Tweet
Posted on 02 October 2011.
Caricom To the Rescue?
ROMAIN PITT proposes a political solution
“In the long run,” warns the aphorism minted by J.M. Keynes, one of the few pragmatic economic theorists, “we are all dead.” I do not doubt that the decision of the West Indies Players’ Association (WIPA) to take the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) to court resulted from the exhaustion of alternatives and the fear that there will be no meaningful change in the administration of West Indies cricket in our lifetime. However, having practised law for 29 years and having sat on the bench of a Superior Court for full 16 years, I am of the firm belief that the vehicle of litigation should be used only as a last resort. The justice system is deliberately ponderous for reasons other than the perceived tendency of jurists to delay. The implications of decisions often reverberate throughout the society. Pleadings, preparation for trial, discoveries, full argument and careful deliberation at different levels of the court are pre-requisites to decision making. Those are time-consuming activities to which are to be added time for the proper crafting of reasons.
I suggest that a careful examination of the underlying features of the relationship between WICB and West Indian cricketers should reveal an absence of divergence in the interests of the parties. The employer-employee lens through which the relationship has been perceived is a product of the class struggle that has characterised West Indies history. Conceptually, the members of the WICB have no “skin in the game” in the sense that they do not invest money in West Indies cricket and have no personal liability for obligations assumed by the organisation unless they recklessly guarantee WICB loans. I doubt that such recklessness obtains.
Cricketers are selected to represent the region, the WICB pays all expenses including remuneration which should depend on the financial resources available to the WICB. Historically, the Board has tended unilaterally to determine the level of remuneration; today, however, the cricketers, with the help of WIPA are expected to have some say in the matter. It would be inappropriate for Board members to treat the net revenues retained by the Board as funds to which they have some entitlement. Those funds are held in trust for the benefit of cricket in the region. So why should there be a conflict of interest between the WICB and cricketers? A difference of opinion about what is best for the game is not by definition a conflict of interest. The illustrious history of West Indies cricket has now become the source of many of our problems. West Indies cricketers had been so good, indeed so dominant, for so long that a consensus has developed on the cause of their recent mediocrity. Simply stated, that consensus is that the cricketers do not give of their best. I do not propose at this time to explain why that consensus is palpably wrong except to say that those who have competed at any level in sport would recognise its falsehood. Sportsmen may disguise their true feelings but it is “hell” to lose.
Let me digress for a moment to discuss punishment. The WICB punishes our cricketers too severely. In fact, the WICB punishes cricketers in a manner that is often contrary to the interests of the team and inconsistent with the practice of other successful cricketing countries. Over the last four years or so, Australian captain Ricky Ponting has been one of the most ill-behaved cricketers on the international circuit. He held up a game in the recent Ashes series for several moments questioning an umpire’s decision. The issue of revoking his captaincy for such behaviour has never even been discussed. England pacer Stuart Broad, whose father, Chris, is an ICC referee, behaves so badly on the field so often that even English commentators express disgust. He has recently been made captain of the English T20 team.
Here in the West Indies, three pending matters and one undisclosed one have ended Sulieman Benn’s participation in West Indies cricket. The first is an incident which occurred in Australia in 2009 for which the 30 year-old left-arm orthodox spinner with 51wickets in 17 Tests to his name was suspended for one or two games. The then team manager Joel Garner expressed the view that the penalty meted out to Benn was basically unjust and promised to first file an appeal and, secondly, to protest; neither step, so far as the cricketing public is aware, was taken. The second was a spitting incident involving Dale Steyn, a South African whose early years of nurture were during the Apartheid era. To most sensitive black persons, then, Benn’s reaction – or over-reaction – would have been understandable. Incident number three involved the then captain Christopher Gayle and was promptly dealt with by him on the field. Those of us who watch cricket regularly and with discernment would have noticed that the two big (in every sense) men resolved their difference in a matter of days.
