Search the Internet          Tips  Sites: Finance, Investment

Off-field cricket spat may end

Shuchi Bansal & Partho Ghosh in New Delhi

The official sponsors of the Champions Trophy and the World Cup 2003 may re-negotiate their deal with the International Cricket Council, should the individual players refuse to sign the contract forbidding them to endorse competing products one month before and after the tournaments.

This is expected to end the week-old stalemate between the ICC and the major cricket teams ahead of the Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka next month.

The renegotiation becomes necessary because the two sponsors, LG and Pepsi, had agreed to pay premiums to include the exclusivity clauses in their contracts with ICC. The resolution of the deadlock is also critical for the nearly Rs 220 crore (Rs 2.20 billion) worth of advertising out of India during the tournaments is at stake.

Both the sponsors currently have memorandums of understanding with ICC, and formal contracts were to be signed in a couple of days.

"If the ICC comes back to us saying it is unable to convince the players to sign the existing contract, we will have the option of renegotiating with them," says a senior official in Pepsi India.

On their part, the advertisers of competing brands also appear to be willing to come to some sort of accommodation. Says a Samsung official: "In all likelihood we will, as a goodwill gesture to the players, restrain from airing ads featuring them during the ICC tournaments."

Samsung has recently signed brand endorsement contracts with seven Indian cricketers. However, the official clarifies that the company is legally within its right to challenge the ICC contract if the need be.

Though corporates with cricket players as brand ambassadors may or may not challenge the players' contract with ICC, they are likely to lose out on the mileage they could have derived from airing their commercials.

Says Mediacom's senior vice president Harish Shriyen: "The corporates pay through their nose for cricket celebrity endorsements. It would be a major loss if they cannot maximise the mileage from their ads during the World Cup."

Cricket has a substantial male viewership, so brands addressing this target audience would be badly hurt.

Sahara, which picked up the Indian cricket team sponsorship right for Rs 100 crore (Rs 1 billion), is one brand said to be affected by the current controversy as it conflicts with South African Airways in the airline business.

Sources close to Sahara, however, say that the company's team sponsorship is not under threat.

"The contract is between BCCI and Sahara Housing & Development. It is not with the airline company and we have no plans to promote the airline during the tournament," say sources.

The company has apparently clarified its position to the ICC.

Meanwhile, the BCCI secretary Nirajan Shah maintains that either the players sign the ICC contract or they don't play the tournaments.

"There is no third option," he says. Individual contracts cannot be bigger than the game of cricket, he believes. "Also, the system must prevail otherwise there will be no World Cup," he adds.

However, the players stand to lose if they do not sign up with ICC as they cannot play in the tournaments. But if they agree to the ICC clause, they lose their negotiating power with other brands interested in enrolling them as ambassadors.

In case ICC insists on the exclusivity clause no rival brand will touch them till 2007 when the contract ends. Consequently, they may end up losing out on the lucrative fresh brand endorsement business.

Powered by

ALSO READ:
The ICC Contract face-off
More Money Headlines