ushma87star
Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
PITY THE BCCI MISSED THE WOODS FOR THE TREES – again. True, the men in Blue had turned in a dismissal performance at the World Cup. Somebody had to bite the bullet and take a few hard decisions to put Indian cricket back on track. But some of the pronouncements by the BCCI Working Committee defy logic. Examples: The decision to limit the number of products a cricketer can endorse; and the stipulation that sponsors can sign on only two players at any given point in time. At the time of going to press, there are indications that these two issues are being reconsidered; but that’s the point we’re making – these, and several others, were ill-considered decisions that should not have been taken in the first place.
The board seems to have overlooked the simple fact that sponsors court successful sports stars. So if companies fall over each other to woo a Sachin Tendulkar or a Rahul Dravid, thare are sound commercial reasons for this. Globally, sports stars earn staggering amounts for endorsement deals. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Maria Sharapova are just three examples of sportspersons who have cashed in on their celebrity status and raked in millions of dollars from sponsorship deals. In 2006, Woods earned nearly $99 million(Rs. 445.5 crore then); for this, $ 87 million(Rs 391.5 crore then) came from endorsements. Such deals have not distracted these players from their sport. If anything, they act as incentives for them to scale greater heights.
Then again, cricketers were denied natural justice when two of them (Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh) were served show – cause notices for reacting to Greg Chappell’s leaks to the media. But in a glaring inconsistency, the coach wasn’t asked to explain the series of sensitive team – related news that he is alleged to have shared with media persons during his 22 – month tenure.
The BCCI, led as it is by one of India’s canniest politicians, perhaps sensed that the public wanted blood and used the opportunity presented by India’s dismissal show in the World Cup to cut the players down to size. This seems to have gone down fairly well with an emotional Indian public. But what almost no one is asking is: what about the systemic flaws in the BCCI itself? There’s no move to professionalise this supposedly “honourary” set – up; there has been no announcement of any plan to improve cricket at the grassroots level; and office – bearers are still not accountable for the thousands of crores of money that Indian cricket now generates every year.
These are the key issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, though, populism seems to have won the day over performance.
The board seems to have overlooked the simple fact that sponsors court successful sports stars. So if companies fall over each other to woo a Sachin Tendulkar or a Rahul Dravid, thare are sound commercial reasons for this. Globally, sports stars earn staggering amounts for endorsement deals. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and Maria Sharapova are just three examples of sportspersons who have cashed in on their celebrity status and raked in millions of dollars from sponsorship deals. In 2006, Woods earned nearly $99 million(Rs. 445.5 crore then); for this, $ 87 million(Rs 391.5 crore then) came from endorsements. Such deals have not distracted these players from their sport. If anything, they act as incentives for them to scale greater heights.
Then again, cricketers were denied natural justice when two of them (Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh) were served show – cause notices for reacting to Greg Chappell’s leaks to the media. But in a glaring inconsistency, the coach wasn’t asked to explain the series of sensitive team – related news that he is alleged to have shared with media persons during his 22 – month tenure.
The BCCI, led as it is by one of India’s canniest politicians, perhaps sensed that the public wanted blood and used the opportunity presented by India’s dismissal show in the World Cup to cut the players down to size. This seems to have gone down fairly well with an emotional Indian public. But what almost no one is asking is: what about the systemic flaws in the BCCI itself? There’s no move to professionalise this supposedly “honourary” set – up; there has been no announcement of any plan to improve cricket at the grassroots level; and office – bearers are still not accountable for the thousands of crores of money that Indian cricket now generates every year.
These are the key issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, though, populism seems to have won the day over performance.