Sunday Dec 15, 2024
Sunday Dec 15, 2024
Thursday, 8 July 2021 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Angelo Mathews contemplating retirement at 34
Sri Lanka cricketers stand a lot to lose by not signing central contracts
By Sa’adi Thawfeeq
The long-standing dispute between Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) and the players who were offered a new performance-based central contract ended yesterday with 29 of the 30 players nominated by the national selectors for the upcoming white-ball series against India agreeing to sign a tour contract.
These players do not include the three who violated the bio-secure rules in Durham on the tour of England and were sent home on disciplinary grounds.
A notable absentee amongst the 29 who signed the tour contracts was former Captain Angelo Mathews, who was included in the 30-member squad but informed SLC CEO Ashley de Silva not to consider him for any national commitments as he is considering retirement.
Mathews in his letter has stated: “I thank the selectors for considering me. Currently, I am considering retirement and I will inform SLC formally on my decision on this matter in the weeks to come. Until such time, I urge SLC to excuse me from National commitment.”
In recent times, Mathews has not been able to fulfil his commitments with SLC – being forced to return home early from the tour of West Indies when his child fell sick and from the recently concluded England tour where he was on paternity leave as his wife was giving birth to their third child.
Mathews was among 38 players who took a stance against the newly drawn up performance-based central contracts, wanting transparency on the evaluation of players. A deadline of 3 June was given by SLC for the players to sign which they did not adhere to on the grounds that they were not given what they had requested for.
Thus, for the tour to England, the 24 players picked went without signing any contract but only a voluntary declaration form.
On their return from England on Tuesday, the 21 players, along with those who did not go on the tour, were asked to sign a tour contract for the series against India which is due to commence on 13 July.
However, a dispute arose as the majority of the players who were happy with the evaluation given to them and were prepared to sign the central contract were told that SLC along with the Technical and Evaluation Committee had decided that they were no longer going to offer a central contract, but only a tour contract. A deadline was given to the players to sign it by Wednesday.
After much deliberation, the players decided to sign the tour contract which meant that Sri Lanka will be fielding a full-strength team for the three ODIs and three T20Is against India, thus allaying fears that Sri Lanka would be forced to put out a second string side for the Indian series if the contract issue was not resolved in time.
“The selectors have nominated the 30 players and we have got them to sign it, some of them have already signed the domestic contract and some have signed the tour contract. It is only the players who will be undergoing training who have signed because they are the players who will be considered for selection for the Indian tour,” said SLC CEO Ashley de Silva.
“The selectors are meeting today (Wednesday) to select the final squad for the Indian series, 18 players for the ODIs and 18 for the T20Is, some of them will play in both formats from this 30,” he said.
De Silva said that the players who have signed the tour contract would be entitled to only their match fees, which meant that they stand a lot to lose by not signing the central contract as they would have then received a retainer and a monthly payment.
As it is, the players would be paid only on a tour-by-tour basis.
De Silva said that when the players declined to sign the tour agreement or the central contracts ahead of the England tour, the Executive Committee of SLC along with the Technical and Advisory Committee took a decision that till the end of March 2022 the players would be handed contracts only on a tour-by-tour basis.
De Silva said some players who had shown concerns on their evaluation forms had wanted to meet up with the evaluation committee and that SLC would be convening a meeting for them, while the rest have not said anything.
