In the preface to his celebrated book Beyond A Boundary, CLR James wrote: “What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?”
The current West Indies cricket crisis brings this quotation sharply into focus as one tries to piece together the facts that have emerged since events started to unravel about a month ago in India.
Debate has been ongoing as to which party is at fault. Were the players within their rights to refuse to play? Or, was the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) correct in insisting on its own legal rights thereby holding to the strict letter of the law?
The WICB has not yet, to my knowledge, explained fully the facts surrounding the aborted tour. The promised Press conference that was necessary to give answers to many of the unanswered questions was replaced by a Press briefing, presumably because it was felt that it was not in the WICB’s best interest to expose itself to probing journalists.
Based on the comments from some of the actors in the drama, it appears that the main material facts are:
1. There was a binding collective bargaining agreement and memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the WICB and the West Indies Players’ Association (WIPA).
2. No individual contracts were signed by the players on tour.
3. The players had played all the matches that were possible up to and including the fourth One-Day International, apparently all under protest or at minimum under dissatisfaction with the terms of the collective agreement which, according to them, could see the earnings of some reduced by up to 75 per cent.
4. There was a contractual obligation between the WICB and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) which involved the West Indies cricket team playing several matches, including three Tests.
5. Although the players’ dissatisfaction with the terms of the collective agreement, which saw a significant reduction in earnings for international players, was known from as early as the first One-Dayer, no effort or no serious effort was made to engage the players. Instead, the WICB seems to have taken the position that there was a legal agreement in place and the only person that they could properly talk to was the duly authorised representative of the players.
There are some other background facts that would have been crystal clear to anybody who follows contemporary cricket.
First, the West Indian players (many of them on the aborted tour) are among the biggest drawing cards in the Indian Premier League (IPL) because of their explosive batting, skilful bowling and/or athletic fielding. Indeed, such is the effectiveness of the players in this format that the WICB ought to have by now carved out a space for the participation of the players in the IPL and the Champions Trophy.
Secondly, the BCCI is the strongest cricketing board and the West Indies players and board alike do best financially from tours to India.
Thirdly, the WICB’s finances are under strain and questions have been raised about its viability.
Against this background as set out above, the WICB felt it prudent to insist on its strict legal rights under the newly signed MOU with WIPA. It would appear it felt that it was more important to win the legal battle even if it lost the financial war.
Indeed, it seemed not to realise that unless it could persuade the players to play, it would inevitably be in breach of its contract with the BCCI and be exposed to liability which would threaten its very existence.
Given the facts, the WICB seemed not to appreciate as well that because of the weakness of West Indies cricket at this time, it started off in an unequal bargaining position with the players because they are the main players who the various cricket publics want to see. Our replacement players are not yet good enough to constitute a significant fighting unit in any form of the game.
It ought to have been clear to the WICB that there were far more serious consequences if it could not fulfil its contract with BCCI than if the players refused to fulfil their contracts with WICB.
Those responsible for the manner in which the WICB approached this matter seemed unable to get beyond the strict legal correctness of the players’ insistence on a renegotiation of the player contracts. They seemed not even to realise the financial implications of their failure to find even a temporary accommodation with the players.
Law must always be placed in its context. Even though it could be argued that the players were legally bound by an agreement signed by their duly authorised representative, the circumstances demanded that the directors of the WICB see beyond the boundaries of the strict legal arrangements.
• Cecil McCarthy is a Queen’s Counsel.