Sri Lanka Cricket: Nishantha recaps

By David Ebert

Q: The recent National contract muddle saw varied opinions being expressed regarding the handling of the process and specifically the discontinuation of the ICC 25% guarantee fee payment to the National squad. How would you explain what happened?

A: Basically we did an evaluation on our total income this year and we calculated how much we are going to spend on the 23 National players as per last

year’s contract. So after the evaluation we presented it to the players and told them that due to our present income levels, we won’t be able to continue certain payments that we have been paying and that we would have to make an adjustment. One thing the public has to take note of is that we don’t only have 23 players to look after, the Cricket Board has to look at a lot of other aspects as well such as the improving of the existing school cricket structure at all age groups.  We are glad that the players understood the reasoning behind the amendments and agreed to the new terms.

The other aspect is that if you look at certain years, we have spent 70% of our funding on 20 or 30 players in Sri Lanka Cricket. We need to change this concept because if you look at other countries, they only spend a maximum of 20% of their annual income on the first 100 players in their pool. We are not only paying them contracts and player fees, but we also provide them the practice facilities, starting from the coaches, the physiotherapists, trainers and all this means expenditure for the board. So we needed to take a rational decision to ensure that we have the right balance in our expenditure.

One would argue that it is a fact that there is a huge discrepancy in the money they earn playing here and what they get competing in international games. If you look at countries like India and Pakistan, they have a higher audience for the game hence they earn more revenue. Even Bangladesh has 180 million people, Pakistan has over 200 million people and India has over a billion people and their television revenue is higher and their players are lucky enough to get more funding. On a different note, Australia has only 20 million people like us but their per capita income is $ 7,000. You won’t get the same pay here as in a country such as that and our cricketers have to live with it and the people have to understand that situation.

 

Q: Have the players been offered an alternative to the 25% cut?

A: We have increased their retainer by 20%, especially for the new guys, so it’s not that we have been unfair with them.

 

Q: So why has it taken so long for the board to review an unfavourable contractual term such as this?

A: This is a problem that we had to face because cricket has been run by different people at different stages so that is why this committee feels that cricket should be run by the staff and the elected body should take the ultimate responsibility. We are all honorary members of the committee and we need to be guided by the staff. What has happened has happened but we need to correct it if it is not going the right way. Yes we need to face certain challenges but those are all beneficial things. If I build my house with the money I earn today without looking at what I may earn 20 years down the line, I’ll probably end up living in a flat. However if I look at my qualifications and what I can achieve in life, I’ll do the smart thing and build a house where I can keep on paying something to the bank and can pay my loans off. So you need to look at cricket as a sport but managing cricket is a business. Sport should be played within the spirit of sport but managing a sport like cricket is a different level today.

 

Q: So in your opinion the new Sri Lanka Cricket contracts have been brought on par with contracts given out by other cricketing countries now?

A: In terms of income revenue percentage paid out to players, we pay more than the other boards but in terms of total income, some countries probably pay more because they have higher commercial value. We can’t match India, Australia or England, but if you look at other countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, New Zealand and the West Indies, I’m sure we are either on par or above them.

 

Q: Who stands to benefit from the 25% guarantee fee ultimately now?

A: There are not only 23 cricketers that we need to look at; we also need to look at the other players who are competing with them. So we need to give them a professional status like paying them a reasonable amount. In addition, we need to look closely at school cricket as well because in my view a cricketer is made at school level. From age nine to 19, the cricketer is done there, so we need to be very focused on that structure. The schools don’t have the money; we need to support them and then from 19 to 22, the clubs look after them. The provinces look after them and then the districts and association do it too, so we need to think of their welfare as well. Clubs like CCC, NCC and SSC need our support as well, where we have the required infrastructure and need to support them with the management of those facilities. The money needs to be put there.

What has happened to CCC today? They are more focused on rugby because they get more income from and sponsorships for the sport. So losing clubs like this to other sports will be a bigger disadvantage to us than losing a player or two. We need to properly administrate because if you look at our salary structure, we spend 40% of our salaries on 20-30% of our staff, which is the coaching staff. We pay our international coaches high salaries and those figures are very much higher than an administrator gets paid. We are fighting a cause for the future generation and the country’s cricketing future.

 

Q: The board hasn’t had the best run financially in the recent past but are things looking up following the new billion rupee team sponsorship deal?

