It's Not Cricket
On Friday March 11, 2005, the President of the WICB announced that seven leading cricketers including Brian Lara, Ramnaresh Sarwan and Chris Gayle would not be considered for selection until their private contracts with Cable & Wireless were properly inspected.
I was very unhappy that the WICB failed to uphold Justice Saunders? correct interpretation of Clause 1K, as well as the seeming influence of the new sponsor on the selection of our team. On the other hand, I was more than a little shocked that Brian Lara was included on that list. After all, Brian Lara has a Personal Endorsement Contract with Cable and Wireless dating from 2003. This contract received the full blessing of the said WICB ? with option to renew. Clearly the board knew what was in that contract.
One week later, on Thursday March 17th, the Board issued a release stating that Brian Lara had been cleared by the West Indies Cricket Board to play in the upcoming home series against South Africa because his endorsement deal with Cable & Wireless was considered "pre-existing."
I quote from the release:
At that time, the Board had taken a decision not to consider for selection the players with personal endorsement contracts with Cable & Wireless until such time as the Board could be satisfied that these contracts were unquestionably in the nature of individual contracts and contained no provisions which could be construed as passing off by the player of his connection with the West Indies Team by attribution or by defining himself as a member of the team. The personal endorsement contracts were subsequently submitted to the Board's legal counsel on Friday 11 March.
On the afternoon of Thursday 17 March, the Board, acting upon the opinion of counsel, advised the selectors that only Lara of the seven players with personal endorsement contracts was eligible for selection. The Board's legal counsel advised that Lara's contract with Cable and Wireless, which was signed in 2003 and expires in September 2005 was deemed as pre-existing and this therefore made him eligible for selection at this time.
What really went on here? Did the WICB not bless the contract which is ?pre-existing?? Why did Mr Griffith and his Board not honour the contract and include Brian among the 22? Did they need lawyers to tell them what we all knew and stated publicly ?that whatever else they were arguing about, Lara?s contract with C&W was 100% valid and his selection should certainly have been more secure than the likelihood of a West Indian player?s paycheck arriving on time.
On what basis was Lara among the original list of persons excluded from selection in the original 22? The WICB knew exactly what was in the contract signed by Brian Lara in 2003. By excluding him from the squad on March 11th, the Board made a mess of things - clearly a restraint of trade. By including him as an afterthought with 24 hours to make a decision, they not only insulted our living icon, but also exposed their own incompetence in such matters.
Was Lara penalized for refusing to let Digicel buy out his ?Board sanctioned? C&W contract? And when the board decides in future to change sponsors, should other players with PEs not assume that it will be the whims of the WICB and the new sponsor, rather than negotiations with the Players Associations and a pre-determined process, that decide whether they too will suffer a similar fate. And who is a part time employer to tell any player what they can and cannot sign? Part-time employers merely present part-time contracts and tell their contract workers what is required for the duration of employment with them. That is all that was required here from day one because Clause 1K has teeth in the court of law.
Of course when over-zealous sponsor?s representatives offer players money to perform sponsor?s requests outside of agreed contracts, players do have the right to refuse. I mean they would not offer money if these requests were part of agreed contracts, would they?
The lawyers probably warned the board that there were legal implications for violating a contract that they blessed. Based on player rights in global sport and based on letters floating around the region, I suspect the WICB lawyers will be really busy for while. I hope the new sponsor takes them out of the red, for they sure are going to need a lot of money in the not too distant future.
Lara made the correct decision yesterday ? he neither said yes or no to this last minute insult re selection. He merely sent the board a proposal that included the one issue that matters to West Indian fans who understand the implications of this dangerous new approach to selection policy ? the best team must play for the West Indies. In the tradition of Worrell and Lloyd, he stood by the six ostracized players.
Thank you Brian ? it?s always best to take up your bat and walk rather than play when the match is rigged. In this game, fair play, sportsmanship and basic decency have been flung threw the window in the name of thirty pieces of silver from a company that does not recognize workers rights anywhere in our region. I only hope other players follow suit and let the Directors and their hand picked CEO take the field this series. Hopefully we could find an umpire who can understand the rules of the games these people play. One thing the umpire will know for sure is that ?it is not cricket?.
When the question is asked re who did more to keep West Indies cricket on the map ? the board or Brian Lara, fans of world cricket know the answer. Would that the Board could run cricket the way Lara plays the game. After all as the late Bill Crombie used to say at the end of sports news in Guyana, ?it?s not whether you win or lose that counts, it?s how you play the game that matters?.
Well played Brian Lara ? I trust there are a few more classy innings left. For those we?ll insist on neutral umpires.
* Dr Christine Cummings is a Lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Among her courses are Sports, Politics and Society and Media and Sport. Her primary area of research is The Politics of West Indies Cricket
.