The situation with Gayle is even worse. No team has treated its best cricketer as badly as the West Indies have treated Gayle for remarks made in a fit of anger. The carefully prepared remarks made about Gayle earlier this year by Professor Hilary Beckles must rate as the most insensitive in sports history. What is more, because the WICB have so far failed to listen carefully to what Gayle had to say, they have misinterpreted some of the most important statements he made. For instance, in a wide-ranging conversation in which he emphasized the importance of the mental aspect of the game, Gayle’s allegation that management appears to have one remedy for all failures, namely running more laps, was misinterpreted and transmitted as an invective against training. It would not surprise me a bit if the men who run the WICB do not know that the laid-back Gayle is one of the fittest cricketers around and, indeed, the fastest man on the West Indies team. To the careless eye, looks are often deceiving.
The WICB allege that Gayle was harsh in his comments about his successor as skipper, Darren Sammy. What Gayle said in fact was that he felt some sympathy for Sammy who was chosen for such a difficult job at a time when he was so inexperienced. In addition, Gayle talked about the comments of some team members regarding Sammy’s captaincy that can be ignored only by the hypocritical. It is a view that would apply equally to the captaincy of someone like Dwayne Bravo. It is simply that with such an all-rounder as captain, it becomes very difficult at times to play three or four pacers or three pacers and two spinners. In fact, I have no doubt that, in at least one of the Tests against India next month, playing four pacers will be the best option.
With regard to comments on the coach: if the senior players – and especially Gayle who was injured for a good part of the World Cup – were not angry about Ottis Gibson’s holding them responsible for the team’s failure and raising doubts about their future inclusion in the team immediately after their final game, then they should all be equipped with halos.
And what is there to be said about Jerome Taylor, the first West Indian fast bowler to get a hat-trick in a One-day International and the first West Indian (and one of only a handful of fast bowlers anywhere) to score a Test century? His treatment defies common sense. The WICB have in effect prohibited Taylor, (a genuine fast bowler, mind you!) from being injured.
The WICB, the fans and the many commentators in the media often describe the objective being pursued as to “get back to the pinnacle.” I disagree. The objective should be to be the best we can be; an additional objective is to have the region consistently represented by our best cricketers. That often does not happen. Why? In a word, money, although that is not the only stumbling block. But it not overstating things to say that the critical relations between the Board and the cricketers involve finance.
In terms of population and other physical resources, the West Indies is the smallest of the major cricket countries, the one least capable of maximizing the financial possibilities of cricket’s new-found mother lode, T20 cricket. Put simply, West Indies cricketers more than any others need access to the markets of other countries to enable them to earn the larger incomes that are the hallmark of this format of the game in the larger markets, particularly India. The main issue faced by today’s talented T20 cricketers is how to earn these high incomes without jeopardizing their status as members of the West Indies team.
That the WICB and the cricketers (read WIPA) should work together is a no-brainer. The differences in income that are at stake are almost qualitative. They may in some cases be as high as (US)$500,000 annually. It is unfortunate that people of influence, including former great cricketers, discuss the matter in simplistic terms like greed and patriotism. The entire focus ought to be on how to achieve the goal. How, for instance, can Keiron Pollard’s becoming a multi-millionaire be contrary to the interests of members of the WICB? Only a psychologist can explain that.
It is for all these reasons that Caricom should instruct the WICB (a) to act at all times generally in the best interests of West Indies cricket and, in particular, in the best interest of West Indies cricketers; and (b) to recognize the cricketers’ right to be represented by and seek help from WIPA, since such recognition is in the best interests of cricket and cricketers. Caricom should also stipulate that in the event of the WICB’s failure to act in accordance with these instructions, all facilities of the different regional governments will be denied to the WICB.
For if some such critical intervention is not forthcoming, those of us who care deeply about West Indies cricket may well discover that Keynes’ “long run” is already at least metaphorically here.
http://www.tntreview.com/2011/10/
Caricom To the Rescue?
