Sri Lanka Cricket to Lift it's Ban on ICL Players

[GIMH]

I don't begrudge any player signing when the opportunity is there. I simply feel that everyone is far better served if the opportunity isn't there.

No national board gives players contracts for any longer than 1 year. When Ricky Ponting's contract expires, as it does every year, he could quite easily go and play in the ICL if he wanted and CA could do sod-all about it. Ditto Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, Stuart Clark and many besides. And if the ICL was able to offer them a big enough wage, you'd be a fool if you thought they wouldn't eventually take it.

You can only include contractual clauses stopping players from signing for such-and-such for a very short time.

It doesn't though. If it can offer enough money, players will cease to care whether they can play for their country or not. They'll be more than happy to earn the megabucks. As I said earlier - I think you overestimate the love of international cricket that players have. WSC shows that this is never something that can be relied upon.

I don't know what players earn in the rest of the world but I do know that a central contract in England is worth more than a three-year ICL contract. So I'd imagine similar would be true in Australia. And sure, some players might not be overly peturbed by playing for their country if the cash came calling, but tell me that you think that of Andrew Flintoff? Ricky Ponting? Brett Lee? Graeme Smith? Would they **** jack in international cricket.

And anyway, it is not like the ICL is the only thing offering cash in bigger sums than central contracts to players. Andrew Flintoff probably earns 90% of his income through endorsements, as I'd imagine does Dhoni, Tendulkar, Pietersen. These players could afford to pack in cricket after a couple of years of success, they'd have earned enough for life if the truth be told. So should we ban that as well? I think the ECB should move to ban any player who does a photoshoot from international cricket, it is damaging to their need to earn money from cricket.

 

[Goughy]

How many of these private concerns have paid players 10 times their "in-season" wage for a few weeks' work?

I'd bet none. Hence none present the threat the ICL presents, and no national board needs to take any action against them. The only precedent to the ICL is WSC - and that completely gutted the international game for 2 years. To avoid a repeat of WSC is in the best interests of every single cricket board.

The amount a player is paid is not relevant. Whether it be the same, 10 times or 1000 times.

As for the bolded part, thats not true.

 

[Richard]

So do you think that the ECB can compete with the IPL any more than with the ICL?

It doesn't need to. The IPL is not fighting against the ECB. The IPL is run by someone who works with the ECB.

The ICL is run by someone whose only concern is themself and will gain nothing by cooperating with the ECB.

 

[Richard]

The amount a player is paid is not relevant. Whether it be the same, 10 times or 1000 times.

How isn't it? The more of a wage increase is on the table, the more likely someone is to take the offer. That's pretty basic trait-of-humanity.

As for the bolded part, thats not true.

Where else (in the last 100 years) have we seen someone prepared to offer such proportionally massive paycheques in exchange for playing privately instead of for your board?

 

[Richard]

I don't know what players earn in the rest of the world but I do know that a central contract in England is worth more than a three-year ICL contract. So I'd imagine similar would be true in Australia. And sure, some players might not be overly peturbed by playing for their country if the cash came calling, but tell me that you think that of Andrew Flintoff? Ricky Ponting? Brett Lee? Graeme Smith? Would they **** jack in international cricket.

Are you being serious? You know how small the wages are for even international players in South Africa? Why d'you think the likes of Rudolph and McLaren have forsaken that for county cricket?

As for the Australia and England situation - give me some numbers. I've honestly never looked hard into it.

And anyway, it is not like the ICL is the only thing offering cash in bigger sums than central contracts to players. Andrew Flintoff probably earns 90% of his income through endorsements, as I'd imagine does Dhoni, Tendulkar, Pietersen. These players could afford to pack in cricket after a couple of years of success, they'd have earned enough for life if the truth be told. So should we ban that as well? I think the ECB should move to ban any player who does a photoshoot from international cricket, it is damaging to their need to earn money from cricket.

It's not though. They won't get these offers without international cricket. The same, incidentally, is true of the IPL.

