India news July 3, 2012

Why Indians don't play in foreign T20 tournaments

The BCCI invites overseas players to the IPL but does not allow Indian players to take part in foreign Twenty20 tournaments
36

The decision that Harbhajan Singh has signed to play for Essex during the second half of the county season is no surprise. With more than 12 months of international cricket at home looming, Harbhajan wants to win back his India place, and county cricket will give him the daily drill and discipline required to try and become a match-winning bowler once again.

The news that Harbhajan isn't playing the Friends Life t20 for Essex may well be lost in the wash. After all, it wasn't part of the original deal and Essex are struggling to qualify for the knockouts with only a week of games to go. What has happened in the recent past with Twenty20 and Indian players, though, is classic BCCI at work - in reverse, defending rather than attacking. While the world's players rush to the IPL waving NOCs from their boards, India's players aren't allowed to return the compliment.

ESPNcricinfo knows of at least seven Indian players who have been refused permission to play in Twenty20 leagues or events in other countries over the past few years. These include big-ticket names, India regulars, first-class stalwarts, fringe players, Twenty20 specialists, players centrally contracted to the BCCI and those that aren't. They can't be named for fear of being censured - either directly or subtly - by the board.

These players have been invited to the Big Bash in Australia, by clubs and franchises in South Africa, by counties in England, and by the Bangladesh Premier League teams. They have all been refused permission by the BCCI. The inaugural season of the Sri Lankan Premier League had to be postponed from 2011 to 2012 because the BCCI refused to send its players to the tournament, fearing it was secretly bankrolled by Lalit Modi. Tony Irish, the chief executive of the South African Cricketers Association, calls it an "unfair" equation.

The BCCI has done its best to ensure that Indian involvement in domestic Twenty20 matches is restricted to the IPL. Its principle is a simple protection of its assets in order to ensure no rival league will be able to lure their players away with larger pay-cheques. It has used the IPL's clout - 10% of the overseas cricketers' IPL contracts is directed to their boards - to ensure a diplomatic silence over the one-way traffic.

Similarly, the BCCI does whatever it can to keep its flock under control. Legally (see clause in the sidebar alongside), the players are free to take part in domestic Twenty20s elsewhere. All they need is "an express no-objection certificate from the IPL."

It is fairly standard practice. Players of other nations also need an NOC from their boards before they play overseas. The South African players' NOC is a four-way agreement between the board, the player, the South African Cricketers' Association and the overseas country's board or tournament. Clause 23 of a standard South African player contract states: "In the event that the cricketer wishes to enter into an overseas contract during the contract period, he should apply to CSA for a Non Objection Certificate in a reasonable period and in the prescribed form."

In England, the county player's contract is available on the Professional Cricketers' Association website with clause 2b allowing employment and engagement in the off season, "subject to the written consent of the Employer (not to be unreasonably withheld)."

Paul Marsh, of the Australian Cricketers Association, told ESPNcricinfo that Cricket Australia was obliged to grant permission to its players wanting to play in overseas T20 events, "outside the Australian summer, provided that the competition is recognised by the ICC member in the relevant country."

The NOC for players from England, Australia and South Africa stands for a largely accessible no-objection certificate. For Indian players, though, it stands for "no-chance".

The IPL contract is very carefully drafted (with what one lawyer called the NOC 'carve out') and is designed to preserve its status as the most sought after in world cricket. The issue is its implementation, which is with a heavy hand. The BCCI is not merely trying to keep its contracted players free from injury due to too much Twenty20. The memories of the injury-ridden 2011 tour of England are still fresh. All it is doing is protecting turf by ensuring that no Indian plays Twenty20 anywhere else.

Refusing to grant Indians permission to play everywhere is not illegal, but in this case, it is just wrong. Cricket is not an FMCG (fast-moving consumer good) business where monopolies are protected with oppressive fervour. Inviting all the world's cricketers in but refusing Indian cricketers the right to get out is feudal, shortsighted and overbearing.

The BCCI is doing more than denying the Indian cricketers earning opportunities. It is limiting the range of cricket experience that can be gathered by playing in different conditions, on varying wickets, against different opponents. Any short-term benefits are undermined by a long-term short-circuiting of skills.

