Zimbabwe's players 'have wrecked their position on other issues'
Cricinfo speaks to Clive Field, who last month quit as the head of the Zimbabwe Professional Cricketers's Association, about the settlement with the board
01-Mar-2006
Until last month, Clive Field was the chief executive of the Zimbabwe Professional Cricketers' Association, and as such was closely involved in the bitter dispute between players and board which threatened the country's international future. We talked exclusively to him, and in the first of this two-part interview, he spoke about the settlement between the two factions
I think by taking these contracts they have wrecked their position on the other issues
|
On paper, it certainly looks OK. The indexing of basic pay (retainers) and match fees was something we pushed for since I became the players' representative in March 2005, because of inflation in Zimbabwe which currently it stands at over 600% . The indexing mechanism we fought to get is mutually beneficial as it confronts reality and means the board and players won't have to sit down and renegotiate contracts every month. The contracted players can look forward to earning a very decent living by Zimbabwe standards, which will still be a decent living next month.
Did they have any choice or was the board in such a powerful position?
The players wanted to hold out longer to give the ZPCA more time to address other areas of concern (ie back pay and governance issues) but in the end they succumbed to financial pressure and signed without seeking to address those. The players basically took a narrow view, and took the money. There is no doubt that by giving up, the players let the board off the hook; the board were under more pressure than the players with Kenya and Bangladesh series literally days, if not hours, from being cancelled if the players did not sign.
The players wanted to hold out longer to give the ZPCA more time to address other areas of concern (ie back pay and governance issues) but in the end they succumbed to financial pressure and signed without seeking to address those. The players basically took a narrow view, and took the money. There is no doubt that by giving up, the players let the board off the hook; the board were under more pressure than the players with Kenya and Bangladesh series literally days, if not hours, from being cancelled if the players did not sign.
How much pressure was put on the players and was any of that unreasonable?
It was always likely that the longer the dispute went and the more impecunious the players became, "divide and rule" tactics would be used by ZC to lure players back. Towards the end it became increasingly difficult to keep the players focused on the big picture (which for us was Zimbabwe's status in Test cricket and the need to ensure the game survived through proper development and retention of players). The players decided they had to take the money and go back to work. They were worried cricket - and their jobs - would collapse. So by January both the ZC and the players were desperate for different reasons. It was inevitable that players would be picked off and approached behind the scenes by the board and asked to play.
It was always likely that the longer the dispute went and the more impecunious the players became, "divide and rule" tactics would be used by ZC to lure players back. Towards the end it became increasingly difficult to keep the players focused on the big picture (which for us was Zimbabwe's status in Test cricket and the need to ensure the game survived through proper development and retention of players). The players decided they had to take the money and go back to work. They were worried cricket - and their jobs - would collapse. So by January both the ZC and the players were desperate for different reasons. It was inevitable that players would be picked off and approached behind the scenes by the board and asked to play.
Do you think the players might regret the deal in the weeks and months ahead?
I hope not. I guess everything will depend on whether they do receive the contractual and match-fee bonuses they signed up for. But, it hasn't always worked that way in the past. Look no further back than September last year, when players who played against New Zealand and India are still waiting for their contracted match fees. Basically for the players, this deal was a financial issue, pure and simple. They voted with their pockets, and went back to get the money being offered to them going forward, and didn't really think about it more than that. In doing so they have weakened their case for the back pay some of them were due.
I hope not. I guess everything will depend on whether they do receive the contractual and match-fee bonuses they signed up for. But, it hasn't always worked that way in the past. Look no further back than September last year, when players who played against New Zealand and India are still waiting for their contracted match fees. Basically for the players, this deal was a financial issue, pure and simple. They voted with their pockets, and went back to get the money being offered to them going forward, and didn't really think about it more than that. In doing so they have weakened their case for the back pay some of them were due.
|
Money apart, it can be argued that a lot has also been lost
|
They decided to aim low, get the contractual issues squared off and avoid the governance issues, at least for the time being. They felt this was the only way of achieving progress in what was becoming an increasingly damaging and protracted dispute. To a great extent I think by taking these contracts they have wrecked their position on the other issues.
Do you think that Taibu, who quit international cricket to draw attention to the players' plight, has been sold down the river by his former team-mates?
Sadly, however one looks at this, that is an unavoidable conclusion. But the fact these guys decided to continue does not damage Tatenda, who has stood firm, and proved he is a man of integrity. He is also passionately Zimbabwean, very patriotic. Not selfish. I have spoken to him and I know Taibs is clearly guided by his faith and strong principles. I know he feels he has done the right thing. He has also made it clear that under the right circumstances he would come back and play for his country. It is hugely damaging to ZC that he went the way he did. They needed him and still do, not just for what he brings to the team but for his iconic status to the cricketing youth.
Sadly, however one looks at this, that is an unavoidable conclusion. But the fact these guys decided to continue does not damage Tatenda, who has stood firm, and proved he is a man of integrity. He is also passionately Zimbabwean, very patriotic. Not selfish. I have spoken to him and I know Taibs is clearly guided by his faith and strong principles. I know he feels he has done the right thing. He has also made it clear that under the right circumstances he would come back and play for his country. It is hugely damaging to ZC that he went the way he did. They needed him and still do, not just for what he brings to the team but for his iconic status to the cricketing youth.
So have they actually gained anything?
On paper only - yes. And, only for the 22 players who were offered contracts. Purely financially speaking, these 22 have immediate careers and are taken care of as professional players. However, there were 35+ players contracted in 2005, so clearly a dozen or more have lost out immediately. That is wrong.
On paper only - yes. And, only for the 22 players who were offered contracts. Purely financially speaking, these 22 have immediate careers and are taken care of as professional players. However, there were 35+ players contracted in 2005, so clearly a dozen or more have lost out immediately. That is wrong.
Money apart, it can be argued that a lot has also been lost. Hardliners will suggest the players held the key and could have brought the union to its knees by refusing to play. That might have ushered in a change in the ZC administration. I only say might because there was little evidence from the Sports Commission or externally at ICC that the players concerns were getting through, despite our best efforts to put what I will always feel was a compelling case to both.
On principle, therefore the players have lost. Why? Because frankly nothing has been addressed in terms of the long-term future of the game and this is only a short-term solution to one narrow set of concerns (pay). That is not enough to ensure the long or even medium-term viability of the game in Zimbabwe.
I also doubt whether a current Zimbabe side without Taibu, Heath Streak and Andy Blignaut will be what I would term ICC compliant. No disrespect is intended to the current players in saying that, it's just that I fail to see how Zimbabwe can otherwise come any where close to ensuring the "integrity of the game" (a favourite ICC term), if we don't have these three as a basic minimum. Even with them, we will struggle.