Sri Lanka’s down and out cricketers may not be able to chase after big scores on the playing field, but they have begun their annual pay dispute over earnings, this time though with very little clout or bargaining power to lay on the table following a string of defeats that gives their employer the upper hand.
But the rebellion, taking place behind closed doors as usual, also has its share of denials and confusion with Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) saying nothing untoward is taking place while team captain Dimuth Karunaratne told the media that negotiations are in progress.
“There is no such dispute or a deadlock between SLC and the players over contract negotiations. SLC will attempt to conclude the negotiations (with the players) and arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement between the parties once the Bangladesh tour of Sri Lanka ends”, SLC said in a media statement.
But by using the word “attempt” in its statement, SLC has confirmed a rebellion is taking place behind closed doors as in past years.
Sri Lanka cannot fall to any lower depth than they are at present alongside countries like Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe which only makes negotiating for high pay utterly absurd or questionable.
Sri Lanka Cricket drew up the players’ annual Contracts bearing in mind the current state and progress of the team in consultation with the Cricket Advisory Committee that is made up of former players where it was discussed to penalise the team for poor performances but grant them incentives and bonuses for winning against top sides.
“Our proposals were very reasonable in our discussions with the Cricket Advisory Committee. We made suggestions and proposals and they (Advisory Committee) had different views and recommendations over incentives and bonuses that were discussed.
We don’t know what happened after we left,” said former SLC secretary Mohan de Silva whose Committee has now been replaced by an interim administration until the May 20 election of office-bearers.
Some analysts see the stance of the players as a “high handed act” with nothing to carry in their bags while there are others who argue that non-players or backstage foreign experts are taking away bigger pay packets just to make paper suggestions.
On most occasions the players have been able to win their demands as key stakeholders irrespective of on-field results as media coverage and investor patronage can extend to even a losing horse that has its public following who may have more to forget that remember.
But this time though, it is unlikely that the majority of heavyweights in the mainstream media will back the cause of the players in their annual contract row.
Only once did the players get a earful when an Interim Committee running SLC told them to first win the World Cup in 2003 to talk about money after they demanded more pay.