Players are not paid from public funds but from earnings generated primarily from their own image rights

Nishan Sydney Premathiratne, the Lawyer representing the 38 Sri Lankan cricketers, says in this third and concluding instalment that prolonging the player contract issue is not healthy for cricket and players’ overall peace of mind and also the image of Sri Lanka Cricket on a global footing. The earlier it is resolved, the better for everyone overall. Following are excerpts:

By Sa’adi Thawfeeq

Q: What do you have to say about the reduction in the pay?

As the issue is transparency, the question seemingly doesn’t have relevance to the problem at hand. But to put matters into context, FICA (Federation of International Cricketers’ Association) has informed that the new remuneration intimated to Sri Lankan players is substantially lower in comparison with other global cricketing nations which are deemed to be on par. FICA also confirms that the sums paid by ICC to cricketing boards has not reduced during the last year nor has a reduction been forecasted for the following year. 

Furthermore, FICA also confirms that players are allotted a certain percentage from the respective Board’s earnings in most other global jurisdictions, and such disclosures as to Board earnings are made to the players and the respective player association. Revenue sharing models are in existence as Board earnings are primarily revolving around the players’ image rights. 

This is not the case in Sri Lanka, and it must be stressed that the Sri Lankan players have not asked for this level of transparency nor are they asking for such a model. However, there is no player association which is effective in Sri Lanka at the moment. In addition, coaches have been paid significant sums of money on a monthly basis which are sometimes three to four fold higher when computed on an annual basis, compared to that of the players’ contract fees.

All those factors have to be placed in context. In some other global jurisdictions, players are provided with pension schemes, post retirement. However, no such pension scheme has been set up in Sri Lanka. So the players have a very limited life span. Players can get injured and their careers can come to an abrupt end. Certain past players have opined recently that it is not fair to attempt to reduce players’ payments in this manner. Players also are not paid from public funds but from earnings generated primarily from their own image rights. But the administration is also duty bound to develop overall cricket in the country from such earnings which cannot be undermined and paramount.

So different schools of thought on the matter have emerged, which have to be appreciated, but ultimately judged in my opinion on the footing that the players who are selected to represent our country is the cream, they are the best we have, which should not be put in question, at least in the minds of the players. But I re-iterate that the present issue is transparency. All of the above is important to be appreciated when addressing the question. 

Putting that in context, yes, Sri Lanka has dropped in international rankings in the past few years, but I think the players feel it is unreasonable for the entirety of blame being attributed exclusively to them, when the administration and all stakeholders are also involved in the game. Decisions taken to scrap the SLPL in 2012, the number of clubs in Sri Lanka being doubled to 24 from the initial number of 12 are all possible factors. The provincial tournaments have been also played in an ad hoc, on-and-off basis which is also a contributing factor.

Q: As a lawyer do you think the players’ stand on this issue is a fair one?

As a lawyer I might not always have the same opinion as my clients, but I should make every endeavour to bring a dispute to a satisfactory end for a client. But I believe this issue of transparency is not an unreasonable request, especially considering 30% of the points under the new model being allotted on seemingly uncertain subjective elements (as it stands now). 

What is leadership, can a young player who has just emerged qualify for these points? What is professionalism? Is an on-field altercation, for which a player has been fined, also considered and carried forward to another day to be reflected in the annual contracts? Is off the field misconduct also considered? Does it matter if the respective player had already been fined or penalised? Future potential: Is age the pivotal element for future potential? 

Transparency would also bridge the gap of uncertainty. Create trust between the players and the administration. The administration and the players are all part of one team as I look at it. If Sri Lanka makes headway in the ICC rankings, credit should and would definitely go to the administration and also the team. It is vice versa. Though the immediate knee jerk reaction of a loss is reflected on the players, ultimately such would stream down to the administration. There is no need to mention that cricket and our nation have an in severable bond and there is no greater feeling than a win in a cricket match to all of us Sri Lankans. If there is a distrust divide between the players and administration, it should be addressed as the primary matter. 

Transparency I believe would bring in continuity and certainty to players and their careers and the required confidence to them that they cannot be omitted if they have done well. Players could also introspect. It would ultimately serve well for everyone and not merely the players. 

Q: Where do you see it all ending?

It will end, and do so very soon. The issue prolonging is not healthy for cricket and the players’ overall peace of mind and also the image of Sri Lanka Cricket on a global footing. The earliest these player evaluations are disclosed, along with the criteria, especially in respect of the subjective matters, and if the assessments are satisfactory to the players and reasonable, there should not be any reason for the contract issue to prolong. Negotiations should happen professionally and cordially between the parties and ultimately endeavour to reach a middle ground which is fair.

Notwithstanding, cricket will continue as the players at all times unconditionally and unequivocally held that they would be available to play for Sri Lanka and national duty is their primary and only obligation. The players actually left for England without any binding representation on match payment and have signed a voluntary declaration. Even if the Board decides to not make payment to the players in respect of match fees for the tour, the players have categorically stated that such is not an issue and that they will continue to play for Sri Lanka and be available to play. So, rest assured, if one is of the view that the players are holding SLC to ransom, it is not true. The players are only seeking transparency and fairness.

Arthur says team’s focus is on England despite contract row