The past few years has witnessed a tremendous surge in awareness of Intellectual Property Rights in India. Cases of conflicting interests, arm-wresting the law, and a general awakening among masses has ushered in a new era of identifying and protecting one’s rights, popularly known as the IP era. The present case at hand of IPR conflict within the Indian cricket community has drawn both flak and applause on all parts of the parties involved- The original ringmaster International Cricket Council(ICC), the overwhelming patron BCCI, and our own bravehearts , the Indian Cricket Team, a.k.a Team India, and the mighty sponsors, without whom any major sporting event would be dead as a dodo. I would like to reflect upon the interests of all of these parties in order to come to a conclusive scenario.
The ICC being the parent body of world cricket, had obvious reasons to enforce such a controversial contract. They had signed a magnanimous deal with GCC regarding sponsorship rights to the tune of $550 million USD. They could not have afforded to lose out on the tremendous commercial opportunities riding on the event. With cricket evolving from a few nations’ sport to a wide spread fan following comparable to the indelible fanaticism of football, they were left with no other choice but to pay heed to their sponsors’ whims and fancies. Even widespread rumours were that ICC was more benevolent to white nations like England and Australia, whose cricketers are the most paid than any other nation, and that they adopted a wily step-son attitude towards Asian countries, especially India. Such feelings could be well evinced following the Ashes series between India and Australia, where Indian players of the godmen-like statute of Sachin Tendulkar, Virendra Sehwag and Harbhajan Singh were implicated with allegations like ball-tamering and breaching the code of conduct of cricket. All the parties involved here had their own interests to protect, only that they were on the wrong side of each other.
The BCCI had to its own interests to resolve. Being the wealthiest cricket board in the world, it generates more than half the game’s revenue. No prizes for guessing that they would muscle with the ICC to protect their player’s interests and stamping the myth that India rules cricket. Also they were concerned that had the players remained adamant to their demands and refused to sign the contract, and the ICC actually barred them from playing, the revenues that BCCI would end up losing because of a steep plummeting spectator interest would be nothing short of nightmares. Not only that, they would be liable to pay damages to sponsors, which could well be ten-fold had the full Indian not landed in Sri Lanka. The then BCCI president claimed that the BCCI officials were forced to sign the Participatory Nations’ Agreement, muscled by the ICC. These controversial players’ Terms led to a serious standoff between BCCI and the players, as a particular advertisement clause 13 barred players to endorse brands which posed potential threats to the official sponsors 30 day before and after the prestigious ICC tournament. It imposed a telling blow to IPR rights of the players, as what brands the players chose to endorse is a matter of Fundamental Rights imparted to them by the Constitution Of India. But this IPR right could not be preserved as, Team India were but minnows compared to the mighty governing body of ICC. At the end, Team India had to take field signing the document.
A last-minute compromise deal ensured that all players agreed to the terms. The block-out period was reduced from 30 days to 16 days. One more case of IP rights biting the dust.
As for the players, I opine that they could have sorted out the imbroglio by considering the nation’s interest and pride before their own. But then, Its understandable that they also, for all the media hype and hoopla, embossing them as tiaras in the nation’s jewel-crowned head, are mere mortals and have their self interests to suffice. Also, several Indian players would have been more affected from loss of their contracts than other nations, where such brands are lesser known. There was also issues of lack of patronage. The players were left to fight for their own rights. Initially the BCCI defended them, but later as they felt the heat from the top boss, they chose to desert their own team. They were not even allowed to appoint a spokesperson on their behalf. The contract row actually extended further till world cup 2003, where the entire payment due to India from the World Cup was held back for refusing to sign the original contract .But then they should have reasoned that had they not actually played in such a coveted tournament for only commercial reasons, not only would the nation’s pride be shrouded in clouds of criticism and ostracism, the players might have to face exclusion from future tournaments and lose more than what they could have gained. Also the fact cannot be refuted that a player is only worth his present performance, once his feat becomes lopsided, no major brands would approach him. We can surmise this from the pathetic turmoil Saurav Ganguly was left in, post his spat with Greg Chappel and poor form. So I support the players’ rejecting to compromise with their basic rights, as they were merely safeguarding their own commercial interests. The players should be conscious that while the tournament sponsors are of reputed brands, advertising about their competitors would not be taken down smilingly by the officials and the marketers, more so when the stakes are so high and so many organisations are participating.
At this juncture, we ought to look at the key ramifications needed in this context.The negative side of the story is quite evident. Technically, every citizen has the right to safeguard his IPR at any cost, depending upon the constitutional framework of his country. The players were bullied into acceding their rights to a stronger body. They were definitely not at par with such a huge body as ICC to negotiate their case. The ICC should have made the offer subject to negotiation, as the players were subjected to huge losses from their previous endorsements. Once the seemingly party conceded to the demands, the more powerful one can always “negotiate” with other legitimate deals next time round. Cases where the top management actually bows down to the weaker party’s claims would as rare as counting hen’s teeth. To buttress my claims, we can as well take a look around numerous instances of non-negotiable offers in corporates, where the employer simply tows down the employee at his own free will, at the pretext of “working under him under the prescribed working hours”.The issue covers a wide domain, from salary wages, promotions, bond periods, outsourcing to even open source.
All said and done, one cannot be naive enough to ignore the positive effects of this issue. The ICC saw to it that the tournament took place, albeit after some delay, and that the full Indian team played it. The larger interest was saved. It also championed the need and right to knowledge among the citizens, and many cases followed hence , where the administrative bodies had no option but to impart data concerning the public at large, till then hidden from public eye. Recent developments in entrance examinations are glaring examples where the officials had to divulge details regarding the selection processes. It has opened up many avenues for the public to know exactly how efficiently the system is functioning and fixing the loopholes.
Such IPR issues will continue to occur as long as the system and the players in it have interests at loggerheads. It calls for a resounding and mature settlement of the issue without washing dirty linen in public. It only makes matter worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment