| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Video & Audio | Games | Mobile | |||||||||||||||||||||
Indian Premier League 2009 / News
|
Indian Premier League 2009
IPL keeps players' body out of security arrangements
Ajay S Shankar
March 9, 2009
 |
|||
|
|||
 |
The IPL appears to be headed for a showdown with the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA), the influential players' lobby group, after rejecting its proposal to involve FICA representatives in fixing the tournament's security cover. The IPL has instead suggested that overseas players address their concerns through the league, its franchises or their respective home boards.
Tim May, FICA's chief executive, has warned that the umbrella body will now find it difficult to provide a "positive report" for players who seek its advice on their safety during the tournament in April following the Lahore attack on the Sri Lankan team last week. The IPL's decision was conveyed to May over phone late last week by Sundar Raman, the league's chief executive.
The tussle between the IPL and FICA is bound to cloud the decision-making process of overseas players some of whom, like England's Kevin Pietersen and New Zealand's Jacob Oram, have said they would play in the tournament only after seeking an independent security assessment. FICA has on its membership rolls players' representatives from all Test-playing countries except India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
"If players are not able to review the security procedures, then FICA will only be able to provide advice on the 'threat assessment' of the event," May said. "FICA will be unable to provide any comfort regarding 'security measures' that may mitigate these risks/threats due to the lack of disclosure of IPL. It will certainly make it more difficult for us to provide a positive report for the players."
IPL's Raman said the league was following the Chennai template of last year, under which England agreed to return to India in December for the two-Test series two weeks after the Mumbai attacks and played the first Test in Chennai under a security cover that included 1,500 local policemen and 150 central security personnel.
Sources in the BCCI, which runs the IPL, say the league told FICA it would address all players' concerns of but only if they directed their queries to the IPL, its franchises or their home boards.
However, May was categorical in rejecting the IPL's view. "The problem with the IPL approach is that, one, some governing bodies do not want to be involved in determining the security risk and have publicly stated this and, two, players are not experts in security matters," May said. "The IPL 'solution' does not allow the players to review these measures and to be able to appoint the representative that they want to perform this function."
Meanwhile, FICA's request for involvement in the IPL's security plan has received strong backing from two of its key constituents: the players' associations from Sri Lanka, which is still reeling under the Lahore attack, and England, whose players will be making their IPL debut next month.
While the Sri Lanka Cricketers' Association (SLCA) said it hoped the IPL would sort out matters with FICA, England's Professional Cricketers Association (PCA) said there would be a "significantly higher level of reluctance" among players to play in the IPL without FICA's involvement in its security.
"Yes, we would like to have FICA involved as an independent body that can act on behalf of all player associations," Sean Morris, the PCA chief executive, said. "The players have confidence in FICA. International players are used to player representatives working with governing bodies in reviewing security arrangements for bilateral tours and ICC events; they derive a significant amount of comfort from the involvement and advice of the player association. Without such comfort, there would undoubtedly be a significantly higher level of reluctance to participate in such tours."
"We are sure that the IPL will sort out all issues with FICA," Graeme Labrooy, the SLCA chief executive, said. "Sri Lankan players are still recovering psychologically from the Lahore attack but they are very positive on travelling to India for the IPL. However, we are also looking at external security advice and we have some specific questions to ask regarding security."
Morris said he had spoken briefly to several England players about the security situation for the IPL. "They are concerned but want to wait for the security reports to be conducted before committing either way," he said. Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff are the top draws at this IPL starting on April 10 and will lead a contingent of six England players including Paul Collingwood, Owais Shah, Ravi Bopara and Dimitri Mascarenhas.
Ajay Shankar is deputy editor of Cricinfo
Feeds: Ajay S Shankar
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Ajay S Shankar
Related Links
News : Players' associations slam IPL shut-out
News : Pietersen voices security concerns over IPL
News : IPL to look at additional venues
News : BCCI needs to talk with players' reps - Mills
News : Australian players jittery over IPL
News : ECB to monitor security ahead of IPL
News : Lahore casts IPL shadow in New Zealand
News : Unease growing over IPL
News : Pietersen voices security concerns over IPL
News : IPL to look at additional venues
News : BCCI needs to talk with players' reps - Mills
News : Australian players jittery over IPL
News : ECB to monitor security ahead of IPL
News : Lahore casts IPL shadow in New Zealand
News : Unease growing over IPL
In Focus:
Security concerns
Players/Officials:
Tim May
| Lalit Modi
Series/Tournaments:
Indian Premier League
Tournament Results
Bangalore v Super Kings at Johannesburg
- May 23, 2009
Bangalore won by 6 wickets (with 7 balls remaining)
More results »
Bangalore won by 6 wickets (with 7 balls remaining)
Sponsored Links
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
FREE copy of Playfair with Wisden pre-order
At Cricshop.com
all these people saying what would fica know about fighting terrorisim? i would say just about as much as the bcci or the ipl would! ill stand corrected if wrong but to my knowledge lati modi has just as much expertise as tim may in fighting extreamists! fica are like a union for cricketers they want to ensure a safe work place for their members! i dont know how industrial relations are handeled in india but this is how the developed world's workforce works! the union represents the workers when dealing with the big boss in matters of worker safety etc. this is no different in sport!
Posted by plsn on (March 11 2009, 02:05 AM GMT)So,...what was fica's report on security in Lahore? Or did it happen because they were not consulted? Or in spite of being consulted? What do these stalwarts have to say?
