In theory, the auction of players before IPL-4 was a triumph of free market economy. Thus, a Lara or a Ganguly was ignored, a Dravid devalued; conversely, the stock of Saurabh Tiwary or Robin Uthappa soared. Clearly, the franchisees are building teams of the future. But the logic of the market, underlying which are visions of a profitable future, isn’t immune to human foibles. Wonder why? This is because the rules of the market are made by men. And the human weakness that can flourish best in this astonishing human marketplace flush with money is greed, as the following story will illustrate.
Before IPL-2, a cricketer from a South Asian country was desperate to play in the tournament. All he wanted was $50,000. His agent tried to strike a deal with one IPL team for this sum. “But they didn’t want him,” says the agent. Yet the same team bid for him with fervour in the auction, finally bagging him for $6,50,000. “Why did this happen? Obviously, he split the money with someone in the team management,” he says.
One senior official with a franchisee says the IPL, ostensibly a celebration of free market economy, is in serious need of regulation. “The exit of Lalit Modi hasn’t changed anything,” he says. “It continues to have the worst aspects of free market economy—corruption, rule-bending, conflicts of interest.” He says the IPL is forcing teams to work their way around rules, specifically the rule capping the franchisee’s purse to $9 million before this year’s auction. “The player retention rule was opposed by all teams other than those which wanted to retain M.S. Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar. Thus, an ambiguous rule was framed to work around the $9 million cap.”
Teams were allowed to retain a maximum of four players. For each player retained, a team’s purse was cut by a certain sum—$1.8m for the first, $1.3m for the second, $9,00,000 for the third and $5,00,000 for the fourth. Logic dictated that Tendulkar or Dhoni would be paid $1.8m when they were retained by Mumbai Indians and Chennai Super Kings, respectively. But the auction created the absurd situation of several players selling for much more than $1.8 million. Really, wouldn’t Tendulkar and Dhoni have fetched a better price than the $1.8 million earmarked for them?
But there’s also an illegal way of compensating “uncapped” players, those domestic-level
cricketers who have been placed in three fixed payment categories. Players who made their debut in the last two years were to be paid Rs 10 lakh, those playing for two to five years were to get Rs 20 lakh, and those playing for over five years Rs 30 lakh. In practice, though, this rule is being blown to pieces, essentially because each team needs at least seven Indian players in a playing XI, and there’s serious paucity of talent. The bigger B-list players are thus being wooed with money, cars, even apartments. “Many of the players are being offered over Rs 1 crore—way above what the IPL has designated for them,” says one player representative. The cash component has to be in black, as the disclosure of excess amount would violate the IPL rule.
This scenario gets even more complicated because of the rule banning contracted players from negotiating with others outside the transfer window. They also have to adhere to the guidelines about signing up with teams that represent their “catchment” areas, and of re-signing with them after their contract is over, if the franchisee so wishes. “The franchisees are chasing players with money; if you get caught, you’re doomed. If you get away, you make more money!” Ravindra Jadeja, for instance, was caught last year for talking to another team to enhance or encash his value—and was banned. “The rules aren’t made for the players—the players are incidental,” the agent says.
The rules pertaining to uncapped players were ostensibly formulated to reward experienced players, and to ensure young players weren’t spoiled by sudden riches—thus a limit of Rs 10 lakh for a player active for two years. But a senior franchisee official points to a flaw. “What’s the difference between Saurabh Tiwary (sold for $1.6m) and Manish Pandey? Both are 20 years old, both are talented, exciting players. What’s the difference? Why are they protecting Pandey from big money, and letting Tiwary get crores?” he asks. (Tiwary was entered into the auction ring on the basis of just three odis he played.) This official suggests, “Why throw them to the wolves, encouraging the teams to act illegally? It would have been better to choose uncapped players by draw of lots.”
The official says the rules are absurd, though the intent was right. And the rules have turned absurd because, as he says, “those making them have commercial interests in the league.” He’s referring to N. Srinivasan, the BCCI secretary and president-elect, and a member of the IPL governing council
Obviously, those who have become millionaires overnight are not complaining. Take Tiwary, for instance. He’s relaxed, says his goal is to play well—and play for India. Does he need protection from the deleterious effects of big money? His manager, Nishant Dayal, says, “It’s not about money—it’s about how much he was wanted by teams. My role is to make sure that he keeps his eye on his goal, of playing for India for a long time.” For one Tiwary, there are dozen others, unknown and unsung, who are complaining of having got a raw deal, of having been reduced to becoming the bonded labour of the IPL bazaar.
The question to ask is: How much did Chennai and Mumbai actually benefit by retaining Dhoni and Tendulkar in the ipl (Twenty Questions, Jan 24)? If the total purse is of about $9 m, and Uthappa and Gambhir got some $2 m, Dhoni and Sachin couldn’t have fetched more than that! That said, a retaining clause for MI and csk may have forced them to shell out more. Whether it’s a bargain, only time will tell.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
I hold no brief for N.Srinivasan or the BCCI. But the question to ask is, how much actually did CSK and MI actually benefit by retaining Dhoni and Tendulkar? The assumption here seems to be that since Uthappa and Gambhir fetched around $2 m, Dhoni and Sachin would have fethed more! That may not be right, since if Tendulkar, Dhoni, Pollard and Raina were auctioned, the franchisees would have saved their money for these players, leaving little for the likes of Uthappa , Gambhir, Saurabh Tiwari etc. Hence it is possible that Sachin or Dhoni would have fetched roughly around the same amount ($2 m) if the total purse stayed around $9 m. But since MI and CSK retained these players, they would now be forced to shell out more, which may be more than they had bargained for!
According to Oxford Dictionary, 'not cricket' (colloq) means ' not fair play'. They can add 'IPL' as practical example.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT