BOMBAY, 23 August — The International Cricket Council is so badly cornered in its own newly created parameters of power, that it does not know how to get out of it. It is now, as desperately, looking for a face-saving device.

The ambitious Participation Contract, drawn with the intention of enhancing the financial status of their sponsors, has come totally unstuck, with opposition to it increasing by the day.

As of now no less than four-member countries have refused to sign due to non-compliance by their players. The deadline has already come and gone and the first of the tournaments, under the new dispensation, the Champions’ Trophy, is barely three weeks away

The ICC has already gone one big step backward and now wants the respective boards to have their players sign only for the Sri Lanka event. In this way, they can gain time for the bigger one, the World Cup in South Africa next year.

With players from India, Australia, England and Sri Lanka holding steadfast to their decision of not signing the Participation Contract, it is possible that the ICC may climb down even more.

The Indian players have been as vociferous in their protest to the new contract, as their counterparts in Australia. In the midst of the preparation for the third Test in England, the Indian team, led by Saurav Ganguly, has appointed former Test player and currently TV commentator, Ravi Shastri, as its spokesman.

Ravi Shastri hit the nail on the head when he said that the ICC has looked at the interest of all concerned, its own, the various cricket boards, the tournament hosts, the sponsors and television rights-holder. They have done this at the expense of the players.

The tackling of so-called ambush marketing by the ICC has led to the direct infringement of the players’ intellectual property and commercial rights to choose their clients for endorsement/ad contracts etc.

The Indian players, with their multiple and highly lucrative endorsement contracts already under their belt, will be the worst sufferers in the bargain. Six of the top Indian players will stand to lose a total of Rs. 200 million (US $ 4 million). Sachin Tendulkar alone will have Rs. 80 million wiped out from this year’s earnings, if he plays in just the Champions’ Trophy.

In most cases, the players have done the shoot much before the ICC Participation Contract was even formulated. They have been on display on various TV channels for long.

Just no one in the game’s administration had the foresight or the wisdom to understand the consequences of agreeing to the ICC Participation Contract, signed, sealed and delivered two years ago. The implications and the hurt are being felt now.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, at an emergency meeting last Tuesday in Bangalore, made contingency plans for 20 probables to be selected for the Champions’ Trophy, instead of a final 14. This is to provide for the withdrawal of six leading stars, who have several endorsement contracts.

Even as the BCCI was meeting in Bangalore, the ICC Chief Malcolm Speed was waiting in Mumbai. He had to wait for two days before meeting the BCCI officials. Not having achieved much, he is now due to meet the Indian players in England next week.

Apart from brand sponsorship and subsequent revenues to TV channels and the players, cricket viewership ratings in India have been the envy of the rest of the cricketing world. India has thus been the biggest contributor to the ICC coffers. And yet the ICC has the cheek to ask the Indian players to forget about money and think of their country. For whose sake?

How does the ICC have jurisdiction over TV networks, thousands of miles away from the theater of action of these tournaments to stop them from showing ads of these cricketers if they are in “conflict” with their sponsors’ interest ?

No such clause exists in the contract signed by TV channels at the time of allotment of their regional rights for the World Cup. Sony Entertainment Television, which has the all-Asian rights, may be forced to assert their right of listing ads, during their cricket telecast, through legal means.

So, all in all, it is a situation that may lead to a multiplicity of suits, unless the ICC sees reason and solves the issue in consultation with the players.