Cricketing Apartheid

"It's nothing but a form of apartheid when the board dictates that you can play with X but not with Y.", Kapil Dev was quoted as saying referring to harsh treatment of ICL players by the BCCI.

Clearly some strong words by the legendary all-rounder expressing his displeasure over the standoff between the BCCI and the ICL or the rebel league. It doesn't come as a surprise when decisions taken by the BCCI, more often that not seem extremely immature. There seems to be no respite in the board's bitterness towards the ICL ever since its inception.

While the BCCI chances upon every opportunity to cold shoulder the ICL, the players in its own backyard aren't spared either. It was nothing short of a shocker when the BCCI decided to preclude the participation of its players (V.V.S Laxman, Piyush Chawla and Ajit Agarkar) in the English county circuit involving ICL players. This stance by the board whose sole objective lies in improving the game and provide support to its players is devoid of any logic and commonsense.

Over the years world cricket has been witness to the inability and inefficiency of its governing body (ICC) to take tough stands on its member associations and in tackling issues especially on the game's richest board. There is little doubt over BCCI's hegemony in world cricket. However, it does not have any morality in initiating decisions that could hinder the game or its players. To say the ICL is an "unrecognized" format of the game - is just a subterfuge. With the second season due to begin, one would expect to see the ICL fight for its recognition with the ICC or in the courts with some vigor. A lot of questions continue to remain unanswered and the answer is quite simple. If soccer can have different leagues in one nation then why not cricket?

To forbid players from playing based on such reasons seems just irrelevant clearly indicative of a restriction in freedom of movement which wouldn't stand in the court of law. Over the years soccer and handball have had similar issues eventually impacting world sport. One such case was by Belgium player Jean-Marc Bosman. Bosman’s contract with Belgium club side RFC Liege had run out and he wanted to be transferred to French club Dunkerque. RFC Liege, however, refused to let Bosman leave without the payment of a transfer fee which Dunkerque were unwilling to pay. Bosman claimed that as a European Union citizen, he possessed the right to "freedom of movement" within the European Union if he wished to.

Another case that had a major impact was the ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) involving a Slovakian handball player Maros Kolpak. Kolpak was employed as a professional by a German second division team. As a national of a then non-European Economic Area (EEA) state, Kolpak was not considered by the German regulator to qualify for the benefits emergent from the decision in Bosman case. On this basis the Handballbund club limited the number of non-EEA nationals which a team could field in any one professional fixture. Kolpak suggested that an association agreement between Slovakia and the European Union entitled him to be treated in the same manner as an EEA national as regards treatment once in employment.

The implications of the above cases were largely significant and one among them was the "quota system", that limited the number of foreigners in a team was illegal. This decision augured well for the players and EPL teams such as Arsenal and Chelsea. Meanwhile the debate ceases to rest either within the ECB (England & Wales cricket board)on the Kolpak issue (dual nationality) in county cricket or the FIFA, suggesting for a "6+5" proposal (6 national & 5 foreign players in a team) which if implemented is certain to be challenged again by the EU Law and the ECJ which prohibits any discrimination based on nationality.

Cricket unlike soccer is not a ubiquitous sport restricting itself to a handful of countries. Until very recently, county cricket in the U.K was the only professional format which recruited foreign players to enhance the domestic competition. However unlike soccer cricketing nations thrive on the success of its national teams. And with not enough money in the domestic circuit, for the players a stint with a county team in England meant - great experience in enhancing skills and a sense of financial security. However with mounting broadcast rights, sponsors and new leagues like IPL and ICL cropping up the players are in a better position unlike the ones in the past.

The ICL however has reasons to be optimistic having found some support with the England and Srilanka cricket boards. The Lankan board's decision to allow its rebel players to participate in their domestic competition's might have made the BCCI crimson with embarrassment. Specially coming from a senior statesman like Arjuna Ranatunga who heads Srilankan cricket and regarded as an individual responsible for Srilanka's cricketing renaissance makes it all the more significant.

The ICL certainly has its limitations which probably doesn't align with the BCCI's objectives and the way it functions. Country representation, selection issues are some concerns. But to treat the rebel league and its representatives as pariah is setting a sad example. If the BCCI has any objections with the rebel league it has to take it up on a different platform. It's high time cricket had its own Bosman's and Kolpak's to fight against the system and get rid of the monopoly of the board's on its players.

An article by Simon Boyes from the Nottingham Law School clearly sums it up - "It ensures that sporting institutions have the power to promote a sport in a manner which they consider to be the most consistent with their objectives, provided that their choices do not give rise to discrimination or conceal the pursuit of economic interests."

At the end of the day one has to realize that an average sports persons' career lasts for not more than 5-6 years. Very few manage to be at the peak consistently and it only makes sense to maximize the opportunities in the short span. To deprive them of their bread and butter would be insane.

