Back into oblivion?

Poor ambassador? Or hard-nosed businessman? © Getty Images Enlarge

At the heart of the current contretemps unravelling around West Indies cricket lurk some deeply-shadowed issues that might still tell us where cricket has come internationally as a profession in a globalised world. The news coming out of the leaked report of Digicel's group sponsorship manager, Richard Nowell, centred around his comments that the West Indies team on their Australian tour were surly "ambassadors", womanisers, and uncooperative with their new sponsors, Digicel.

The commentary however, focused more grimly on the prospects hinted at by Nowell, in stating that Digicel was getting poor value for money and indeed would have to wait a long time before it got any kind of returns on its investment. What would it mean for West Indies cricket, in light of the fact that the West Indies Cricket Board has declared itself facing a loss of a few million dollars for the financial year? What would it mean given that Cable & Wireless, its main sponsor for nearly 18 years, has been replaced by a major rival, and has since been locking horns with them through the bodies of the players?

According to the Barbadian Tony Cozier, the "next step is back into oblivion", while his Jamaican counterpart, Tony Becca, feels it could be "the end" of West Indies cricket. Both men have located the outcome of Digicel's possible exit and the improbability of another major sponsor turning up any time soon as spelling out the gravestones for an international team, because they see only emptiness in the WICB coffers.

What they also know is that no player is going to play for anything less than he feels he is worth, whether that is reasonable or not in other eyes. There can be no talk of playing for the love of the nation, for that concept couldn't cast a shadow in today's environment. In that context, then, the events surrounding the Digicel report - the responses and expectations of players, sponsors, cricket boards and players' associations - say a lot about how money has become the centre of international cricket.

Ever since the Digicel deal with the WICB became known, the reportage has included the information that the Irish telecommunications firm was the biggest sponsor the game had ever known in the West Indies. When its figure of US$20million over five years is stated, it is always placed against the annual figure that Cable & Wireless had contributed, just over US$3million. The eyes see Digicel's 20 as compared with C&W's three, a little marketing sleight of hand. Tony Becca, suggesting that the WICB did not deal fairly with C&W, and that they did not consult players before the new agreement, broke down the figures, making a case for why the players lost out when the Board signed up with Digicel. According to him, C&W offered US$3.5million a year for home tours. Digicel was offering US$4million for home and away. This meant that players got 40% sponsorship money for home tours and between US$700,000 and US$900,000 for away ones. Importantly, they did not face any branding restrictions on their overseas tours, thus allowing them to earn even more. So, Becca concluded, the players lost out.

This was the beginning of the new deal, a deal that ran into early conflict when the individual contracts between C&W and some of the players (Brian Lara, Chris Gayle and Ramnaresh Sarwan, among others) formed part of a dispute between the West Indies Players' Association (WIPA) and the WICB that is still only partially resolved. At issue was whether C&W could rightfully contract with players as individuals when the team had been contracted by another sponsor, which also happened to be its rival.

In Australia, Digicel's man, Nowell, obviously tried to extract as much mileage as he could from their sponsorship. If Brian Lara responded as he said he did when the new filming plan was revealed ("Don't point those cameras anywhere near me. I will wear your shirt on the pitch, but I am Cable & Wireless. You hear?"), then Lara was within his rights, as were the players who followed his lead. It was purely business biting business, and Nowell should know that, coming from the background he did.

For sponsors who might be used to running the show, the difficulty must have another dimension when the boys they thought they had bought wholesale, turn out to have ideas and images of their own to peddle. For Nowell, it might best be illustrated in his report's reference to him having arranged a team fitting for formal trousers as their own choices of "cheap and ill-fitting blazers" made them look "like a bunch of security guards".

Part of the problem has always been that under these circumstances, when the players turn out to be hard-nosed businessmen, the hard-ball tactics confuse us. We thought we were sending out sportsmen, ambassadors, possibly even matchwinners. What are we seeing?

We are seeing the new full-blooded generation of the third paradigm identified a decade ago by Hilary Beckles as one completely disconnected from the projects of nationalism. No more ambassadors: just pay me, I'll play and be on my way. It's the same all over the world with international cricket.

There are two big differences with West Indies cricket, though. The current team is not exactly raking in the trophies, so the idea of the paid professional seems to need the support of performance-based assessments; and while they are right to seek their financial interests, they lose ground at home when they perform badly.

The second difference is that with the WICB claiming to be in a weak financial state, the possible loss of a major sponsor does have an ominous sound. After the wars, there may be nothing left, like a nuclear holocaust.

Vaneisa Baksh is a freelance journalist based in Trinidad.