ROMAIN PITT proposes a political solution
“In the long run,” warns the aphorism minted by J.M. Keynes, one of the few pragmatic economic theorists, “we are all dead.” I do not doubt that the decision of the West Indies Players’ Association (WIPA) to take the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) to court resulted from the exhaustion of alternatives and the fear that there will be no meaningful change in the administration of West Indies cricket in our lifetime. However, having practised law for 29 years and having sat on the bench of a Superior Court for full 16 years, I am of the firm belief that the vehicle of litigation should be used only as a last resort. The justice system is deliberately ponderous for reasons other than the perceived tendency of jurists to delay. The implications of decisions often reverberate throughout the society. Pleadings, preparation for trial, discoveries, full argument and careful deliberation at different levels of the court are pre-requisites to decision making. Those are time-consuming activities to which are to be added time for the proper crafting of reasons.
I suggest that a careful examination of the underlying features of the relationship between WICB and West Indian cricketers should reveal an absence of divergence in the interests of the parties. The employer-employee lens through which the relationship has been perceived is a product of the class struggle that has characterised West Indies history. Conceptually, the members of the WICB have no “skin in the game” in the sense that they do not invest money in West Indies cricket and have no personal liability for obligations assumed by the organisation unless they recklessly guarantee WICB loans. I doubt that such recklessness obtains.
Cricketers are selected to represent the region, the WICB pays all expenses including remuneration which should depend on the financial resources available to the WICB. Historically, the Board has tended unilaterally to determine the level of remuneration; today, however, the cricketers, with the help of WIPA are expected to have some say in the matter. It would be inappropriate for Board members to treat the net revenues retained by the Board as funds to which they have some entitlement. Those funds are held in trust for the benefit of cricket in the region. So why should there be a conflict of interest between the WICB and cricketers? A difference of opinion about what is best for the game is not by definition a conflict of interest. The illustrious history of West Indies cricket has now become the source of many of our problems. West Indies cricketers had been so good, indeed so dominant, for so long that a consensus has developed on the cause of their recent mediocrity. Simply stated, that consensus is that the cricketers do not give of their best. I do not propose at this time to explain why that consensus is palpably wrong except to say that those who have competed at any level in sport would recognise its falsehood. Sportsmen may disguise their true feelings but it is “hell” to lose.
Let me digress for a moment to discuss punishment. The WICB punishes our cricketers too severely. In fact, the WICB punishes cricketers in a manner that is often contrary to the interests of the team and inconsistent with the practice of other successful cricketing countries. Over the last four years or so, Australian captain Ricky Ponting has been one of the most ill-behaved cricketers on the international circuit. He held up a game in the recent Ashes series for several moments questioning an umpire’s decision. The issue of revoking his captaincy for such behaviour has never even been discussed. England pacer Stuart Broad, whose father, Chris, is an ICC referee, behaves so badly on the field so often that even English commentators express disgust. He has recently been made captain of the English T20 team.
Here in the West Indies, three pending matters and one undisclosed one have ended Sulieman Benn’s participation in West Indies cricket. The first is an incident which occurred in Australia in 2009 for which the 30 year-old left-arm orthodox spinner with 51wickets in 17 Tests to his name was suspended for one or two games. The then team manager Joel Garner expressed the view that the penalty meted out to Benn was basically unjust and promised to first file an appeal and, secondly, to protest; neither step, so far as the cricketing public is aware, was taken. The second was a spitting incident involving Dale Steyn, a South African whose early years of nurture were during the Apartheid era. To most sensitive black persons, then, Benn’s reaction – or over-reaction – would have been understandable. Incident number three involved the then captain Christopher Gayle and was promptly dealt with by him on the field. Those of us who watch cricket regularly and with discernment would have noticed that the two big (in every sense) men resolved their difference in a matter of days.
