far reaching implications for the future of limited overs competitions.

The ICC, to its credit, has signed up a string of official sponsors (Not unlike what is done at the Olympics and other major sporting games) for the ICC Champions Trophy or Mini World Cup as it is also called which starts on September 12.

But star players from the various teams have balked at signing the ICC contracts because of a conflict with their own lucrative individual contracts.

Players like Sachin Tendulkar of India is a potential goldmine and is eagerly sought after by sponsors because of his appeal to the millions of young people in India.

Among the companies Tendulkar endorses are Visa, Adidas, Pepsi, Colgate, Phillips and Fiat. His captain, Saurav Ganguly, endorses Hero Honda while teammate Rahul Dravid endorses Castrol and Pepsi.

Ironically Pepsi and LG are two of the ICC?s sponsors for the Champions Trophy. There is no saying how much money these players will lose if they are unable to sign with their sponsors but one can only assume that the loss will be substantial.

This is where the problem lies. The players are unwilling to give up their lucrative endorsement contracts for the sum offered by the ICC. The ICC has secured US550m for commercial rights for all its events until 2007.

The ICC has distributed US$102 million to its affiliates. These cricket boards will in turn dispense this money to the players.

The ICC has argued that the players must decide between playing for cash or playing for country.
This is another problem that the ICC has on their hands. Unlike years ago when cricketers played for love of country and pride in representing one?s country took precedence over pesos, today?s cricketers are ruthless when it comes to gaining value for their money. The West Indies players revolt ahead of their inaugural tour of South Africa in 1998 is a clear example. Unlike yesteryear, cricket today means big bucks and the players now have agents vested with the task of wringing the most out of sponsors or other business ventures.

There is no easy solution. The ICC has used the phrase ?ambush marketing? to describe the current situation. They may well be right. For after all, if they have sought and received sponsorship for the event, then it is only fair that the sponsors get value for their money in terms of the stars being present.

But the players will argue that signing the ICC contract will impinge on their right to sign endorsement contracts that reward them well financially for their skill and popularity.
Michael Jordan, the great basketball player in the NBA used to earn more from Nike than he did from playing for the Chicago Bulls even though he was the highest paid athlete in the league but was never prevented by the NBA from doing so. In other words individual contracts with sponsors are outside of the control of governing bodies. Whether the situation can be resolved is anyone?s guess.

The two sides might have to seek a compromise. For after all the players popularity is greatly enhanced by them playing in ICC tournaments. They will stand to lose those very lucrative deals if they cannot play for their country. They need to think about that.

* Donald Duff is a Guyana-based sports journalist. He writes for the Stabroek News.