Board needs to play by ear

The Indian team and the Board of Control for Cricket in India could be headed for yet another confrontation over the tricky matter of contracts and endorsements. The Board seems to have gone on the front foot saying that players had to check with the board before signing individual contracts. But there's no reason to believe that the issues at hand cannot be resolved amicably if the two parties sit together and thrash out what needs doing.

In reality this situation is one that has existed ever since the players signed central contracts. It is implied that the players will check with the board before signing individual contracts as they are barred from entering into anything that might conflict with the team sponsor that the BCCI secures. Equally, it is a given that the BCCI keeps in mind what the players can and cannot do, given their pre-existing personal endorsements, before it enters into a contract for the team as a whole.

The issue has now come to a head because the BCCI signed a pathbreaking $43 million deal with Nike for the shirts the players would wear on the field and during practice. Nike, having forked out a large sum of money have not been overly enthused by the fact that several members of the team have contracts with rival sports goods companies like Adidas or Reebok, and therefore use shoes and trousers of these brands. However, as a goodwill gesture, the players have agreed to sport the Nike logo on the trousers they wear.

"See, at the end of the day I have to be comfortable with the equipment I use. The shoes I wear or the bat I use directly affect my performance, so the board can't really do a deal wherein we all have to wear only one brand of shoe," one player said, on condition of anonymity. The players, in fact, are very much on a good wicket if the BCCI does decide to push the matter further.

It is also learnt that the players are not exactly overjoyed with the BCCI's plans to get into merchandising in a big way. "It's one thing if they are just going to sell a BCCI branded shirt. Then obviously we have nothing to do with it. If they want to put one of our names on the back of the shirt, though, then we should get a percentage of sales," said another player. "If there's a shirt with Tendulkar written on the back of it, do you think people are buying for the BCCI logo or for the player's name?"

Interestingly the BCCI, and to some extent the players, are sailing in uncharted waters. Many of the sponsorship deals and contractual agreements they have gotten into since the new BCCI regime took over are things they have not dealt with in the past, and to that extent it is only understandable that there are teething problems.

In other sports - like baseball or basketball in America, or football in England and Europe - these issues have cropped up in the past and been dealt with. For example, Michael Jordan is one of Nike's signature stars, and yet, when he had to play in the Olympics for the United States he wore Reebok shoes. If there's a David Beckham Real Madrid shirt sold, then it's not just the club, but also the player who makes money. Even in cricket there are similar precedents. Australia, for example have a team sponsorship, but it does not prevent Adam Gilchrist from using Puma shoes, or Ricky Ponting from using a Kookaburra bat.

Fundamentally the problem the team is facing at the moment is not different from the situation that arose with the International Cricket Council a few years back. The ICC had promised plenty to its tournament sponsors, having secured a sizeable booty, and then were forced to climb down as they realised that they had promised things that they were unable to deliver. In that sense the Indian board has to go by that age old principle - you cannot sell what you do not own.

What's worrying, though, is that it's not merely the issue of contracts that has irked the players. There is growing disenchantment within the team as they feel that they are not consulted enough - or taken into confidence - when the Board schedules additional matches outside the ICC's Future Tours and Programmes. Sources within the team revealed that they wanted someone in the board to liaise with them more closely in these matters in the future. Even on the contracts issue, which is now slowly gaining momentum, they are yet to receive any official communication from the board. They've only heard the board's views from the media, and that's not an ideal situation for anyone.