A: I think if you take Sri Lanka Cricket as a whole, our main income comes from the television rights and sponsorships and if you look at the last four or five years that I have been involved, our value has been going up which is because our players have done well and we have managed the place well. We have faced financial challenges because we had to construct certain grounds to accommodate the 2011 World Cup and after consultation with the Government we took a decision to support the cause and it would have been impossible for the board to take responsibility for the total expenditure because the larger financial benefit goes to the country. It doesn’t mean the team doesn’t benefit, we get to play more games and the team gets the home advantage when we have local games especially in ICC events, so there is that element of advantage for Sri Lanka Cricket.

If you look at the investment as a whole, it is the country that ultimately benefits, starting from the guy who handles the baggage, to the hotel owners and airlines; everybody gains a benefit from it. Looking at the last two World Cups, the ICC spent close to $ 30 million in 2012 and out of that almost $ 25 million on various aspects in Sri Lanka. All that money doesn’t come to us and the visibility on television that the country gets from events like that, being a tourist destination are all value additions that help the country’s economy. So there’s no point in people criticising the board and the Government for spending on all that because ultimately it’s for the people.

 

Q: The television rights issue has always courted controversy here in Sri Lanka with lots of accusations of discrepancies in the tender process. Where does it stand right now?

A: This the first time that Sri Lanka Cricket has gone for an open bid and we believe that we will get the best price for the rights. I don’t want to comment on that since it is an ongoing process but from my personal point of view our value has been going up in the past four years as we have invested so much on young cricketers in the present generation.  Our team sponsorship was $ 3 million for four years in 2008/2009 and today it has gone up to $ 8.5 million for three years, one year less. If you look at cricket as a brand it is a very valuable brand.

The problem is that there are factions within the cricketing fraternity and it is the biggest problem we face today. When one faction gets into office, the other faction keeps on attacking; when the other faction gets in, the ousted faction attacks them. But when they are both out and a third faction comes in, they both attack the third faction. So we need to manage the players without looking at our individual egos and requirements. I feel we can put it right as long as the people, who are elected, come with a rationale to develop the sport.

 

Q: Star India and Sony Six, two of the biggest India broadcasting companies, are notably absent from the bidding process for the rights this time around. Is that an indication of waning interest?

A: There could be reasons, for example if you look at ESPN Star, they are currently remodelling their business structure and they have also got a lot of cricketing content with them. If you look at Sony, they are building a new channel so they may have their own reasons and I am not 100% sure why they have not quoted. However, looking at the numbers we heard of at the opening of bids, we are quite pleased with the numbers we have got.

 

Q: The tender has been split into two components, broadcasting and production, what was the reason behind that?

A: One reason why we thought we should have an understanding of the production side is we need to know the exact cost in production. So when a broadcaster gives us the price, we only know the total value. So with this process we will not only know how much to spend on production but what sort of quality we will get on production. So that is the basic rationale behind having two bids to understand what the way forward should be.

 

Q: One of the allegations that have surfaced with regard to this decision was that it may be due to under-allocation of equipment by a certain Indian-based broadcasting company, during Sri Lankan cricket matches played against less commercially marketable teams unlike India. How would you respond to that?

A: If you look at any country it is the same because there is so much value in India cricket that any broadcaster would value it more because their income is bigger and they spend more. The value of the production is quite bigger than ours. So that is not part of the criteria for us to take that decision, we feel that our own staff and our board should have a basic idea of production, how it happens and the value of it. I don’t think we did this because of past experiences.

 

Q: Nimbus, a company with a history of defaulted payments both with the BCCI and SLC, is again one of the chief bidders for the broadcasting rights. Considering their slightly chequered history, how comfortable will the administration be dealing with a company like that again in the event of them winning the bid?

A: Firstly, I don’t want to comment on it because we are at the very initial stages and it would be unfair as there is a technical evaluation happening and any comment I make may have a impact of it so I prefer not to comment on it.

 

Q: How much has the administration of a sport such as cricket changed in modern times?

A: Administrating cricket is not like before; we need to spend on our player security, tournament security, women’s cricket and anti-corruption and anti-doping measures as well. So don’t forget that while the game develops, the expenditure goes up too and we need to have ways of increasing our revenue. All the development in terms of new grounds was built by the State sector, the Ports Authority, the Engineering Corporation and the Army. We didn’t go with the private sector because with that big an investment, we didn’t have the funds and that’s why Government supported us and got involved. Nobody can say anything against us.

 

Q: The board has had constant differences with player agents in the past and now has a zero-tolerance policy with regards to their involvement in negotiations with players. In your opinion what went wrong with the whole set up and their roles in the management of a player’s career?

