By Sa’adi Thawfeeq

The new performance-based contracts brought in by the Sports Minister-appointed Technical and Advisory Committee headed by former Sri Lanka Captain Aravinda de Silva and comprising of past cricketers Roshan Mahanama, Muttiah Muralitharan and Kumar Sangakkara, have run into a roadblock with the 24 contracted players refusing to sign it on the grounds of lack of transparency. Several views have been expressed over this issue both in the print and electronic media, some holding the cricketers responsible and the others Sri Lanka Cricket and the Technical and Advisory Committee for creating an unwarranted situation.

To get a clear picture of the dispute, the Daily FT spoke to Attorney-at-Law Nishan Sydney Premathiratne, the official representative appointed by members of the Sri Lanka cricket team. In this three-part interview, Premathiratne describes in detail how the negotiations have taken place so far.

Q: Give a brief introduction about yourself and how you got involved with representing the cricketers.

 I am an Attorney-at-Law also serving as the sector Specialist for Commercial Law Reforms at the Ministry of Justice. I have been involved in advising the cricketers for the last five years where they have met and sought advice in respect of matters on contracts. From time to time, I have appeared for the players in respect of disputes involving them in their personal capacity and related to cricket. At this instance, for the purpose of negotiations I have been instructed by the players (38 of them at the moment) to handle all matters in respect of the ongoing contract negotiations with the Cricket Board and other officials.

Q: The 38 players (14 other players also joined the contracted 24) whom you represent have said time and again that money was not the issue and that they were even prepared to represent the country without any monetary returns, so what is the issue they have with the new performance-based contract? 

Appraising every one in the background of this issue is important. As it has been reiterated on behalf of the players on several platforms, the players are not complaining for a model to be created which pays them more money. It is a fact that the players base contract fees have been drastically reduced from previous years. For example, the players’ base fee has been reduced by about 40%-50% from the previous years. As an example, a category A player in 2014 or for that matter in 2016, would have been paid about $ 160,000 as the base fee. Now as disclosed to the public, the maximum base fee has been reduced to a sum of $ 100,000 for a Category A tier one player. So yes, there is a drastic reduction. 

But the issue is not this, but transparency. What is transparency? Well, this year, for the first time, a model termed a performance-based model has been introduced. The players in principle are in agreement for this performance-based model. This model is to consider elements such as performance, fitness, future potential, professionalism and leadership. 30 points are to be allotted to the last three components. A player is to be awarded a maximum of 100 points. 

What transpired thereafter was that the players were then categorised by name on this evaluation model which envisages each player to be marked under each of the five categories. Thereafter, 24 names were released being categorised. However, the players that were categorised were not issued with their respective player evaluation assessment sheets with the categorisation. This made matters confusing to the players as they were in the dark as to how much they were awarded points under each of the individual categories. The players were also confused as to how points were given for professionalism, leadership and future potential and, how much each of them scored under each of these categories. Moreover, some players were also not awarded contracts from last year. Players didn’t know how and why they were not contracted as they believed in their own mind that they had done reasonably well i.e., performed. So, all this created confusion. 

Players felt that in this backdrop if they are to sign these contracts, it is unfair on their part as they are in the dark and also, they believed that if transparency is not given, any model can be manipulated. Not that any aspersions are drawn against the cricketing hierarchy, but personal change and models which do not have transparency is prone to be misused, especially when 30 points in this model is to be marked on subjective matters. Why do I say that? Well, performance and fitness could be ascertained on tangible facts. The other three categories of future potential, leadership and professionalism is seemingly not so. So, there needs to be clear indicators or assessment criteria also laid down for these three categories.

Q: SLC has promised to give the marking sheets to each individual player on their return from England, when that is done, will they agree to sign the annual contracts?

SLC has agreed to do so. This was provided on 7 June around 7:00 p.m. A written letter was issued by SLC to the players, stating that when they arrive back in Sri Lanka after the England tour, that each and every player, upon a request, would be released with their respective player evaluations (released to them in writing). This was very heartening for the players. When these evaluations are released to each and every player, including the players who have not been represented to be given a central contract for this year, any such player would then be able to get a clear picture on how points were allotted in respect of each and every category. 

They will be able to know as to how much has been awarded for Performance out of the 50 points and how such was computed, same goes for Fitness. Also, it would be the same for Future Potential and Adaptability, Leadership and Professionalism. Once these are disclosed, if the players are satisfied with the allotment of points as per the devised model, the players should not have problems in signing contracts. However, if a certain player who feels that he has performed, but is at the bottom of the list, he might seek for clarification from the selection evaluation panel and any other material party. There could also be a situation where a player who has not been awarded a contract for this year, also feels in a similar vein. He too might have concerns and seek for clarification. 

Ultimately, transparency would ensure that these concerns are addressed, which is definitely a step in the proper direction. If the players are satisfied with these numbers allotted as per the model, it would only be a matter of formalising the remaining clauses by the respective lawyers, which should not take much time. Ideally, in the interest of cricket and our nation, we should solve this issue, professionally, amicably and as a team at the very earliest.

[to be continued tomorrow]

Lakshan injured; out of practice games