Setting the Benchmark - The Aussie way

Australia's rise in world cricket over the years doesn't come as much of a surprise considering the kind of effort that has gone into developing the game. From investing in the grassroots to creating the right environment for cricketer's to hone their skills to managing the players', the results are apparent. A great team effort marked by the presence of shrewd individuals comprising of former players in the administrative ranks in concoction with a team of spirited athlete's on field testifies their dominance. In short there has been a great deal of emphasis laid on creating an effective work ethic that has helped them succeed.

Every administration has it's share of failures and cricket Australia is no different. There is little doubt their system has been infallible. However what sets them apart from the rest is their attitude towards the game as a whole - Execution of plans with a clear vision and their ability to learn from mistakes.

The recent incident involving Andrew Symonds after being sent back home in the event of missing out on a team meeting (who went out fishing instead) indicates the level of commitment expected by an individual regardless of one's position within the team. Symonds whose commitment to the game has been found wanting had left the Australian management in a rage. The aftermath was quite evident when cricket Australia with the leadership group decided to castigate Symonds leaving the all-rounder to ponder over his future.

Michael Clarke, a close friend of Symonds, along with coach Tim Neilsen and captian Ricky Ponting who as part of the leadership group decided it was time to take a call and that Symonds had to get his priorities right. There were no half measures in invoking the decision. Michael Clarke's statement later summed up the entire issue on how coveted a position it is to be part of the team. A clear demarcation between personal and professional relationships.

Clarke on quote said "It's so hard to play for this team. In my opinion we are the greatest sporting team in the world, and we have standards. They may be higher than other teams, but if you don't fulfil those standards, unfortunately, you're not going to be a part of our squad... The main concern for us as a leadership group and a team is commitment to the team. That isn't just about on the field - that's off the field, that's attitude. There are a number of things we believe he wasn't fulfilling."

Symonds might have had his own share of issues with the board, the infamous racial incident with Harbhajan Singh being the most prominent. While the punishment may sound harsh , cricket Australia's support to athlete's in distress deserves to be applauded. Afterall the Aussies are know to set high standards for themselves.

There are few who believe the issue is too trivial. However this isn't the first of its kind. Ricky Ponting earlier in his career was given a mouthing after his behaviour off the field wasn't going to help his cause if he was to be considered for the Australian captaincy after Steve Waugh's retirement. Shane Warne, who many believed was the best in the business to take over the reigns never had the honour of captaining his country, eventually losing out on the vice-captaincy to Adam Gilchrist owing to his constant misdemeanours.

There are a lot of lessons cricketing bodies specially the Indian (BCCI) and Pakistan Board's (PCB) can learn, who under their ranks have players under severe scrutiny on and off-field. Be it the slapgate incident involving Harbhajan Singh, Shoaib Akhtar & Sreesanth's antics or Mohammad Asif who seems to be reeling under the shadow of his disgraced bowling counterpart. Make no mistake - For these athlete's to emerge successful despite their struggles is a commendable feat. However there is little doubt that early success in sport or in any other walk of life can alter an individual's psyche.

Word's of encouragement goes a long way in motivating an athlete. Rather than leaving the player in a lurch, the Australian board in saying the player is welcome into the team at a later stage has done just that. Be it providing Symonds with ample support or Shaun Tait's recuperation after mental and physical exhaustion.The player's need to be made aware of their importance within the team and that nothing can be taken for granted, for there are player's waiting in the wings for over 10 years just to get a look-in. Ask Michael Hussey, Misbah-Ul-Haq or S.Badrinath and they would nod their heads in unison.

Every individual evolves with his own set of qualities and ideologies. And there are very few who despite constant success and adulation continue to remain grounded. A handful of players like Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Adam Gilchrist, Kumar Sangakara and Steve Waugh are worthy of a mention. The board's need to realise that they have an obligation towards educating players rather than avoid embarassment at a later stage.

There's more to it than just educating a player. Respecting the player is of paramount importance that is seldom the case in India. There's little doubt cricket in India rides high on emotions. Saurav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid instantly come to mind, having been omitted from the one-day squad in preference to the youngesters.

Ganguly, despite his high handedness and undoubtedly one of the most successful captians in Indian cricket definitely brought in a different prespective to the game exhibiting a great sense of passion and was instrumental in nurturing the youngsters. Rahul Dravid on the other hand, quite reticent in contrast to Ganguly, epitomized an individual with great discipline and grit. The least the board can do is to provide them with an opportunity to have a graceful exit, for their contribution towards the game has been impeccable. The BCCI in the recent past had to be alarmed when it was oblivious in honouring Anil Kumble's feat of 600 Test wickets. The list is endless and the discussions could go on and on.

The Australian board in complete contrast surely knows how to treat its heroes. To say Steve Waugh's contribution to the game has been remarkable would be an understatement. With all due respect, cricket Australia provided him with a mandate to end his eventful career while still on top of his game giving him an opportunity to sign-off the game in his own way at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) in 2004. On similar lines Tim Nielsen, the Australian coach when asked about a replacement for Matthew Hayden for the next worldcup iterated - "We really do think it's important to respect senior players' ideas of how they'd like to go out, as long as they're still performing and contributing to the group."

Clearly the Australian's have set the benchmark. If only the rest of the cricketing world could emulate from them, the game would be a lot better.