Posted by plsn on (March 11 2009, 01:54 AM GMT)my earlier comment was not posted. I said FICA has no business in IPL b'coz it is not a board vs board series. Individual players wanting to make a fast buck offered their services with a free will. Nobody is forcing them. If they feel insecure, they need not go to India. And, do you really think IPL can afford not to provide the top-most security to all players involved? In India, the authorities are not hand-in-glove with terrorists. That is why, even if there is an attack, the terrorists are caught or killed. You just can't link terrorism in one country to that in another.
Posted by abinanthan on (March 10 2009, 10:31 AM GMT)People who accuse IPL of ignoring the players safety by not including FICA in the process should prove that how the respective home boards and franchise of those players are inferior to FICA. IPL board is formally in contact with each national board regarding a player's participation in IPL. A franchise has invested money in players and hence they have all the interest in them. Besides FICA is not an expert in handling security. They need a third party's help. So does the national board or the franchise. FICA can simply pass on its suggestion to the board/franchise rather than be a part of IPL's team.
Posted by Alex72 on (March 10 2009, 10:05 AM GMT)England gave the world the disease of Trade Unionism. Now under the disguise of security a cheap attempt is being made to unionize Cricket. FICA wanting a Veto over IPL security by fear mongering and playing politics with security is as despicable a tactics as it gets. FICA involvement will change nothing; security will be tight because it's in the interest of India to have an incident free IPL. I would never want to rely on vested interests like FICA for my security. Financial interests dictate only one thing, highest security. Any unfortunate terrorist incident will destroy investments like nothing else. No investor in IPL is invested for one tournament. IPL is a long term bet and it's in the interest of every stake holder to have a fool proof secure tournament. FICA should stop playing politics with security. Srivastav
Posted by JimiAbraham on (March 10 2009, 09:32 AM GMT)As a lot of you have said, Why should FICA have anything at all to do with security in India? FICA are not experts on terrorism and prevention of attacks. Indian cricketers be it, International or Domestic aren't even represented by FICA either. They have no business in India. If the players have any concerns about security for the IPL they can do this " The IPL has instead suggested that overseas players address their concerns through the league, its franchises or their respective home boards." You can be assured what security is provided for all the Indian cricketers will be sufficient for the International players! Seriously have you foriegners even seen that kind of security? It's insane, freddie, KP and Oram will be fine. FICA really does just want a piece of the IPL somosa.
Posted by abinanthan on (March 10 2009, 07:39 AM GMT)Since the non-indian players are already members of FICA, why doesnt the body assess the situation on its own? Why it wants IPL management to work along with FICA? FICA just wants their share of politics in IPL. IPL is correct in ignoring FICA. It makes sense to ask the players to raise their concern through their home board or franchise. If FICA wants to help the players, it should be on its own not with IPL's involvement.
Posted by preempalaver on (March 10 2009, 07:31 AM GMT)Why should FICA have any say on security ? Are they experts ? If they are hiring a private agency has that agency any expertise on Jihadi terror .The only countries who have faced and are fighting jihadi terrorism are India USA & Israel.FICA is certainly not going to employ anyone from these countries. As far as the threat is concerned it is Indian players who are under constant terrorist threats - and thats why they are provided with 24x7 security .What can FICA do about it ? Foreigners are living in a dream world if they feel that Ithe IPL cannot go along without them .Peterson & Flintof may be the highest paid players but the biggest draws are Indian and to an extent Pakistani players.No foreign player with the exception of Shane Warne was a big draw - and he is coming back. FICA if it has the guts advise its players that they cannot advise their members to play in India as the security is bad .but have they the guts ? P.S. Is the UK safe ? 3 armymen were killed by the IRA .
Posted by Brendanvio on (March 10 2009, 07:24 AM GMT)I fail to see what people are getting so nationalistic about. The FICA wants to ensure its members' safety and if they want to have security reviewed they should be allowed access, not be given BCCI/IPL spin. This is beyond political boundaries now as the welfare of sportsmen seeking to give entertainment is put at risk. Can anyone prove that another Mumbai incident will not happen during the IPL? About as much as I can prove that Australia is completely free of terrorism. I have a feeling that the fact no Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi players are members of the FICa is that their respective boards want complete control over their players and don't want they would consider an 'interfering' influence. The sportsmen have rights too, they are earning their cricket boards money! If they are unsafe, they have a right to pull out. If naysayers believe the IPL is better off without them, good luck to you. Then it simply becomes an Indian domestic comp without marquee players.
Posted by popcorn on (March 10 2009, 07:24 AM GMT)It is pretty obvious that IPL and BCCI have zero regard for the security concerns of the players. They want to gloss over the concerns, because their only concern is the loss of revenue in case the IPL is scrapped - loss of life be damned.What level of assurance is enough? Nothing less than 100%. FICA has the players interests in mind - the fact that IPL does not recognize this is an obvious indication that they do not want to hear any pessimism. The Chennai Template that IPL boasts about is not the be all and end all of Security provision. It is clear,that,like a Computer Virus that needs continuous upgradation of Security provision, after the Lahore attacks,Security upgradation is a must. I fail to see why Reg Dickason cannot be on the Security Board for IPL. Players who opt to play for IPL, and those who choose to go to the Stadiums to watch the matches live,need to be very careful.