Cricket players, ICC face off on contracts; World Cup threatened

Faisal Shariff

A contractual dispute between players and the International Cricket Council has come to a head. If it is not resolved, the Champions Trophy beginning September 12 in Sri Lanka will be immediately affected.

The 2003 World Cup in South Africa could also be jeopardized.

In a bid to protect big-paying lead sponsors from what in trade circles is called Ambush Advertising, the ICC wants players to sign a contract that prohibits them from endorsing products of rival companies during the tournaments proper, and for a period of one month, before and after.

The players argue that the ICC has no right to interfere in their personal livelihood, no right to stop them from honoring already existing personal sponsorships and contracts.

Therefore, they will not sign.

If the impasse persists, the ICC will not permit non-signing players to participate in the two prestigious global-level tournaments.

Ambush Advertising: Hijacking the Mind

Simply put, Ambush Advertising is when a company signs on to sponsor an event as official sponsor, and a rival hijacks the mind space through backdoor means - typically, through sponsoring individual stars.

Examples abound. In 1996, soft drinks giant Coke paid a fortune for the right to call itself the official sponsor of the World Cup. Rival Pepsi promptly launched a massive advertising blitz, based on the catch-line: Nothing Official About It.

The Pepsi campaign captured the public imagination - and Coke, the official sponsor, lost out.

Credit card giant Visa, to cite another instance, was official sponsor of the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway. Rival American Express pulled a hijack, with a campaign based on the slogan: "If you are traveling to Lillehammer, you will need a passport, but you don't need a Visa!"

The impact of Ambush Advertising was dramatically highlighted in two surveys. The first, carried out before the 1994 Lillehammer Games, showed that 54 per cent of respondents named American Express in brand recall queries, as against 72 per cent who named Visa.

Visa would, thus, appear to have been the gainer - but it needs mentioning that it has to spend $40 million for the privilege, while Amex captured the minds of over half the respondents without spending a penny.

The more crucial survey was the one carried out after the Games - in which 52 per cent of respondents thought that American Express was officially associated with the Games.

That is, quintessentially, Ambush Advertising - take the mickey out of a rival, capture the popular imagination, identify yourself with an event, and do it all without a penny outlay.

Halting the hijack: The Sponsor Strikes Back

Increasingly, tournament organizers and official sponsors have been working to ensure that they are not hijacked.

Pepsi - which had so successfully hijacked the 1996 World Cup - was for instance keen to ensure against role reversal in the next edition of the Cup, in 1999. On this occasion, Pepsi was official sponsor - and it used the ICC's clout to force Australian players to drop the Coke logo for the duration of the tournament, though Coke was official sponsor of the Aussie team.

Again, during the soccer World Cup this June in South Korea and Japan, England's captain David Beckham, who endorses Pepsi, was forced to pull down his advertisements two weeks before the tournament got underway, because the Cup had Coke as the official sponsor.

Coke, in fact, then used images of Beckham on cans and posters as part of its advertising campaign for the duration of the tournament.

Point Counterpoint: Speed versus May

"It is a well established practice in elite sport that, for the benefit of the game, protection against ambush marketing is given to the sport's commercial partners," says ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed.

"This is nothing new. It is a long-standing practice across a range of sports. It is in place at the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the Rugby World Cup and the Football World Cup, and it was a key element of the arrangements agreed with the players for the Cricket World Cup in 1999.

"We are well aware of the activities of some big businesses targeting individual players and encouraging them to sign agreements that are in direct conflict with the people who are investing many millions of dollars into the game. We are on high alert on this issue, and we will not let the people who are supporting the sport be ambushed."

Tim May, joint CEO of the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) and head of the Australian Cricketer's Association, is not particularly impressed.

"We respect the rights of official sponsors against ambush programs by rivals," May, who is fronting negotiations on behalf of the players, told Rediff.com. "But this does not justify asking a player to face monetary loss and/or the danger of legal action by their individual sponsors."

May's question is simple: What if a player has an existing contract with a sponsor? And what if this sponsor is a rival to the official sponsor of a tournament? If the player, having signed the ICC contract, then tells his individual sponsor that his name cannot be used for the duration of contract, he is immediately in breach of contract with his own sponsor.