Left-arm spinner Murali Kartik happens to be the only Indian in county cricket - now in his eighth season - and, with the BCCI's permission, has played all formats for Lancashire, Middlesex, Somerset and now Surrey. Should he be invited to play in only a Twenty20 competition elsewhere in the world, it is safe to assume, he will be refused permission.

What this shows is that India's cricketers have access to unprecedented earnings, as the main fund-generators for the BCCI, but not to many individual rights. Nor do they have the power of collective bargaining, having entered into a purely financial agreement with the board and their IPL franchise.

The issue also exposes the absence of a players' spokesman, especially when the IPL contract was being drafted. India doesn't have a players' association, even though every generation has tried. Compared to today, the days of Bishen Bedi asking for an increase in match fees, or the settlement between the board and six players who took it to the Indian Supreme Court in 1989, now look like days of healthy dissent.

In the post-IPL era, even a random, unverified and vociferously-denied rumour of a cricketer discussing an Indian players association can result in him being turfed out into the cold: an end to his prospects, even of a fair payment of wages. It is, in fact, what happened to one of the seven who was refused permission to play Twenty20 outside India.

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on July 6, 2012, 13:52 GMT

    only indian international players play 10-15 test matches and 30-40 odis.but the uncapped players hardly gets 6 ranji matches and 6-8 list A matches and most of them are affected by bad light. therefore the bcci should allow its players who are not in the national team to play in atleast county cricket where atleast 16 1st class matches are played in one season and 100 overs are bold everyday.we all know how dravid laxman sachin zaheer grown as test players after playing county cricket. there is no harm in allowing them to play county cricket as there in no match in indian domestic season from april to september.if bcci can allow them to play in ipl then why not 1st class cricket in other countries. bcci should increse the number of 1st class matches in india and 1st class teams should be reduced from 27 to 18/20 bcoz there is no point of havin 3 teams from one state like gujarat and any other states.

  • on July 6, 2012, 13:32 GMT

    that's the reason why indian team struggles in foreign condition . if bcci don't allow them now some of the young players like ambati rhydu , iqbal abdulla , manoj tiwari then the bcci will be i a huge trouble maybe 6-7 years from now

  • jay57870 on July 6, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    Sharda - BCCI has a competitive advantage in IPL! Why should they give it away? IPL was created & nurtured by BCCI alone to become the world's No 1 cricket league. The main beneficiaries are Indian players. It created a level playing field by opening up opportunities & spreading revenues to all corners of the nation. This year BCCI awarded monetary benefits of Rs 70 crores to former Indian Test/ODI players (which Sharda ignores). Is this "feudal, shortsighted and overbearing"? NO! Call it paternalistic, farsighted and down-to-earth! Credit BCCI for creating a successful self-sustaining enterprise: it must protect its assets & leverage its competitive advantage, especially players on its payrolls. The BCCI Way works! If there are major grievances, there's no hard evidence: Sharda's 1 out of 7 (rumoured) is not compelling! Widespread discontent can lead to players' associations. Like trade unions. Margaret Thatcher called it a "British Disease" & fought it! Why import it, Sharda?

  • bvnathan on July 5, 2012, 16:20 GMT

    It is frustrating to read the comments by fellow readers ... to ban Indian Players from playing T-20 tournaments outside India by BCCI. More than the money involoved, the biggest advantage is the opportunity to play in different conditions and fine tune your techniques. Let me ask a frank question - from the lots of Indian Crickteres playing IPL, how many will really qualify to play for National INDIA team, given the narrowness in the selection process. Toting that Indian players are paid very well in IPL and no need for them to pursue outside is a selfish motive of BCCI and against the interests of the players as individual to help in homing their skills.

  • on July 4, 2012, 16:28 GMT

    In INDIA Cricket is a craze. Indian players and part of foreign players for playing team in IPL get huze money (Unbelievable amount) which is not possible outside INDIA. It is a question of Economics.

  • ToTellUTheTruth on July 4, 2012, 14:12 GMT

    If Murli Karthick is allowed by the same BCCI, for over eight years, then where does one get to believe that the same BCCI is also dis-allowing others? What is so special about Karthick?

