Professionals and Gentlemen

Reports have it that Justice Adrian Saunders, the Caricom-appointed arbitrator in the contractual dispute between the West Indies Players' Association and the West Indies Cricket Board, has allowed that there is a subtle distinction between the endorsement contracts players sign as individuals and those they sign as members of the West Indies team. This partially settles the disagreement between the two sides, as it allows the existing agreements between Cable & Wireless and three of the team to continue. The arbitrator found that private endorsements continue to be the right of players. This opinion, however, has not warmed relations between the board and the players' association, as both parties are still publicly sparring.

Over the weekend, WIPA issued a statement calling on the board to name the squad for the upcoming tour of Australia, adding, "We trust that the delay in naming the team does not arise from any attempt by the board to sidestep the decision of the appointed adjudicator on Clause 1K, whose decision is binding and was released on December 16 and which endorsed WIPA's position."

The WICB promptly responded that the association's statement "attempts to characterise the judgment of the independent arbiter in a manner favourable to WIPA. This is quite clearly in breach of the Heads of Agreement entered into by all parties at the mediation session in St George's."

The parties had agreed not to comment on the issues except for statements of fact. Their testiness is probably also fuelled by rumours that the new sponsor, Digicel, is putting pressure on the WICB to replace Brian Lara, the captain, and his deputy Ramnaresh Sarwan. This seems far-fetched, especially given the declaration by Bennett King, the new coach, that he wants Lara to carry on as captain.

The board and the players have never operated on anything resembling a system of mutual respect or parity. The current dispute has revealed a difference in stances, with WIPA flexing muscles that have alarmed some (their secretary, Roland Holder, has resigned), and the WICB realising that its own muscles have grown flaccid. The issues clearly indicate a whole new ball game.

There was a time when the notion of representing West Indies at cricket floated on lofty ideals of representing one's nation with honour - to wear the maroon without pride and dignity was unthinkable.

Yet by 1998, Professor Hilary Beckles had presented a study of change in the second volume of his book, The Development of West Indies Cricket: The Age of Globalization that characterised modern cricketers as seeing themselves as "professional craftsmen" with no attachment to the idealism of their predecessors. "They do not wish to be role models for the youth, nor carry the burden of responsibility for nationalist pride, regional integration, and the viability of the nation state," he observed. "They see themselves as apolitical, trans-national, global professionals, who desire to maximise financial earnings within an attractive market, and are motivated and guided by no other considerations."

His findings generated concern that what had been seen as behaviour peculiar to Brian Lara was indeed a foretaste of a new state of mind that has reached maturity in the West Indian camp, but has long been institutionalised in other parts of the cricket world. For even as Beckles was assessing the situation, the Australian players were revolting in 1997, leading to the restructuring of their pay packages to what is now the benchmark for cricketers.

And they are at it again: Cricket Australia is asking international and state players to scrap the system they had fought for seven years ago, which allows them 25% of the board's revenues, in favour of a payment pool that is fixed annually. The players are resisting, with the Australian Cricketers' Association chief executive, Tim May, making the point that players were shareholders in the welfare of the game.

This was the position foreseen by Beckles: that players demand ownership in ways that had not yet been imagined. Today, there is not a Test-playing nation that has escaped the industrial-relations disputes arising from the growing strength of players and their associations.

In October 2003, the Indian team, represented by Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble, successfully persuaded the Indian board to restructure their pay formula. And their famous impasse over ambush marketing and endorsement rights for the Champions Trophy ended with the ICC allowing concessions on two of its original clauses.

The Sri Lanka Cricketers' Association rejected the package for the last World Cup, which offered them 5% of what their board would receive from the ICC, when players from Australia and New Zealand were getting as much as 25%.

Daryll Cullinan paved the way for South Africa's youngest Test captain, Graeme Smith, when he walked out of the squad in 2002 during contract negotiations. Rushdi Magiet, the chairman of selectors at the time, moaned that it was very sad that "people don't want to play for their country", while the board's chief executive, Gerald Majola, said that "it is vital that players realise the honour of playing for South Africa".

The West Indies players themselves have had their altercations, most infamously the situation in 1998 before their disastrous tour of South Africa, but the current controversy isn't one that should have caught any observer by surprise. It is part of the professional's life.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of cricket boards and players' associations is made up of players. Ownership of the game, or more specifically its coffers, seems to be at the heart of all modern disputes. It is a far cry from the days when there were separate gates for amateur "gentlemen" and professional players. Those gates have disappeared, but can it be inferred that because all international cricketers are now paid, there are only professionals and no more gentlemen?