BOMBAY, 8 November — As of date, it is exactly three months to the first match of World Cup 2003, and the world cricket community is still apparently so far away from a total agreement on the terms of participation insisted upon by the major sponsors of the big event.

The International Cricket Council, nor its affiliates, are any the wiser after what happened just before the ICC Champions’ Trophy in Colombo in September last. The event itself just about escaped being scrapped on account of a large-scale disagreement between the ICC and some of the major playing member-countries over the Participation Contract and the Players’ Terms Agreement.

As far as India was concerned, the players had put forth, in no uncertain manner, their objections to the provisions of the contract they were expected to sign. While they were playing in England, the members of the Indian team had decided to act on their own, independent of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. In these matters. This had led to a threeway clash.

Thus, on one hand, we had a form of confrontation between the players and the BCCI, and on the other, a face-off between the Indian board and the ICC. The situation was such that the Champions Trophy tournament itself was put in jeopardy. The Indian board even named an alternative, second string team for participation in the event.

Some undisclosed deals were struck by the apex cricket body with a couple of reluctant participating countries, including India. This was an expediency rather than a solution to several problems that had surfaced despite the best efforts of the ICC and its representatives.

A two-day emergent meeting of the ICC was held immediately after the Champions’ Trophy in Colombo to iron out all differences before the World Cup. A deadline of Oct. 15 was set for compliance with the ICC contract for the World Cup. The failure of a majority of countries to do so, had led to the deadline being extended to Oct. 31.

The Indian board has just sent its proposals on what should be the salient points in the two contracts to be signed, one by the controlling body, and the other by the participating players individually.

Meanwhile, two important developments had taken place. First, the players of most member-countries of the ICC had come together to form an international body to collectively deal with ICC and the Indian players formed their own representative body, aptly called the Indian Cricket Players’ Association (ICPA).

The new body is headed by former Indian captain, Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi, with Arun Lal as its secretary. This body immediately put its proposals in writing and sent the same directly to the ICC. This was so because the BCCI is yet to recognize the new players’ body.

However, the BCCI also sent its proposals to the ICC, with the similar suggestions as contained in the ICPA draft. Both the ICPA and the BCCI have decided to stick to their earlier stand of not accepting the concept of “ a clash of interest” clause in the Players’ Agreement, as also free imaging rights of the ICC.

The leading Indian players who have several lucrative endorsement contracts with various corporate firms, do not want to surrender their rights under these contracts. In other words, come what may, they will not bow to the wishes of the organizers of the World Cup by sacrificing their endorsements that come in conflict with the interests of the major sponsors of the World Cup.

The Indian players have also decided not to make themselves available for free imaging for the purpose of promotion of the World Cup event. They are insisting on payment as is being made by those who want their endorsement.

Thus the ICC will be faced with another piquant situation, whereby they will have to seek desperate solution to several problems that will be thrown up again. With time running out, a conciliation will have to come sooner than later. How this will come about, no one really knows. But one thing is clear and that is that neither the ICC nor the boards of the member-countries will be so stubborn as not to seek a compromise over the issue. They do not want another confrontation of the kind that had occurred on the eve of the Champions’ Trophy.

It is learnt that the major sponsors of the World Cup will climb down a bit from their pompous perception of protectionism and not make a fetish of their demand for banning all other endorsements by the Indian cricketers that come in conflict with their interest. The Indian players, on the other hand, might agree to making themselves available for imaging on just a token payment and with due clearance from their contract-holders.

There is hardly any time for the organizers of the World Cup to wait for all agreements to be arrived at without any hitch. They will have to take the initiative.

What has made them wiser is the fact that the last-minute patch-up at the time of the Champions’ Trophy had cost them dearly. As a financial proposition the event at Colombo was a disaster. The networks having television rights too suffered big losses as they were prevented from airing advertisements featuring Indian players. There is no need to say that the bulk of the ads on television is cricket-related or top Indian stars-related.

Now, “more the merrier” seems to be the motto in place of the earlier pandering to the interests of the major sponsors. What ads should be booked by the TV networks will be best left to them and not dictated to by the ICC and the organizers of the World Cup.

There is a lurking fear that any rigid stand on these important issues might lead to a big loss for the World Cup organizers and the ICC. Any such heavy loss would result in cricket bodies such as those of Pakistan and the West Indies being further impoverished.

The playing standard of these two countries have fallen because their boards are struggling to come to grips with the financial crisis facing them. So, it is in the interest of all concerned to adhere to a policy of live and let live.