    As someone mentioned, the money paid in other countries is peanuts compared to what they get via IPL. Indian season is long, so what's wrong with the board trying to protect burn out of their players? And what do one learn from playing T20 anyway?

  • Sakthiivel on July 4, 2012, 14:12 GMT

    Indian players earns in huge trucks, what that other league going to give. Our players play more matches and we need them some rest.

  • Procter on July 4, 2012, 13:39 GMT

    Sharda is missing one big point. Money offered to Indian players in outside league will be peanuts compared what they earn in IPL. So none of the Indian auctioned players would want play for lower wages, anyway even if BCCI allowed them during Indisn off season. There is also no way BCCI should allow Indian players to play in foreign leagues clashing in schedule with either Indian FTP or domestic First Class or List A season.

  • joseyesu on July 4, 2012, 11:11 GMT

    Is there any interest for Dinesh Karthick, RP Singh, M.Patel, I.Pathan,Uthappa, Badrinath, Tiwary, Saha, Y.Pathan, Jadeja, I.Sharma, Aaron, M.Karthick, Ojha, A.Nehra?. I hope it is not so(Except 1 or 2), even it is there, these players are payed a lot better than other 2020 league and they are comfortable with that. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM

  • satish619chandar on July 4, 2012, 9:42 GMT

    @landl47 : Y0u never know what comes in future but saying "India can't compete after the Sachin era" can just be a opinion rather than a fact.. None expected Cook to blast away in Ashes or as ODI captain.. None expected Broad would have a huge turnaround once the "Enforcer" tag was removed.. Same applies to Swanny and Bresnan too.. Post Vaughan, England were going nowhere but clearly rose above and now are dominating across formats.. You never know where the next guy might come from.. Or who it will be.. And, the same thing was said when Kapil and Gavakar were nearing retirement.. Lets wait and watch after sometime..

  • on July 6, 2012, 13:52 GMT

    only indian international players play 10-15 test matches and 30-40 odis.but the uncapped players hardly gets 6 ranji matches and 6-8 list A matches and most of them are affected by bad light. therefore the bcci should allow its players who are not in the national team to play in atleast county cricket where atleast 16 1st class matches are played in one season and 100 overs are bold everyday.we all know how dravid laxman sachin zaheer grown as test players after playing county cricket. there is no harm in allowing them to play county cricket as there in no match in indian domestic season from april to september.if bcci can allow them to play in ipl then why not 1st class cricket in other countries. bcci should increse the number of 1st class matches in india and 1st class teams should be reduced from 27 to 18/20 bcoz there is no point of havin 3 teams from one state like gujarat and any other states.

  • on July 6, 2012, 13:32 GMT

    that's the reason why indian team struggles in foreign condition . if bcci don't allow them now some of the young players like ambati rhydu , iqbal abdulla , manoj tiwari then the bcci will be i a huge trouble maybe 6-7 years from now

  • jay57870 on July 6, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    Sharda - BCCI has a competitive advantage in IPL! Why should they give it away? IPL was created & nurtured by BCCI alone to become the world's No 1 cricket league. The main beneficiaries are Indian players. It created a level playing field by opening up opportunities & spreading revenues to all corners of the nation. This year BCCI awarded monetary benefits of Rs 70 crores to former Indian Test/ODI players (which Sharda ignores). Is this "feudal, shortsighted and overbearing"? NO! Call it paternalistic, farsighted and down-to-earth! Credit BCCI for creating a successful self-sustaining enterprise: it must protect its assets & leverage its competitive advantage, especially players on its payrolls. The BCCI Way works! If there are major grievances, there's no hard evidence: Sharda's 1 out of 7 (rumoured) is not compelling! Widespread discontent can lead to players' associations. Like trade unions. Margaret Thatcher called it a "British Disease" & fought it! Why import it, Sharda?