 

[GIMH]

It doesn't need to. The IPL is not fighting against the ECB. The IPL is run by someone who works with the ECB.

The ICL is run by someone whose only concern is themself and will gain nothing by cooperating with the ECB.

Looking at things parochially, as I often do, the IPL is a bigger threat than the ICL to my beloved England team. If Pietersen hadn't been given the armband he'd still be clamouring to IPL it up, I heard Sidebottom mentioned, Flintoff would fetch a fortune etc. This is all fine except that the IPL takes place right at the start of the English season. The effect of the superstars going to the IPL that I can foresee are that they'd be playing for franchises instead of their counties. Now England players don't play for their counties much anyway, but how the hell are you going to get youngsters into domestic cricket without having the superstars there? And how the hell are you going to convert youngsters into world-class internationals if domestic cricket doesn't interest them? Here's how, you're not.

Alas, I don't see this as a real threat, but certainly it's more worrying than the ICL, for mine.

 

[Richard]

Looking at things parochially, as I often do, the IPL is a bigger threat than the ICL to my beloved England team. If Pietersen hadn't been given the armband he'd still be clamouring to IPL it up, I heard Sidebottom mentioned, Flintoff would fetch a fortune etc. This is all fine except that the IPL takes place right at the start of the English season. The effect of the superstars going to the IPL that I can foresee are that they'd be playing for franchises instead of their counties. Now England players don't play for their counties much anyway, but how the hell are you going to get youngsters into domestic cricket without having the superstars there? And how the hell are you going to convert youngsters into world-class internationals if domestic cricket doesn't interest them? Here's how, you're not.

That's why the IPL needs a window - badly. And all parties need to be on as good a terms as possible with those who run it in order to get their best interests.

Incidentally, the fixture-list in this country being slashed sounds an attractive proposition to me. There's been far too much domestic cricket for as long as I can remember - and longer than many people much older than me can remember, too.

Alas, I don't see this as a real threat, but certainly it's more worrying than the ICL, for mine.

Certainly not for mine.

 

[zaremba]

Why is it immoral? Who is ever not prepared to take custom from one to earn it for themselves? It's the basis of the whole retail industry, for one thing.

Oh dear.

There is a distinction which I had thought I didn't need to spell out (the clue is in the names) between competition and anti-competitive practices. The former is a good thing in my eyes (if not the BCCI's). The latter is a bad thing and immoral and (in most countries) illegal.

Your example illustrates your misunderstanding. Taking your competitor's custom is competition. It is not an anti-competitive practice.

Anti-competitive practices involve such things as forming cartels, price fixing, predatory pricing, agreements between employers in restraint of trade and so on. In the worst case, the aim is not to compete fairly but, on the contrary, to destroy anyone that dares to compete with you, so as to eliminate competition. Sounds familiar? That's because this is the aim of the BCCI vis-a-vis the ICL.

Was it worth it for 2 years of crap and the several other long-term damages that happened?

The disruption and long-term damage caused by WSC was a function of the (unlawful and anti-competitive) reaction by the cricket establishment to a competitor that dared to challenge the oh-so-comfortable status quo.

 

[Goughy]

Where else (in the last 100 years) have we seen someone prepared to offer such proportionally massive paycheques in exchange for playing privately instead of for your board?

Here you miss the point completely (Ill come to another example if needed), foreign players were not originally choosing to play privately instead of for the board.

They believed they could do both. And why not.

It was never a choice of ICL or country. The BCCI made it such. Bond, for example, was given permission originally to play in ICL.

It makes no difference if an England player winters in the ICL or painting houses as long as he is available if called up.

If the ICL mandated that players had to choose the ICL over International commitments then Id agree with the hate. However, they never have.

They do not want exclusive rights, just players to be paid for playing cricket when available.

 

[GIMH]

Are you being serious? You know how small the wages are for even international players in South Africa? Why d'you think the likes of Rudolph and McLaren have forsaken that for county cricket?

