Don’t regulate either ghee or endorsements

Browse Archives

By Category

By Date

08 April, 2007

This piece first appeared on Rediff.

Indian cricket has many problems, but imagine the following scenario: An investigative committee formed by the BCCI finds out that the reason many Indian players are unfit is pure ghee. On their time off, it seems, many of them eat food cooked in pure ghee, and as a result put on weight and become lethargic. It starts with Virender Sehwag, spreads to Sachin Tendulkar, and soon they all became pure ghee addicts and lost their vigour on the field.

The mandarins at the BCCI come up with an obvious solution: ban pure ghee! Or rather, ban the cricketers from having any food cooked in it, even in the off season. “Our cricketers are losing their focus on cricket because of pure ghee,” they argue. “We can only counter this with strong action.”

It’s obvious what is wrong with the above scenario, isn’t it? If the players are unfit, they should be punished for that alone. If they don’t perform, drop them. They will soon enough do whatever they need to in order to get their place back, including renouncing pure ghee, if that’s what the problem really is. Focus on their fitness and performance alone, and try to regulate no more than that. Pure ghee is just a red herring, a convenient excuse for a system that does not focus enough on pure merit.

So are endorsements. The BCCI has announced that it will henceforth regulate the endorsements of its cricketers. “A player will endorse not more than 3 sponsors or products,” their statement reads. “No Sponsor can contract more than 2 players.” And so on.

The primary logic behind this is that endorsements distract players from their performance on the field. This is a popular view – thus this populist action by the BCCI – but even if it was true, is it any of the board’s business what players do in their free time? The BCCI’s only concern should be how their players perform on the field, which should be the basis of how they treat those players.

It is a common view that cricketers owe their massive endorsement deals to the fact that they play for the BCCI, and thus the BCCI should have the right to control their endorsements. But by that logic, your employer would want control over all your purchases, and your boss could show up at your house at midnight and demand that you change the furniture. If that were to happen to you, would you not ask him to get off your private property?

A player’s image rights belong to him alone, and this is respected in other sports across the world. You will not find Wayne Rooney asking either Manchester United or the English soccer authorities for permission to endorse a product. Sure, Man U and England have a right to demand that Rooney not do so in Man U or England colours, because those are trademarked material. But Rooney belongs to no one but himself.

You could argue that the BCCI, as a private body, has the right to put whatever clauses it wants in its contracts, and the players have a right to walk away if they object. Indeed. But consider that Indian cricketers have nowhere else to sell their wares: as Niranjan Rajadhyaksha pointed out recently (free registration required), the BCCI has a monopsony on the game. It can use this to strong-arm players to agree to just about any terms. That does not mean that those terms are correct.

Apart from systemic reform, Indian cricket also needs attitudinal change at the top. The board must introduce a meritocracy, and evaluate the players on nothing other than performance and attitude. If they simply do this dispassionately, there will be no need to blame either pure ghee or endorsements for what their players do wrong. They should, simply put, treat their players according to how they perform at the office, and not try to influence their behaviour at home.

Comments are open.

Posted by Amit Varma in Essays and Op-Eds | Freedom | India | Sport

Copyright (C) India Uncut - http://indiauncut.com
All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission. Email: amitblogs@gmail.com
This article is permanently archived at:
http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/dont-regulate-either-ghee-or-endorsements/

Comments

If the BCCI is a private body, how can MPs justify wasting time arguing sports in Parliament?

And in what world is cricket deserving of the lead story on the TOI front page, well after exiting the World Cup?

#1 Posted by Manish on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 4:04:44

I somehow don’t agree entirely with the article. Players play for BCCI and hence BCCI has a right to control all their endorsements that they gain in the capacity of a cricketer. It is like, business schools, having a regulation of maximum number of consulting assignments that a professor can take. And Football players are treated purely as assets. Every year they are put into market, loaned to other clubs and even exchanged for another player.

One thing is true however that a regulation on endorsements is not an answer to the problem. It seems BCCI is not able to come up with any solution and hence it has taken a step which creates more noise than a concrete solution.

#2 Posted by Kandarp on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 5:11:42

Manish:
If MPs can justify communal riots (a la Rajiv Gandhi), surely, wasting time in Parliament is no big deal for them.

Democracy was supposed to bring in freedom for the individual. Sadly, the flavor of democracy practiced in our country is : dictatorship by the ignorant majority.

#3 Posted by Sridhar Vanka on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 9:33:02

Kandarp:

The BCCI cannot justify doing away with contracts and restricting endorsements. If there are contracts in place, you can call the players full-time employees of the board, but now they are just paid as they go.