  • bvnathan on July 5, 2012, 16:20 GMT

    It is frustrating to read the comments by fellow readers ... to ban Indian Players from playing T-20 tournaments outside India by BCCI. More than the money involoved, the biggest advantage is the opportunity to play in different conditions and fine tune your techniques. Let me ask a frank question - from the lots of Indian Crickteres playing IPL, how many will really qualify to play for National INDIA team, given the narrowness in the selection process. Toting that Indian players are paid very well in IPL and no need for them to pursue outside is a selfish motive of BCCI and against the interests of the players as individual to help in homing their skills.

  • on July 4, 2012, 16:28 GMT

    In INDIA Cricket is a craze. Indian players and part of foreign players for playing team in IPL get huze money (Unbelievable amount) which is not possible outside INDIA. It is a question of Economics.

  • ToTellUTheTruth on July 4, 2012, 14:12 GMT

    If Murli Karthick is allowed by the same BCCI, for over eight years, then where does one get to believe that the same BCCI is also dis-allowing others? What is so special about Karthick?

    As someone mentioned, the money paid in other countries is peanuts compared to what they get via IPL. Indian season is long, so what's wrong with the board trying to protect burn out of their players? And what do one learn from playing T20 anyway?

  • Sakthiivel on July 4, 2012, 14:12 GMT

    Indian players earns in huge trucks, what that other league going to give. Our players play more matches and we need them some rest.

  • Procter on July 4, 2012, 13:39 GMT

    Sharda is missing one big point. Money offered to Indian players in outside league will be peanuts compared what they earn in IPL. So none of the Indian auctioned players would want play for lower wages, anyway even if BCCI allowed them during Indisn off season. There is also no way BCCI should allow Indian players to play in foreign leagues clashing in schedule with either Indian FTP or domestic First Class or List A season.

  • joseyesu on July 4, 2012, 11:11 GMT

    Is there any interest for Dinesh Karthick, RP Singh, M.Patel, I.Pathan,Uthappa, Badrinath, Tiwary, Saha, Y.Pathan, Jadeja, I.Sharma, Aaron, M.Karthick, Ojha, A.Nehra?. I hope it is not so(Except 1 or 2), even it is there, these players are payed a lot better than other 2020 league and they are comfortable with that. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THEM

  • satish619chandar on July 4, 2012, 9:42 GMT

    @landl47 : Y0u never know what comes in future but saying "India can't compete after the Sachin era" can just be a opinion rather than a fact.. None expected Cook to blast away in Ashes or as ODI captain.. None expected Broad would have a huge turnaround once the "Enforcer" tag was removed.. Same applies to Swanny and Bresnan too.. Post Vaughan, England were going nowhere but clearly rose above and now are dominating across formats.. You never know where the next guy might come from.. Or who it will be.. And, the same thing was said when Kapil and Gavakar were nearing retirement.. Lets wait and watch after sometime..

  • satish619chandar on July 4, 2012, 9:39 GMT

    @bobmartin : So, cricket will become a global sport without money? I would like to know the reasons certain boards had when they want to remove the associate nations and have a 10 team WC.. If they just want themselves to play cricket, how will the game evolve? Limit cricket to themselves? Indian team did poorly overseas last year and BCCI(for their own financial reasons) doesn't accept DRS.. But still, DRS is not used by the participating nations due to financial concerns..

  • logical_analyst on July 4, 2012, 9:18 GMT

    Excellent business acumen demonstrated by BCCI. Why do people complain when BCCI makes moves to protect its interests? They're in the business of making money. Why should BCCI leave IPL vulnerable to other leagues by releasing their high revenue generating assets (Indian cricketers)?

  • AbhijeetC on July 4, 2012, 9:05 GMT

    to be honest, it is insane by not allowing players to play in other T20 tournaments, Some fringe players like Ambati rayadu, utappa, pathan, Dhawan can generate great value by participating in those tournaments who have little chance to make to the India squad on consistent basis. Actually, I expected many Indian players to go elsewhere to play, when I first heard of BBL, BPL. Seriously, This definitely should happen some day, If not someone has to start the trend and everything will follow. If foreign players can play all competitions and earn good money, why can't Indian players play in all competitions....

