The views from other posts clearly states that the fundamental issue here is not money but realization of the fact that ICC owns the events and not the players participating in the event. Indian players refusing to accept the term clearly sends a signal that ICC cannot enforce its views on the players.

Indian players in question were already in terms of contract with competing brands sponsoring the ICC. To rake in the big bucks ICC not only prohibited players to endorse competing brands for the duration of match but also 30 days before and after the trophy. This strategy is used by brands sponsoring the event to monopolize their products in the mind and heart of viewer. India, Cricket is religion and viewership is maximum during the time of event which increases sales of sponsoring brands.

There have been many other instances where the strategy of promoting the official sponsors has been taken up by event organizers and the players have agreed to the terms of the contract. The reason for agreeing is backed by the event organizers who put the interest of the sport first. They are willing to compensate for the breach of contract of individual players. Why should players stop endorsing the brand? They understand the fact that best players need to play the sport and they have no rights to interfere in their personal endorsement deals which earns them money. Hence appropriate compensation should be done if there are any such clauses in the contract.

The statement by the Indian team sends a message across that the team wants to play but their hands are tied due to¬ the ICC’s dictatorial demands. The ICC has no rights to stop players from fulfilling their previous contractual obligations without adequately compensating both the players and their brands. Given the small time frames that sportsmen are active, the ICC should understand the players’ rights to earn as much as they want to during their short professional careers instead of alienating the very players they are supposed to protect.

Yes, we can definitely learn from our heroes. Any concerned person can put forth his/ her unwillingness to sign a contract. I disagree with the fact that only the ones who have edge (like students from IIMS or famous players) can ask for changes of clause in contract. As already cited, in IT industry, the new entrants hardly know what the contract holds. When I joined my first company, I was more excited to work and earn rather than look into employment contract. As and when you understand your work, you may feel the need to innovate. This is when you realize that there are clauses in your contract that stops you from doing that. I believe passion is driving force to innovate. So a new entrant may know what he is good at and may demand change in clause in employment contract. The capacity to bargain also depends on business environment. One may be into open source development in a field not related to present employer. Still there are many companies that prevent their employees to take these kinds of initiatives. They believe employees may devote more time in other business activities and their mind might be preoccupied. Thus industry wide practice has been varied when it is related to IPR, so it is better to put terms and conditions clearly beforehand to stay out of legal issues.