FICA survey settles misconception that most Indian players lust after money

The Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) survey excluded Indian players who are not part of the body. That should settle the misconception that mostly Indian players lust after money

The Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) survey excluded Indian players who are not part of the body. That should settle the misconception that mostly Indian players lust after money

Forty per cent of players surveyed recently by the Federation of International Cricketers' Associations (FICA) accept that they would choose the IPL (or some such league) over representing their country because of the money involved. Why, more than 30 per cent suggested they would quit international cricket to play T20 tournaments.


FICAu00a0chief Tim May

It is important to know that the survey excluded Indian players who are not part of FICA. That should settle the misconception that mostly Indian players lust after money. It is equally pertinent to note that while the IPL is touted as the prime example of club interest, the players would be willing to play wherever big money is on offer, not just in India.

So the BCCI is not the villainous evil empire out to destroy the good one, rather a first-mover in a direction every other cricketing nation wants to traverse. I hold no brief for the BCCI or Indian players, only to put things in perspective. It is now clear that almost half the cricket universe - and this would include Indian players too -- sees no wrong with playing for money even if this means occasionally skipping playing for the country.u00a0The survey seems to uphold the 'club over country' debate, but this could be missing the woods for the trees. In India, particularly, we are easily given to puerile 'popcorn patriotism' in such matters rather than a proper understanding of forces -- socio-eco-psychological -- which influence player decisions.

If indeed 40 per cent players are bowled over by Mammon, it's a lost cause in any case. What the situation needs is deeper understanding by players, critics and fans alike, and a statesmanlike approach from administrators for cricket to preserve its pristine virtues even as it embraces the realities of the globalised world.

Research reveals that the majority of sportspersons (a) play for personal/team/national pride (b) as much as is physically possible (c) to optimise their earnings in every possible way (d) to get as much fame and glory. Some of these attributes might seem contradictory and selfish, which they are in a superfluous sort of way, but not necessarily inimical to sport, society or country.

Sportspersons today are professionals -- not ascetics, not altruists, not amateurs given to only the joy of playing. Like professionals from other areas of life, they earn their livelihood from sport: moreover, they have a limited time span for this, which entails massive levels of insecurity.u00a0 There will be rare extremities. Some players will be driven by massive greed (eg match-fixers/drug-takers), some will play even for free, but the vast majority wants to ply their skills to their best possible advantage without causing intentional damage. Problems arise when there is imbalance created in the attributes mentioned above. Other sports (and sportspersons) have not been exempt from such conflicts either. Not too many players in the top 100 in tennis would be willing to forego a Grand Slam or ATP/WTA tourney for the Davis/Hopman Cup. But rancour over this is minimal because the affairs of tennis appear streamlined.

The Davis Cup and Grand Slams are conducted by the International Tennis Federation,u00a0 ATP and WTA run their own tournaments, but there is synchronicity between them which prevents adversity for the sport, players and fans. The IPL (or another such league) therefore is only symptomatic of the cause of turmoil, which is actually the ineffective streamlining of the cricket itinerary and lack of co-ordination between the ICC and the cricket boards, notably the BCCI. Governance really is the issue.

It is important for the BCCI to note that the FICA survey shows almost 70 per cent of players believe the Indian board wields an enormous influence on ICC's decision making.u00a0 This is a whopping number, but the catch is that these players also believe this influence is unfair. The BCCI's might is clearly established, but there is dissonance about its monopolistic ways, often whimsical and arrogant. In the prevailing situation, it devolves on the BCCI to take the lead, provide the vision, make the sport richer in finance, content and I dare say contentedness.

At a personal level, my passion is for Test cricket and I would be happy if the agenda is defined in a way which supports the five-day format without ignoring the financial benefits accruing from other formats. As in almost everything in life, it's a question of finding the right balance: never easy to find, but never to be given up on.