Does this also mean that Sharad Pawar cannot get paid as an MP? I mean every b*stard on the BCCI board has dual jobs but somehow the players cannot endorse in their free time. Smacks of bias doesn’t it? The BCCI saw a chance to put their foot down and did exactly that, but I think they overstepped and are going to either have to let the rule slip or face major issues from the players. Will the BCCI pay Sachin’s 180 crore contract to offset the losses by this rule?

#4 Posted by Prabu on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 10:21:58

I had read this somewhere, perhaps from one of your earlier articles itself, “You can’t regulate something that you do not own”. This is simply a matter of ownership. Amit is 100% right. In fact, I was waiting for Amit’s comments on the issue. Consider the following cases:

If I have a 9 to 5 job, what I do after 5 is none of my employer’s business and the employer has to respect my privacy (unless I create an externality to the firm that hires me, i.e. leak trade secrets, etc.).

Secondly, let us assume that Shahrukh Khan is blessed by “God” and suddenly starts playing cricket. He is selected by virtue of his Ranji performances, but he already has loads of sponsorship endorsements. This point demonstrates who “owns” the rights. How can to tell Shahrukh to dishonor existing commitments? Which contracts should he dishonor?

Thirdly, why is it that Kumble and Tendulkar have different fortunes. This is because saleability is an individual based and every person has a specific brand value. For example, a Dravid brand would show reliability whereas Dhoni would show youth, fun and daring. Once again, individuality matters!

The retired players simply cannot understand the opportunities available to youngsters. The board should specify the amount of time that individuals should practice, at home and otherwise, specify target body fat percentage levels, specific training regimen, and individual and team based goals. If the cricketers fulfill the requirements, that should be it.

And what are selectors doing if players are influencing the selection of players who have similar sponsors? May be the problem is that selector is affiliated to a specific sponsor--Please review their bank accounts. And not having performance bonuses is plain stupid. Lebron James has a even a location based contract from Nike which says that he will get a bonus if he moves to big city markets such as Chicago, LA or NY.

#5 Posted by V. S. Prabhu on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 10:32:57

Somehow, the vulgar number of matches that that Indian team plays never comes up, I wonder why !
Shouldn’t the BCCI say: let us reduce the number of international matches so more players can play domestic cricket ? Wouldn’t a reduction in the amount of international fixtures keep the players fresh ?
But then, how would the Board make all that money ? I think the Board has just killed the golden goose !

#6 Posted by Sridhar Vanka on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 12:02:13

Manish, Sridhar, Prabu, Prabhu, good points.

Prabhu, the piece you refer to was indeed by me, written the day before I started India Uncut: ”You cannot sell what you do not own.” Your comment is excellent, I wish I’d made some of those points!

Sridhar, the BCCI has announced that it will reduce the number of international matches and strengthen domestic cricket. But there is a vast gulf between intent and action. If we win the series against Bangladesh easily, with some sparkling individual performances, all the urgency to change the system may vanish.

#7 Posted by Amit Varma on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 1:14:08

Trust BCCI to come out with a knee-jerk reaction.
The proposals regarding endorsements are steeped in negativity.
Unlike the Corporate world, some things are not quite the same. Such measures are silly & have no reasonable explanation.
Can’t imagine that the poor cricketers are so mercenary in their attitude ?
Are we to suppose that if the Indian team is offered more than twice the regular remuneration, the overseas records would improve overnight.
The sports bodies are just so exasperating.Uggh..

#8 Posted by jm on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 4:29:04

Imposing such a restriction does appear short-sighted, but employers do this all the time and label it ‘Conflict of Interest’. It could be argued that having numerous endorsements distracts players from concentrating on what they really should be doing (professionally) when they’re not playing matches - practicing.

1. Just spending the requisite amount of time on the practice field does not guarantee that the player is really giving his full attention. His thoughts could be centered on how he should close the contract with that big brand.
2. I’m not sure how practice sessions work, but could it be possible that a player pleads time off for sickness and goes for an outdoor photo shoot, since that’s definitely going to bring him more money?

I would defintely classify point 2 as being a conflict of interest. Maybe this restriction will address that to a certain extent.

#9 Posted by Srinivas on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 5:23:12

I agree with Amit 100% - BCCI has, yet again, gone ahead and taken a measure which by no means has any bearing on the performance of an individual player or team.
It was another hogwash meeting for BCCI to come out with some eyewash decisions like populist measures to ensure that business goes on as usual.
If any, it will only distance the players further from BCCI.
No one seems to have reacted to this the way it should have been.
However, it goes on to prove one thing - today money rules the noble game like never before.

