Is the threat real?

This is a response to TM's post below. Even far away from India and the IPL, it is hard not see how shaken people seem to be by the spectre of 'corporatisation'.

Dravid first lost the Colonel's faith, and then went ahead and now has almost lost the Liquor Baron's. What is the difference? The Colonel is the chairman of the selection committee of the BCCI. The Liquor Baron represents the franchise ownership of the Bangalore Royal Challengers.

The chairman of the selection committee is responsible to those that control the BCCI purse. That the BCCI is responsible to its stakeholders, the fans of Indian cricket, will never cross the minds of the mandarins because of the absolute monopoly they hold in the product market known as international cricket in India.

The ownership of the BRC, on the other hand, is immediately responsible to gate collections and franchise T-shirt sales - the ownership in an ultra-competetive market is much more likely to feel the pinch of waning fan interest. The absolute unlikeliness of regional quotas ever finding place at a BRC selection meeting is an example. On the other hand, there is always the chance that a cricketer with a greater ability at selling T-shirts (think Beckham and Real Madrid) will get a favourable hearing.

Theoretically at least, a competetive market where the fan is free to shift allegiance, seems a fairer (or at least more democratic) judge and executioner of a player's fortunes, as compared to a selection committee that exists in a monopolistic vacuum, free from competetive pressures. Of course, there will be unfair application of what is fair in theory - and that will depend on the nature of the ownership. Is the ownership Machiavellian about profits? Is the corporate culture dictatorial?

Corporatisation by itself, is no great danger. In fact, there is good reason to argue that selection will end up a fairer process. Also, when ownership realizes the importance of attracting and retaining good employees - and the Liquor Baron will not be a stranger to the Great Global War for Talent, franchises are bound to place more thought on conditions of employment.

UB or not to UB

Vijay Mallya is pulling out his wonderfully styled hair as Bangalore stumbles from defeat to defeat to defeat to defeat (you get the point)...Charu Sharma has already borne the brunt of, perhaps the most debt ridden man in India's, anger, and is now looking for a job. As Mallya shoots his mouth right, left and centre about how disappointed he is and how cricket has a corporate element to it, Rahul Dravid and company may sson be looking for new franchisees in the transfer window (wonder if after these perfromances, there are going to be any takers!).

But the point is that corporatization is rearing its very ugly head in cricket and an out of form player is now under the same kind of threat as any other employee in India - the very real threat of being fired and losing out on 'maximizing' income during playing days. As a lawyer, it irks me that the same kind of labour legislations that protect each of us employed in India from complete arbitrariness and high handedness does not appear to protect the sons of Indian cricket. From what one hears from people who have actually seen the employment contracts, all rights under these contracts have been waived and the players are completely at the mercy of the employers - perhaps we need a challenge to these contracts in the higher echelons of our judiciary and for some of the more arbitrary clauses to be struck down! No longer is class permanent and form temporary - ask Dravid or Kallis how conventional wisdom lays bleeding at the alter of money.