The situation with Gayle is even worse. No team has treated its best cricketer as badly as the West Indies have treated Gayle for remarks made in a fit of anger. The carefully prepared remarks made about Gayle earlier this year by Professor Hilary Beckles must rate as the most insensitive in sports history. What is more, because the WICB have so far failed to listen carefully to what Gayle had to say, they have misinterpreted some of the most important statements he made. For instance, in a wide-ranging conversation in which he emphasized the importance of the mental aspect of the game, Gayle’s allegation that management appears to have one remedy for all failures, namely running more laps, was misinterpreted and transmitted as an invective against training. It would not surprise me a bit if the men who run the WICB do not know that the laid-back Gayle is one of the fittest cricketers around and, indeed, the fastest man on the West Indies team. To the careless eye, looks are often deceiving.
The WICB allege that Gayle was harsh in his comments about his successor as skipper, Darren Sammy. What Gayle said in fact was that he felt some sympathy for Sammy who was chosen for such a difficult job at a time when he was so inexperienced. In addition, Gayle talked about the comments of some team members regarding Sammy’s captaincy that can be ignored only by the hypocritical. It is a view that would apply equally to the captaincy of someone like Dwayne Bravo. It is simply that with such an all-rounder as captain, it becomes very difficult at times to play three or four pacers or three pacers and two spinners. In fact, I have no doubt that, in at least one of the Tests against India next month, playing four pacers will be the best option.
With regard to comments on the coach: if the senior players – and especially Gayle who was injured for a good part of the World Cup – were not angry about Ottis Gibson’s holding them responsible for the team’s failure and raising doubts about their future inclusion in the team immediately after their final game, then they should all be equipped with halos.
And what is there to be said about Jerome Taylor, the first West Indian fast bowler to get a hat-trick in a One-day International and the first West Indian (and one of only a handful of fast bowlers anywhere) to score a Test century? His treatment defies common sense. The WICB have in effect prohibited Taylor, (a genuine fast bowler, mind you!) from being injured.
The WICB, the fans and the many commentators in the media often describe the objective being pursued as to “get back to the pinnacle.” I disagree. The objective should be to be the best we can be; an additional objective is to have the region consistently represented by our best cricketers. That often does not happen. Why? In a word, money, although that is not the only stumbling block. But it not overstating things to say that the critical relations between the Board and the cricketers involve finance.
In terms of population and other physical resources, the West Indies is the smallest of the major cricket countries, the one least capable of maximizing the financial possibilities of cricket’s new-found mother lode, T20 cricket. Put simply, West Indies cricketers more than any others need access to the markets of other countries to enable them to earn the larger incomes that are the hallmark of this format of the game in the larger markets, particularly India. The main issue faced by today’s talented T20 cricketers is how to earn these high incomes without jeopardizing their status as members of the West Indies team.
That the WICB and the cricketers (read WIPA) should work together is a no-brainer. The differences in income that are at stake are almost qualitative. They may in some cases be as high as (US)$500,000 annually. It is unfortunate that people of influence, including former great cricketers, discuss the matter in simplistic terms like greed and patriotism. The entire focus ought to be on how to achieve the goal. How, for instance, can Keiron Pollard’s becoming a multi-millionaire be contrary to the interests of members of the WICB? Only a psychologist can explain that.
It is for all these reasons that Caricom should instruct the WICB (a) to act at all times generally in the best interests of West Indies cricket and, in particular, in the best interest of West Indies cricketers; and (b) to recognize the cricketers’ right to be represented by and seek help from WIPA, since such recognition is in the best interests of cricket and cricketers. Caricom should also stipulate that in the event of the WICB’s failure to act in accordance with these instructions, all facilities of the different regional governments will be denied to the WICB.
For if some such critical intervention is not forthcoming, those of us who care deeply about West Indies cricket may well discover that Keynes’ “long run” is already at least metaphorically here.
http://www.tntreview.com/2011/10/
Comment