  • i_witnessed_2011 on July 4, 2012, 8:28 GMT

    IPL is here to stay... and it is not all that bad... It is giving many youngsters the platform,revenue,exposure.But BCCI is right in not allowing its players to compete in other T20s. Because as it is T20 matches, it would not help much in improving their skills. Itwill just lure themfor more money. Off late, BCCI also realising that its players need to have experience out of IPL and India. I am sure we will see more Ind.A tours which will give its players to test their skills out of comfort zone. I think pitches in India also will be improved to make domestic matches more competative.

  • bobmartin on July 4, 2012, 8:25 GMT

    Posted by Dewansh Jaiswal on (July 03 2012, 20:04 PM GMT) "Surrounding BCCI all over the web thanks to Mr.tony grieg. BCCI is the landmark of all cricketing boards,its them who have got its players in a place where they can compare their finances with the likes of messi's, n rooney's when it comes to commercial value". You've hit the nail well and firmly on the head... That's all this is about... Money.. Money... Money. Nothing to do with cricket or the advancement of the game..Is it any wonder that Indian cricket... the real game, not the Mickey Mouse rubbish that parades as cricket.. is going down the drain..

  • satish619chandar on July 4, 2012, 7:24 GMT

    Let us think differently.. 1. Indians are already earning in leaps and bounds comparig to others in IPL.. 2. Already Indians play over cricket and doesn't necessarily play in foreign leagues.. 3. We already blame our players for bad performance due to IPL but still want them to play in global leagues? My opinion is, we need our prime players for sure to be saved from overkill(which is already there).. May be, the fringe players can play in foreign leagues but they need to be comfortable in using the second fiddle in their teams..

  • on July 4, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    Its high time the leading stalwarts of the game, someone of the stature of Sachin or a Sehwag or a Dhoni took the cause forward, and formed an all-powerful players association. This is pathetic indeed.

  • .Raina on July 4, 2012, 4:25 GMT

    Offering players the option to decide on their cricketing career would always be a welcome move for the players worldwide. But unfortunately, cricket hasn't been 'governed' like that ever in its history by any country. It has always been 'high-handed' you-follow-my-rules-or-else. We probably wouldn't have had a need to have World Series 'Rebel' Cricket, if the cricket boards would have seen what KPacker saw. Cricketers would have been better off as a whole then too, and there wouldn't have been a loss of a near generation of 'good' cricketers. 'High-handedness' has worked when there wasn't much money in the game but with so many business-models mushrooming, it is just a matter of time before 'freelance' cricketers become common. There won't be many Rajinder Goels or even David Hussey / Brad Hodges who will continue to play 'domestic' cricket just for the love of it, without even being considered for a national setup. And International 'option' would be better for the 'game' itself!!!

  • landl47 on July 4, 2012, 3:56 GMT

    No real problem. Only a few Indian players are good enough now to get contracts elsewhere and that number is shrinking every year. Already the Indian team is being hammered out of sight by England and Australia and that's with Tendulkar & co. Once they are gone India won't even be competitive. Hardly anyone has heard of most of the Indian domestic players and the BCCI's position will keep it that way. In the longer term, the losers will be the Indian players and ultimately the BCCI. Sad, but that's the way the BCCI wants it.

  • on July 4, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    As usual, the midway is forgotten. BCCI has taken this stance due to many 'murmurs' over heard in the media about 'too much' cricket for national players and the injuries etc. . On the other hand, there are lot of players who are not in the national team and can play more cricket. So why cant BCCI allow some players? That will actually work for Indian cricket in building the second string and it wont expose so called 'asset'. But in India, it is always extreme.

  • praveen4honestremark on July 4, 2012, 3:21 GMT

    @ Anwar Usman....'If all these foreign "greedy" cricketers say no, IPL is dead' Rightly pointed out. But one more important thing above all. If IPL dies all foreign players who are playing will not have salaries. See Srilankan board; they haven't paid salaries from months and many Srilankan players in IPL were rescued by IPL money. With out IPL BCCI will survive nicely, no probelm at all. We are crores in number to see International matches and recently Pakistan(PCB) has come asking BCCI for Pak-Indo matches . All boards try to play with us for revenues.. BCCI will we okay any time with or with out IPL and can give its players nice salaries. The real problem is with out IPL players from other countries like Srilanka will find hard to play in International arena with out salaries for months.