Yeah but you can see that playing for his country means the world to Smith. I would be shocked if he ever gave it up unless he had to.

As for the Australia and England situation - give me some numbers. I've honestly never looked hard into it.

It's not though. They won't get these offers without international cricket. The same, incidentally, is true of the IPL.

I read that a three-year ICL contract pays $200k overall, which is roughly £100k. Your centrally contracted player without bonuses gets somewhere in the £100k-£150k a year, I believe. As captain Pietersen may earn up to £400-500k, if the side is successful. I could be wrong with these figures, particularly the KP one but I believe the basic contract one to be accurate.

As for the endorsements - read my post again. I said they'd be able to pack in cricket after a couple of years. You any idea how much Flintoff raked in after becoming public figure of affection #1 in 2005? I don't, but I do know it was in the millions, more than enough to look after his family for life if he decided that cricket wasn't for him anymore.

And players who reach that level of fame can get years out of it, going into TV, after-dinner speaking, writing, whatever they want really. Andrew Flintoff doesn't need cricket financially but it's in his blood and he loves playing for England, and I don't believe for a minute that he'll be richer than Tendulkar/Dhoni.

 

[zaremba]

It doesn't need to. The IPL is not fighting against the ECB. The IPL is run by someone who works with the ECB.

The riches on offer from the IPL are (for now) comparable with those on offer from the ICL. There is an equal threat of England players being tempted away by the IPL.

And the BCCI's desire to work with the ECB seems, at present, to be limited to vetting the selection of the England team and county squads.

 

[Richard]

Oh dear.

There is a distinction which I had thought I didn't need to spell out (the clue is in the names) between competition and anti-competitive practices. The former is a good thing in my eyes (if not the BCCI's). The latter is a bad thing and immoral and (in most countries) illegal.

Your example illustrates your misunderstanding. Taking your competitor's custom is competition. It is not an anti-competitive practice.

Anti-competitive practices involve such things as forming cartels, price fixing, predatory pricing, agreements between employers in restraint of trade and so on. In the worst case, the aim is not to compete fairly but, on the contrary, to destroy anyone that dares to compete with you, so as to eliminate competition. Sounds familiar? That's because this is the aim of the BCCI vis-a-vis the ICL.

I fail to see why anti-competitive practice is not merely an extension on competition. I fully realise that such practices you list are illegal in the UK. But the logical extreme of taking custom is destruction of competitors. Is someone to be expected to stop taking custom when there is risk of extinction of competitors?

The disruption and long-term damage caused by WSC was a function of the (unlawful and anti-competitive) reaction by the cricket establishment to a competitor that dared to challenge the oh-so-comfortable status quo.

It wasn't though - it was because Kerry Packer wanted cricket and the ACB thought they had legit reason not to give it to him. Even if the authorities of the time had had some legal sense about them and the whole court-case thing hadn't happened, WSC would still have destroyed Test cricket for a few years. The only way it wouldn't have happened would've been had Packer been given Test cricket rights in 1976.

 

[Richard]

Here you miss the point completely (Ill come to another example if needed), foreign players were not originally choosing to play privately instead of for the board.

They believed they could do both. And why not.

It was never a choice of ICL or country. The BCCI made it such. Bond, for example, was given permission originally to play in ICL.

It makes no difference if an England player winters in the ICL or painting houses as long as he is available if called up.

If the ICL mandated that players had to choose the ICL over International commitments then Id agree with the hate. However, they never have.

They do not want exclusive rights, just players to be paid for playing cricket when available.

They didn't in the case of Bond. Where else has there been a "release for international cricket" clause even mentioned?

This suggests to me that they'd have no intention of including these clauses if they didn't need to. And with increased viewership, they might well in future not need to.

 

[Richard]

The riches on offer from the IPL are (for now) comparable with those on offer from the ICL. There is an equal threat of England players being tempted away by the IPL.

