WIPA is a source of problem
Commentary by JOHN A. PINNOCKGiven the level of ineptitude, lack of accountability, and what can simply be described as a dereliction of its duty, it is very easy, and quite frankly, politically correct to criticize and ridicule the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB). Indeed, as one who had to bargain with them on a few occasions, you will find no sympathy coming from me.
However, it must also be noted that the fiasco that we are experiencing from the protracted negotiations between the WICB and the West Indies Players Association (WIPA) cannot be placed solely at the feet of the WICB. Instead, the WIPA is culpable in a number of ways, and unless it moves to implement some changes in the way it operates, it will continue to find itself more a source of the problem than the solution. Before going any further, it must be acknowledged that WIPA has a huge public relations problem. Without passing judgment on the merits of its dispute with the WICB, it must be noted that it is an established fact that its president, Dinanath Ramnarine, is perceived throughout the cricket world as a militant leader who is prepared to throw out the baby with the bath water when dealing with the cricket board. Whereas fans are inclined to sympathize with players on issues with the board, they do not like the idea of strikes or the threat of industrial actions. Sport fans all over the world like to see their stars perform on the field and can be very unforgiving when they are denied the pleasure of enjoying them play.
As a players’ union, WIPA must never lose sight of its charter. Simply put, by its very existence, it is bound to have an antagonistic relationship with the West Indies Cricket Board. That is why it boggled the minds of many when the union accepted an invitation from Julian Hunte and the WICB for its president to join the WICB as a non-voting director. In making the offer, the WICB made no promise of improving operational procedures, nor gave any indication that its Factory Road headquarters would begin the process of transforming the board into a professional outfit. The simplest and unsophisticated minds could see right through the motive of the board. They merely wanted to silence the players’ association by making its president “one of them”.
That the president would fall for such a trap by joining the “old boys’ network” was bothersome and suggested to many that the leader of the union was willing to ignore the justifiable and perennial distrust that its rank and file have for the board . Yes, Mr. Ramnarine eventually resigned; but we are still left with the lingering question of how much we can trust his judgment. Today, it’s hard for many of us to support a strike call against the WICB from a leader who just hours before was part and parcel of the very board. This is as close to hypocrisy as one could ever get while denying such.
For the WIPA to be relevant and serve each of its members fairly, it must reconstitute itself. Fifty years ago when all we had was domestic and test cricket, WIPA would be more practical. Today, with the IPL, the ICL, and until recently the Stanford Twenty/20, the marketing and the representation of players must take on a different dimension. WIPA must now take on a role that is similar to players’ associations that represent NFL players, NBA players, and Major League Baseball players etc.
In other words, they can negotiate with the board on issues like how contracts are guaranteed, pension benefits and so on. However, it is now time for the players union to get out of negotiating retainer contracts for all its members and deciding how much players make on each tour. Rather, the time has come for each player to have an independent representative/agent who will market his skills to the WICB, the IPL, the ICL and any entity that finds value in his ability.
Currently, WIPA negotiates players’ salary based on how many test matches they have played. There is no allowance for a player’s performance or how much value he brings to the team. Therefore, a bowler like Daren Powell with 37 test matches will make more money on a tour than Jerome Taylor with 26 test matches. Likewise, should Darren Ganga be inserted into the team at this stage with his 48 test matches, he would conceivably earn more than Dwayne Bravo or Fidel Edwards with 31 and 41 test matches respectively. This system is inherently unfair and can severely affect the morale of the team.
Let’s face it, whatever amount is agreed to with the board it is bound to leave one party feeling shafted. The board will feel that it is paying Powell more than he is worth or Bravo will be left believing that his value to the team is no more significant than Ganga’s. It is human nature – with collective bargaining of this nature, there is no getting around that flaw. It’s time for the one size fits all policy to be discarded.
When WIPA orders a strike it is invariably hurting the vast majority of its players. Stars like Gayle, Chanderpaul, Taylor and others with huge IPL contracts and winnings from the Stanford Twenty/20 can afford to strike. But they represent less than 2 percent of WIPA’s membership. Therefore, if Ramnarine declares a strike because the WICB refuses to grant the IPL members No Objection Certificates (NOC), how does such a strike benefit players like Simmons, Devon Smith and others who don’t have IPL contracts, were never a part of the Sanford Twenty/20, and are not regulars on the W.I. team where they need to ply their trade in hopes of one day securing an IPL contract?
In this connection, I must also note that the existence and operation of Ramnarine’s private company (the commercial arm of WIPA) also create room for suspicion of a conflict of interest. Since he acts as an agent for several of the IPL players, he stands to gain a significant return from them boycotting the England tour so that the few IPL players can earn their big pay day. So while less than 2% of its members and Mr. Ramnarine are earning thousands of dollars, the vast majority of WIPA’s membership would be asked to sit home and support a boycott that leaves them wondering from whence their next mortgage payment will come. There is something gravely wrong with this picture.
The idea of demanding retainer contracts for the players in the pool appears unfair. It is almost analogous to a child demanding that his parents pay him a salary while he looks for a job, even after they invested thousands of dollars in him by sending him to grade school, college and law school. Currently, the WICB is the entity that is responsible for developing the players’ pool. They set up and finance the under 15, under 19, one day and 4-day tournaments, and the occasional A-team. In as much as there is plenty of areas for improvement, it is nevertheless the system that we have in place. It therefore comes across as unfair that after investing so heavily in these players, WIPA signs them up and start using heavy handed tactics to negotiate their services with the WICB.
The proper thing for WIPA to do is find young cricketing talent early, implement a structured competition that highlights the talent and skills of its players/members and then establish a system where players will secure independent agents who will market their services to their local boards, the WICB, the IPL, the ICL, and possibly the proposed American Cricket League. The fees WIPA gets from these secured contracts could fund the union. In other words, WIPA will have its own pool of players who are not beholden to the WICB and whose services they can market to any entity without having to secure NOCs. Salary issues will automatically become less contentious as the WICB will find itself competing in the open market for proven talent. They (WICB) might even end up liking this system more, since they will no longer be expected to pay steak (Taylor) rate for ground beef (Powell).
Failure to consider the above, the players’ association is destined to perpetuate the dysfunctional relationship that it currently enjoys with the WICB. After seeing what Hunte and the board have done with the thoroughly thought out and sensible suggestions coming out of the Patterson Commission, one cannot help but conclude that this board is determined to fight progress, professionalism and transparency at any cost, while its leaders treat the organization as a fiefdom. Should it continue in its current form, the players’ association risks losing the support of the fans, since the only weapon it has at its disposal is the strike tool and many will conclude that in light of the current salary set-up a strike is bound to unfairly impact the vast majority of its membership.
* John A. Pinnock is a former agent for Marlon Samuels and has done work for Brian Lara and other W.I. players. He is also heavily involved with identifying young cricket talent throughout the West Indies.