  • on July 4, 2012, 0:58 GMT

    Common awesome, you are bluster. Your analogies of Boeing, Microsoft, Intel et al is rubbish. Cricket ia a sport like baseball, basketball, football, hockey etc. They all have unions, who protect the players ( these are your so-called intellectual assets). Since when did fascism mix with capitalism. Even the bastion of capitalism (USA) does not allow monoplies. There are strong anti-trust rules. Indians emulate hollywood and american capitalism, when it comes to greed, yeah sure, change the rules. If all these foreign "greedy" cricketers say no, IPL is dead. Why did they outlaw and bar the other league (ICL or whatever). It's pure crony-ism, arm-twisting. We will not allow competition!!!!

  • on July 4, 2012, 0:47 GMT

    I don't have problem with BCCI for not allowing it's players to play T20 leagues around the world. With already too much T20 played by Indian cricketers its better to protect them from other leagues. But i wish BCCI grants permission to play 4 day cricket & ODI in England, SA, NZ & Australia. Players like Suresh Raina, Rohit Sharma, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Vinay Kumar, A.Mihtun, Piyush Chalwa, Dinesh Karthik, Badrinath, M.Vijay, Robin Uttappa, Manish Pandey and many others would benefit from such opportunities. We know where ever, which ever format our players play, average Indian cricket fan would follow them which would be beneficial for teams as well....

  • praveen4honestremark on July 4, 2012, 0:46 GMT

    Players like Murali Karthik has played county and Harbhajan singh has now signed for Essex. BCCI may have objected few players but not all. I think it was before IPL was invented players thought of going out to play; they should have been given permission but having said that when we can make our Ranji trophy standard and our pitches of different variety in so big country why to go else where. Players from small countries like Srilanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan if think then it is fair, but not we Indian players. We have enough competition, grounds and all and now even IPL has changed everything now, all the international standard competitions and we can now see our players with foreign players. When everything is at our doorstep, why to go elsewhere?? Now, so this is simple answer for this article. When i am reading this i felt whether some other county has requested Sharada to write and article to attract Indian payers. Failed attempt.

  • Farce-Follower on July 4, 2012, 0:13 GMT

    The Indians in the group are missing the point. When you are the leader, it does not pay to be arrogant. Nothing lasts forever. We are in the 21st century. There are choices and technology delivers them to us. What if the next generation of Indian kids dump cricket? Can the BCCI shut out NBA broadcasts in their IPADS? This position is so feudal and outdated. This is what happens when politicians take to sports administration.

  • SanjivAwesome on July 3, 2012, 21:24 GMT

    I don't have sympathy for Sharda's point of view. The present arrangements showcase that BCCI is being run by really smart businessmen - we should be celeberating their foresight rather than overlaying some meaningless social-responsibility-global-village rubbish. Sharda, all successful multi-nationals protect their intellectual property very carefully - like Microsoft, KFC, Boeing, Intel. For once, I actually like what BCCI is doing here.

  • sk12 on July 3, 2012, 21:16 GMT

    It may be monopoly, but its actually good for the game I feel. It would keep the mushrooming of PLs in check. if ever the visiting countries decide to retaliate by stopping their players (how I wish this would happen; sigh), the IPL circus would soon die off too. Your argument that playing these T20 overseas leagues would help our players get better is so wrong. County or Sheffield games yes, but big bash, bpl? really?? Even with all the IPL experience, you think our team has any chance in the T20 WC in very similar conditions later this year?

  • on July 3, 2012, 20:04 GMT

    Is it not restrictive trade practise? Hope someone would sue their ***.

  • on July 3, 2012, 20:04 GMT

    Will barca allow messi to go and play for say la galaxy! How can one expect then that IPL teams will allow its contracted players to play for other clubs!!! Also there seems to be an air of negativity Surrounding BCCI all over the web thanks to Mr.tony grieg. BCCI is the landmark of all cricketing boards,its them who have got its players in a place where they can compare their finances with the likes of messi's, n rooney's when it comes to commercial value.

  • cric_fanatics on July 3, 2012, 19:17 GMT

    Maybe that player is ASHISH NEHRA.

