Facetiousness aside, I read a minor tragedy in this whole IC/PL business. Adams is reported as saying "Now it's a job to me", suggesting that before he stated playing for the money, cricket was chiefly about love for the game or pride in representing his country or the adulation of the fans or any of those many things that makes sport more than just a job. I'm not being down on Adams, as I'm sure he still dearly loves the game and will be very proud in representing the Kolkata Tigers. I'm just disappointed in the way cricket is measured these days, with the IPL chairman telling us that the new league will somehow improve cricket worldwide by making players richer and Shane Warne gushing about the IPL because it has already attracted a billion dollars.
Shane Bond also severely missed the point I feel when he expressed surprise that people, including fans presumably, might consider sportspeople to be something other than salarymen:
"Some people are always going to think that you're a traitor and I can live with that. I find it strange, though, that in any other job people accept that you try to improve your circumstances and get in a better position for your family but it's almost like you're not supposed to do that in sport."
5 comments:
Indians in all fields have for decades pursued the lure of money. In the west, in Australia/NZ in Africa. Over the last few years India now has the enterprise to attract foreign talent. It is happening in Software, Law and now cricket.
India lamented this pursuit of money to the west as "brain drain". Engineers trained in elite government sponored schools chose to set shop else where. They were successful; outrageously so.
Things are now changing. I for one am happy that we can attract cricketers of the caliber of Bond. What I am unhappy about is why should this translate to disqualification from representing New Zealand.
Indian businessmen have setup successful businesses in the silicon valley. But they are welcome to set shop in India. Why not Bond?
There is a undercurrent of anti-India sentiments in the NZ and Australian media. The BCCI is painted as a bully. I choose to assess this as India finally having the market and the capital to attract global talent and your boards are collaborating with the BCCI.
You are quite right. Playing for the ICL should not disqualify Bond from playing for New Zealand. However, it is the BCCI who is to blame for the clash between the ICL and international cricket.
IPL and ICL are great ideas and could be great tournaments. However, it is a real problem that they are having such a negative impact on international cricket. No one begrudges good cricketers the opportunity to ply their trade in India – far from it, it is an exciting prospect – but that shouldn't be at the expense of their availability for their national squads or at the expense of the international schedule. English county cricket offers players a similar opportunity with minimal disruption to international cricket.
How is the BCCI to blame for the ICL ban? The BCCI and the boards sleeping with it, which includes yours are doing what every enterprise will do when faced with competition. ICL is competition and the boards BCCI and the other, not just BCCI, are doing all in their power to kill ICL. It's the same with Google and MSFT. Neither is being blamed as far as I know. They are free to compete fiercely.
The laws of democratic nations like India and NZ are allowing their boards to exceed their authority in who can and who cannot represent New Zealand the nation. That is the problem not the BCCI. Don't tell me that the BCCI has power to dictate who can and who cannot play for NZ. Shame on NZ if it has allowed that to happen.
Golandaaz, I am having difficulty working out where you are coming from. On the one hand you seem to be suggesting that the BCCI is justified in pushing for a ban on ICL players but at the same time you are attacking NZC, an ICC partner of the BCCI, for going along with the ban.
Also, you seem to be confused about the status of the NZC in New Zealand. NZC is essentially a privately owned company, not a government-controlled board. NZC only decides who plays for the Black Caps, not who represents New Zealand.
My apologies for being so confusing. There are 2 aspects here. One is the intent to compete with new market entrant; the ICL in this case; and the second is the means used to compete.
I will not fault NZC, ICC or the BCCI in wanting to compete and kill ICL using lawful means.
The means used; in this case threatening current and future employees with a ban if they were to find employment with the competition is unlawful in most coutries. NZC may be a private enterprise but NZ citizens are supposed to be protected by the employment laws that even NZC should follow. No private enterprise in NZ I assume can create laws and ban people from seeking employment purely based on the whims and fancies of private businesses.
If Bond is banned by NZC under the influence of the BCCI, and his only crime is that he played for ICL then don't blame the BCCI for it. It is your laws or lack of enforcement of them that is the problem.
Post a Comment