And the BCCI's desire to work with the ECB seems, at present, to be limited to vetting the selection of the England team and county squads.

I happen to disagree. If we come back in 5 years' time and the BCCI have indeed reduced all other domestic systems to rubble with their IPL, I'll happily admit you were right on that.

 

[GIMH]

Viewership won't be up if the players playing are nobodies. When people watch domestic competitions they want to see superstars. And that means internationals.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but you can see that playing for his country means the world to Smith. I would be shocked if he ever gave it up unless he had to.

I wouldn't. If the price was high enough, anyone will do - as WSC proves.

I read that a three-year ICL contract pays $200k overall, which is roughly £100k. Your centrally contracted player without bonuses gets somewhere in the £100k-£150k a year, I believe. As captain Pietersen may earn up to £400-500k, if the side is successful. I could be wrong with these figures, particularly the KP one but I believe the basic contract one to be accurate.

I see. Currently, then, little danger on offer. Apart, of course, from the fact that the ICL offers infinitely more time off.

As for the endorsements - read my post again. I said they'd be able to pack in cricket after a couple of years. You any idea how much Flintoff raked in after becoming public figure of affection #1 in 2005? I don't, but I do know it was in the millions, more than enough to look after his family for life if he decided that cricket wasn't for him anymore.

And players who reach that level of fame can get years out of it, going into TV, after-dinner speaking, writing, whatever they want really. Andrew Flintoff doesn't need cricket financially but it's in his blood and he loves playing for England, and I don't believe for a minute that he'll be richer than Tendulkar/Dhoni.

But he can earn more by continuing to play than he would do otherwise. AND then do this other stuff afterwards\at-the-same-time anyway.

The ICL is completely different.

 

[Richard]

Viewership won't be up if the players playing are nobodies. When people watch domestic competitions they want to see superstars. And that means internationals.

ICL viewership rose in the first year, with any number of relatively pitiful players. Just imagine what might've happened had many more internationals been playing.

 

[zaremba]

I fail to see why anti-competitive practice is not merely an extension on competition. I fully realise that such practices you list are illegal in the UK. But the logical extreme of taking custom is destruction of competitors. Is someone to be expected to stop taking custom when there is risk of extinction of competitors?

These practices are indeed illegal in the UK, and also in the free-market heaven that is the US (where some of them are referred to as antitrust laws) and throughout Europe. I presume that other Commonwealth countries also have the same or similar laws (I'll be corrected on that if I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if I am).

Reflect on why that might be, and you might find the answer to your own question.

BTW looking at the "logical extreme" of something, as you have, is rarely particularly helpful and sometimes, as here, positively misleading.

 

[GIMH]

I wouldn't. If the price was high enough, anyone will do - as WSC proves.

I see. Currently, then, little danger on offer. Apart, of course, from the fact that the ICL offers infinitely more time off.

But he can earn more by continuing to play than he would do otherwise. AND then do this other stuff afterwards\at-the-same-time anyway.

The ICL is completely different.

Hardly. He would be signed by the ICL on the basis of his cricketing prowess. He would need to continue to play cricket, though, and most sportsmen don't want to play just 6-8 weeks a year, the great thing about being a sportsman is getting paid to do your hobby.

On the other hand, any sort of business could offer someone like Flintoff a career, especially in TV because he has the sort of personality that would make the drongos of England switch on.

 

[Goughy]

They didn't in the case of Bond. Where else has there been a "release for international cricket" clause even mentioned?

This suggests to me that they'd have no intention of including these clauses if they didn't need to. And with increased viewership, they might well in future not need to.

They didnt what in the case of Bond? I dont know what you mean. Are you saying he didnt have permission.

As for you thinking they wouldnt play International cricket. Im afraid to say you dont know what you are talking about regarding ICL.

It has ben made an outlaw league but that was never its orginal intention. To suggest International players wouldnt be allowed to play International cricket by the ICL whilst signed up for ICL is plain wrong.