  • on July 3, 2012, 18:40 GMT

    @ arun , i think that is about Murali Karthik

  • rssampat on July 3, 2012, 17:58 GMT

    And websites like cricinfo also run scared of the BCCI to complete the charade.

    Why does cricinfo fear to publish the names of the seven, and the one in particular?

  • on July 3, 2012, 17:19 GMT

    The main reason is if Indian players play then it will also popular.So BCCI does not give the players opportunity to play outside.

  • meck on July 3, 2012, 17:04 GMT

    good article by sharda...but upto some extend i m not agree...there is no need for indian players to play overseas in home leagues...as the cricket calender is already packed with back to back series..and in that case the players will be playing for full 12th months..we the audience and the editor forget that those 11 players are human just like us not a machine..and we want them to play for all 12 months for entertainment and for some senseless articles.. dont force them to play for all 12th months...they also have thier family and want to spend with them..not like a editor lady who used to b at home for 24hrs and write a totally senseless article...

  • Rahul_Vasudevan on July 3, 2012, 16:53 GMT

    But look at it from another perspective.The commercial value of other leagues around the world would increase if Indian players participate.That would allow other leagues to command competitive salary. Currently the IPL is the only league that requires a window to protect club v country decisions. If other leagues also provide huge salaries (as a result of Indian participation) then the club v country issues would become unsustainable

  • arun_padmanabhan on July 3, 2012, 16:41 GMT

    Wonder who Sharda is referring to in the last paragraph! The Turbanator, maybe??

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • arun_padmanabhan on July 3, 2012, 16:41 GMT

    Wonder who Sharda is referring to in the last paragraph! The Turbanator, maybe??

  • Rahul_Vasudevan on July 3, 2012, 16:53 GMT

    But look at it from another perspective.The commercial value of other leagues around the world would increase if Indian players participate.That would allow other leagues to command competitive salary. Currently the IPL is the only league that requires a window to protect club v country decisions. If other leagues also provide huge salaries (as a result of Indian participation) then the club v country issues would become unsustainable

  • meck on July 3, 2012, 17:04 GMT

    good article by sharda...but upto some extend i m not agree...there is no need for indian players to play overseas in home leagues...as the cricket calender is already packed with back to back series..and in that case the players will be playing for full 12th months..we the audience and the editor forget that those 11 players are human just like us not a machine..and we want them to play for all 12 months for entertainment and for some senseless articles.. dont force them to play for all 12th months...they also have thier family and want to spend with them..not like a editor lady who used to b at home for 24hrs and write a totally senseless article...

  • on July 3, 2012, 17:19 GMT

    The main reason is if Indian players play then it will also popular.So BCCI does not give the players opportunity to play outside.

  • rssampat on July 3, 2012, 17:58 GMT

    And websites like cricinfo also run scared of the BCCI to complete the charade.

    Why does cricinfo fear to publish the names of the seven, and the one in particular?

  • on July 3, 2012, 18:40 GMT

    @ arun , i think that is about Murali Karthik

  • cric_fanatics on July 3, 2012, 19:17 GMT

    Maybe that player is ASHISH NEHRA.

  • on July 3, 2012, 20:04 GMT

    Will barca allow messi to go and play for say la galaxy! How can one expect then that IPL teams will allow its contracted players to play for other clubs!!! Also there seems to be an air of negativity Surrounding BCCI all over the web thanks to Mr.tony grieg. BCCI is the landmark of all cricketing boards,its them who have got its players in a place where they can compare their finances with the likes of messi's, n rooney's when it comes to commercial value.

  • on July 3, 2012, 20:04 GMT

    Is it not restrictive trade practise? Hope someone would sue their ***.

  • sk12 on July 3, 2012, 21:16 GMT

    It may be monopoly, but its actually good for the game I feel. It would keep the mushrooming of PLs in check. if ever the visiting countries decide to retaliate by stopping their players (how I wish this would happen; sigh), the IPL circus would soon die off too. Your argument that playing these T20 overseas leagues would help our players get better is so wrong. County or Sheffield games yes, but big bash, bpl? really?? Even with all the IPL experience, you think our team has any chance in the T20 WC in very similar conditions later this year?