A: We initially thought that the player agents would help the players concentrate on the game and look after the commercial aspects of their careers. However in the past two to three years we have seen more negatives than positives in having player agents. They only look at the commercial aspects of the game and on certain tours we have seen player agents sitting with the players at the breakfast table. They are there on Cricket Board funds and they entertain their agents there, which we feel is not a very good thing. We don’t recognise the player agents now and we don’t recognise the players association. You have to look at the actual economics of it because we earn $ 20 million and spend 70% of that on players. The public doesn’t know how much we actually spend on players and they probably think we spend only 30% and rob the rest. That is the general impression people have. Who creates that impression? The player agents. Because when they attack the board with all sorts of accusations, the sponsors go direct to the players. The buck stops with the player agents at the end of the day.

 

Q: Why the players association?

A: I was a past member of the player’s association and when we were there we looked after the club cricketers. We don’t need to look after these guys who have multimillion rupee incomes. What can it come and do for them? We proposed to them last year that we distribute the 25% among the club cricketers. For at least 50% of that amount to be allocated to the club cricketers and for them to take the balance. They didn’t agree. So then we said at least then share it amongst the contracted players. They didn’t agree.

 

Q: On what specific grounds did they not agree to the board’s suggestions?

A: They didn’t give us a reason. The players association couldn’t convince them and if they can’t do that, why should we deal with them? If the association that is supposed to look after the players can’t convince 15 players to share it with the others, why should we work with them? We have players who come from outstation areas living in a room behind the sightscreen. They work at jobs and play cricket for the clubs. That is dedication. How in the world can somebody say no to them getting some money after getting so much?

 

Q: At which point in your opinion do you think it all started to go wrong?

A: It went wrong from the time they approved this 25% guarantee fee. It went very wrong from there. This decision was taken two to three years back without an interim committee decision by a particular individual. I don’t want to divulge names and this is the reason I say it is very important that the people in charge are focused on what they do. You can’t come and do this job just by coming into office for one hour a day. So that is where everything has gone wrong.

 

Q: Are you of the opinion that some players are more serious about the commercial aspect of the game than their performances and careers in the sport?

A: The day I’m out of the Cricket Board, I will give you the answer to that. As long as I am sitting here I can’t, as it would not be fair. We will manage them, but we will put them in the right place and if they want to discuss these issues in a very open and transparent manner, we will be happy to do that.

 

Q: The issue of releasing National players for the IPL has long been discussed at many quarters, with some even doubting the dedication of National players towards the National Team, with some players preferring to play the format at the expense of the National Team’s performance. This is in amidst the BCCI’s refusal to release its own players to play in other premier league formats across the region. What is your take on this situation?

A: The IPL is a product that has gained recognition and value so if our players have got an opportunity to go there and show their talents there, we will support that. Whilst doing this, we don’t want out players to concentrate only on the IPL. It is a tournament that gives them opportunities to increase their own value and to earn additional revenue but they must remember that the IPL got to them because of Sri Lankan Cricket, our school structure, club structure and our provincial and district structure. So if somebody wants to only concentrate on the IPL, we won’t accept it and players should also not do it. I feel our players are quite rational in their decision making and they should give priority to national call ups. On the absence of Indian players, it is up to the Cricket Board and if the BCCI has a valid reason and their policy is to not do so, there is nothing much I can do. They don’t send players to any foreign format.

 

Q: Another general feeling among the cricketing public is that the IPL overexposes Sri Lankan cricketers to the Indian cricket structure, thereby providing exposure to their own young cricketers to get a taste of international standard cricket early. What is your take on this?

A: I don’t think so; the IPL is a product where they have taken the shorter version of the game to a different level. So it’s unfair for me to say that there have only been negatives. There are more positives. If you look at the SLPL, the opportunity has been given to so many youngsters to play with international level players. So we had seven teams with over 80 players, out of which 30 were international players. There were many young players who gained recognition out of the tournament. One good example is Akila Dananjaya who got an opportunity and performed. Chandimal, Thirimanne and Kushal Janith all got the chance to play in that league so it’s not the commercial angle that we should be looking at but the cricketing angle. It has added value and exposure to all our players and officials.

 

Q: In closing, what does the future of Sri Lanka Cricket look like in the next 10 years?

A: It’s looking very good in my opinion; we are doing the right things with the right focus and the difference will be noticed by everyone soon.