#10 Posted by Ranjeet on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 8:48:50

The fact that Dravid is so eager to have a conversation with the BCCI, suggests that the players very well know which side is of the toast is buttered. I don’t care two hoots for Sharad Pawar or his BCCI cronies (in fact Sharad Pawar stands for everything shameful about Indian Politicos). However, the very same senior players have shown less eagerness to take responsibility for their collective failures. Monetary incentives are supposed to spur superior performance (see Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan). However, it seems that the Babu Mentality has crept into the Indian seniors, they can collect pay-checks, show up to work at 11 am and then go for chai-samosa. Why don’t we replace the entire Indian team with a bunch of hungry young players and send the uncles home to rest on their laurels. Maybe they will play with some heart (see Sri Lanka and B’Desh for example) or they will learn what professional cricket is all about (see the Aussies).

By the way, Amit, great blog site…long-time reader. Good Luck and keep it up!!

#11 Posted by Gundappa Vishwanath on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 8:53:23

I could turn in one more article in here. But endorsement regulation is just one way for the BCCI to (a) pass the buck for poor performance, and (b) ensure that the players’ revenue streams are within their control at all levels.

What this would do is tie the players’ professional and financial futures to the BCCI even more than before. In the absence of alternatives to the BCCI, the players will have to go with anything the Board dishes out, and that means we’re looking at a potential Zimbabwe situation here (with entirely different motives, of course). I might be overstating the situation, but it is not that difficult to imagine happening.

#12 Posted by Sumant on Sun, April 08, 2007 at 11:29:27

Amit,
While I agree with the basic premise of your article - that BCCI cannot regulate its players endorsements - I have serious issues with the new (non) action plan that BCCI has laid out. This is classic BCCI - putting band aid on deep wounds expecting them to heal or go away. The BCCI aspires to be a professional organization, while it is not. Chappell has it right when he says India cannot aspire to be like Australia by doing things like Zimbabwe. What BCCI needs is a deeper change or going thru major surgery to heal these deep wounds. No band aid can solve it. Are politicians the right people to run a professional organization? What about Ravi S, Sunny G, S Venkat, these are the same people who chose Chappell to be the coach? What results did we get from Chappell - a BIG failure at the WC? These were the same people who chose Greg and Dravid for one purpose only - to win the WC. I believe, the answer to the failures of India and BCCI are in what Zee is trying to do. Professional cricket a la Kerry Packer style. That is what changed cricket in Australia. This is what will change cricket in India. Why? Simple - Competition to BCCI. Only competition forces organizations to think creatively, forces them to take risks, or they are thrown out of business. BCCI in its current state is a monopoly run by the most unprofessional people - who hog on to power without any accountability. It is the same people who are taking decisions, coming up with new rules, blah, blah, blah… Nothing will change. If I am an Indian cricketer who wants to think good for Indian cricket, I will break away from BCCI and join Zee’s efforts. One big player (I hope SRT!!) - who makes this announcement will shake up the entire cricketing mess in India and then we will see some good happen. Until then, we are going to see mediocrity rule, and Team India losing in WC 2011. Indian cricketers - who truly believe about better cricket for India in the future - will break away from BCCI and take up on the Zee offer..... This is what India needs - not another politician run organization with no accountability.

#13 Posted by Achyut on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 6:10:00

I don’t see anything wrong in BCCI regulating the endorsements of players. It is their show and they are free to enforce whatever clause they want before letting the players take part in it. If players are not happy, they are free to take up other careers. Or play cricket for other leagues, now that there is a competition in the form of Zee’s ICL. For an avowed libertarian like you, I am surprised you are commenting on what a private body should or shouldn’t do in its private business. Yes, I saw your point about bcci being a monopoly, but even then, it is only a defacto monopoly. It doesn’t have any government sanction and others are free to compete against it. That no one has done so far is only because BCCI has established such a loyal following for its product.

#14 Posted by Mohan on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 8:30:43

I quite like the ghee analogy. Wonder where all it could be extended to! ;) But seriously, the basic problem if you ask me is an inherent lack of professionalism at all ends. The players don’t know what it is to be a pro athlete and those running the affairs have no clue what accountability means. Introduce that and the fear of getting fired into administrators and things may start looking up. That, however only addresses a fraction of the problem. Players not performing on-field cannot be the fault of coaches and managers and selectors. when this motley bunch was selected and sent to the Caribbean, everyone was hopeful. “They’re our best” we cooed. Now then… Bangladesh has better!

#15 Posted by Aditya Kuber on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 10:25:13

Mohan, I’m not saying that the BCCI does not have a right to put these clauses. I’m simply saying that the BCCI is not right in doing so. There is a difference.

And I’m not demanding that they roll it back—who am I to do so?—but merely criticizing their move. Being a libertarian does not mean that I cannot criticize any private body! Indeed, there is all the more reason to criticize private bodies because the market is the best regulator. No?

