Statements of Greig and May: a legal battle looks inevitable

A quick solution has to be worked out if the game has to survive, writes Makarand Waingankar
Going by the statements of Tony Greig, who is with the ICL, and Tim May, who is the President of the Federation of International Cricketers Association, a legal battle is inevitable if the BCCI and ICC continue with the same approach during their deliberations in Dubai, where the ICC is set to thrash out several issues.
Not only has the BCCI banned the ICL cricketers from participating in tournaments but has stopped the pensions of former cricketers.
The BCCI either overlooked the fact that its actions could be legally challenged or it felt starting its own league will be appreciated.
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) too seems to have forgotten the verdict of Justice Slade in 1978.
The famous judgment of Justice Slade, in the Insole (Doug Insole was the Chairman of the TCCB) and Tony Greig (who had opted to join the World Series Cricket) case, covers nine questions and should be an eye opener to the ICC and BCCI.
While rejecting the arguments of the TCCB and the ICC, Justice Slade ruled that banning the players from playing county or Test cricket because they had opted to play for the World Series Cricket was unreasonable restraint of trade and inducement to them to break their Packer contracts.
This is a landmark judgment (citation 1978-1-WLR 302, pages 60) and the TCCB lost.
What is important is that the heads of the respective Boards, including M. A. Chidambaram of the BCCI, were cross-examined.
Main issue sidelined
The ICL-IPL tussle has sidelined the issue concerning the cricketers’ livelihood. During the Insole-Greig case hearing, one of the main questions that Justice Slade asked was how could the cricket boards deprive the professional cricketers from earning their livelihood. In his judgment he agreed that though respective boards had acted in the best interests of the game, he felt, legally a professional cricketer is entitled to make as much living as any professional in other fields.
Aren’t some of the members and the office-bearers of the BCCI professionals? If they could enjoy market’s potential to their advantage in their businesses, what is wrong if the players use their proven skills and performance to garner more lucrative contracts especially when the life-span of a cricketer of repute is not more than seven to eight years on an average. However, the life-span of cricket officials is more than two to three decades.
There is huge unemployment among the cricketers. Last year, a couple of young cricketers committed suicide in India. All that the youngsters need is an opportunity to exhibit their skills and earn money.
The ICL has 87 Indian and 50 foreign cricketers apart from Indian and foreign coaches. Why they should be a hindrance to the growth of the game in India is something only the BCCI can explain.
If the BCCI can’t provide employment and opportunities to young cricketers and coaches with all the revenue that they are generating, what alternative do these players and coaches have than to seek legal action if they are banned from earning their livelihood?
One can understand the exodus of cricketers to ICL when IPL wasn’t born but the flow to ICL still continues from the existing international lot.
Despite being deprived of playing for the country and the likelihood of losing the county contract, Shane Bond and other present international cricketers are joining the ICL. Either the ICL contract has all the factors that ensures they lead a comfortable life after retirement or the IPL’s enthusiasm is a bit too much for their comfort.
The judgment of Justice Slade in 1978 and the observations of Justice Venkatachalam in 1989 while chastising the BCCI which had disciplined the Indian cricketers for going to the USA from the West Indies, are enough proof of the way courts view such issues.
Avoiding a legal confrontation and working out a solution is the only way out if the game has to survive.
The Hindu; Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008