"The ICC contract cannot supersede existing contracts already signed by the players themselves. It is, in legal terms, a `tort or intentional interference' (in layman's terms `an inducement to breach of a contract')."

ICC officials point out that the protection deals with sponsors -- agreed to by all Boards in 2000 -- allows the ICC to secure a $ 550 million commercial rights agreement for its events through 2007.

Of this, $102 million will be distributed to the Boards and players for their participation in the Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup.

"I t would be a great surprise if any elite cricketer or his management had the view that the player would be free of any obligations to the ICC tournament sponsors in the Champions Trophy and the World Cup when negotiating any personal endorsements," says Speed.

"To my knowledge no player or his manager at any stage sought the view of the ICC as to the restrictions that would be in place before they signed these agreements."

The two opposing view points have sparked an exchange of emails and phone calls across the continents, with May fronting for the players and former South African wicket-keeper and top notch lawyer Dave Richardson speaking for the ICC.

No headway has been made so far, however.

"An offer has been made, an offer has been rejected, I would have thought the issue is now back with the ICC," says May.

Status Report: Who stands where

Seven of the top nations are affiliated with FICA, and of these five - Australia, South Africa, England, New Zealand and the West Indies - have refused to sign.

Interestingly, Australian players do not face any conflict with existing sponsors and the official sponsors of the upcoming Champions' Trophy. And yet, they refuse to sign on principle.

"The form of contract is on a yearly basis, and this year it does not seem to affect the Aussies -- but the contents of the form will be the same through to the 2007 World Cup," explains May. "So, the players feel that they should address it now than face severe repercussions each year."

India is not part of FICA. Nor has India made any official comment.

Behind the scenes, however, there is much activity. Indian players, whose contracts put them in direct conflict with official sponsors, have refused to sign.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, therefore, was forced to re-schedule the selection of its team for the Champions Trophy.

Curiously enough, Tim May was startled by recent conversations with Indian players.

May discovered that the players were unaware of the identities of the official sponsors. "They said that their board had never, ever, informed them about the sponsors for any event."

Behind-the-scenes buzz is that the the Board of Control for Cricket in India might consider the option of compensating the four affected players -- Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Virendra Sehwag - whose personal sponsorships clash with the official sponsors of the Champions Trophy.

A member of the Global Cricket Corporation, on condition of anonymity, said that the players are "merely saber-rattling".

"They will sign the contracts by Saturday," he added. It is a view senior board officials, off the record, share.

Fast Forward: Steps to a Solution?

The only visible evidence that a solution is being actively sought comes from the ICC, which bought itself some more time to resolve the impasse by extending, by a week, the deadline for players to sign on the dotted line.

The two sides, however, are adamant that their respective viewpoints are the correct ones.

Malcolm Speed attempts to sound the voice of reason.

"If a player finds that, through his own actions, he has put his commercial interests ahead of his ability to play for his country, he needs to decide what is more important to him -- the money, or playing for his country.

"If it is playing for his country, he needs to find a solution and not look to the ICC to dilute its ambush marketing protections in order solve his contractual issues."

"I must also emphasise that the ICC wants the best players in the world to play in the Champions Trophy and the World Cup and will do everything it can to make this happen.

"It would be terrible for cricket if, just because a big business is not able to hijack an event, it decides to resort to using the legal system to stop the best players in the world from playing for their country. That is clearly not in the interest of the game or the players.

"I hope that it does not get to this point and that the players are able to agree to play in these tournaments."

May, the man in the middle of resolving the muddle, is equally convinced that the premier tournaments should not be jeopardized.

"I hope that with so much at stake, the ICC and the players will sort out the issue in a mature fashion, without endangering the tournaments," May told Rediff.com

"If the ICC finds adequate procedures to compensate the players, then there is room for a solution. But the ICC seems to be adamant about that aspect and has a `so-be-it attitude' towards the perils of legal suits threatening the players."

Do not, warns May, make the mistake of arguing that the problem is precipitated by greed on the part of the players.

"It isn't about a money grab, it's about a fundamental principle. The ICC owns the event. They don't own the players!"

The ICC contract form

Also read:
- The ICC must renegotiate: Tim May
- ICC says ambush marketing protections will stay
- Announcement of Champions Trophy team withheld
- Indians against ICC sponsorship contract