#16 Posted by Amit Varma on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 2:47:11

Amit, fair enough. But I would still question your analogy of comparing this move with my boss coming to my house and appropriating all my assets. BCCI isn’t appropriating players’ assets - they are just saying you cannot earn money from endorsements (beyond a limit) while you are on contract with us. It is fairly common for companies to insist that their employees should not be gainfully employed with anyone else. That is, you can’t do one job 9-5 and then moonlight with another company after hours. Contracts don’t even say with competitor in the same domain etc. Just can’t work with anyone else period.

btw, regarding the terms not being “correct”, I would say, they are perfectly right from bcci perspective. They are just showing the players who the boss is.

#17 Posted by Mohan on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 3:57:00

Mohan, a player’s image rights are his assets, which the board is trying to control.

Also, the company analogy is flawed because the BCCI hires our cricketers to play cricket, and is entirely justified in insisting that they play cricket for no competing board. But to go beyond that professional domain is not on.

#18 Posted by Amit Varma on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 4:15:15

Amit, bcci isn’t trying to control players’ image rights. They are just saying if you want to play for us, these are our conditions. Fair game, I think.

As for company analogy, I can’t work for one IT services company and another say, retain chain and argue that they are in different domains. Employment contracts say you just can’t work for anyone else. Same way, bcci is saying while you are on contract with us, you can’t work as models. I think they are being extra lenient even allowing those 3 endorsement contracts.

#19 Posted by Mohan on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 4:38:12

Amit, this is not soemthing new either. ECB and CA both have clauses in their contracts which state that their players cannot sign endorsement contracts without the board’s permission. When a player signs with Real Madrid he has to assign his image rights to the club.

http://www.sportandtechnology.com/page/0035.html
“A top Real Madrid official, Emile Butragueno says: “When a player signs for Real Madrid he must give up his image rights for the club to manage …. This is a must, a policy of the club, but of course we would respect previous agreements… Ronaldo and (Zinedine) Zidane had several contracts signed already but we now manage the image rights and share the revenue with them.”

#20 Posted by Mohan on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 5:02:05

”Amit, bcci isn’t trying to control players’ image rights.”

Huh? Of course they are. Setting restrictions on it is tantamount to controlling it.

“I think they are being extra lenient even allowing those 3 endorsement contracts.”

So consider what would happen if they didn’t allow any. Because the bulk of a player’s earnings come from endorsements, the incentives for young players to take up cricket would shoot down, and the pool of talented players would also go down, as it was until the 90s etc when there wasn’t enough money in cricket. The BCCI would be shooting themselves in the foot by doing that.

As for Real Madrid, a player can simply sell his wares elsewhere if he doesn’t like their terms. They’re not in a monopsony. That is a point I’ve already made in my piece.

The same point holds for employment contracts. In my 13 years of work-ex across industries, I’ve never worked in a place that has a contract that has control over my IP, and never would have.

When I worked in Wisden Cricinfo, no one tried to claim ownership of India Uncut, or tell me how many posts a day I was allowed to do. All they asked was that I was competent in the workplace. Had they tried to place restrictions on my blogging, I would have left, and they would have been the poorer for it. They were smarter than the BCCI, as most companies are.

Also, just because other cricket boards may have similar clauses does not make it right. You can justify just about anything that way!

#21 Posted by Amit Varma on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 7:24:48

Amit,
Lack of endorsements leading to lack of interest - not really. As per the incentive scheme announced by bcci, assuming current workload and win rate, an Indian cricketer will earn around 1.5-2 crores per annum in match fees and bonuses. That will still put them in the top 0.0001% of the population. No, there is no immediate danger of kids not taking up cricket because it is not financially lucrative. And if bcci ever senses it happening, they can always increase the pay.

As for IP rights, I have never seen an employment contract so far that doesn’t assign all my IP rights to the employer. Google for some sample contracts. Take a look at this:

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074300742

When I said bcci isn’t controlling the players’ rights - it is a contract between two parties. Players are free not to sign the contract if they are not happy with the terms. Then bcci won’t have any control over their image rights. It is only if they want to play for bcci that they have to forego their image rights.

#22 Posted by Mohan on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 8:09:14

Mohan, I don’t need to Google for employment contracts: For 12 of my 13 years in the workforce, I’ve worked for only multinationals, both British and American ones, and no contract has made a demand on my output outside work hours. If employment contracts were so stupid, nobody with a job would be able to blog.

If you agree with the thuggery of the BCCI, which they can get away with because of the monopsony in cricket, that’s entirely up to you. No one is disputing that they have a right to put whatever they want in their contract, including restrictions on pure ghee. It is whether those restrictions make sense that is the issue here.

#23 Posted by Amit Varma on Mon, April 09, 2007 at 8:45:27