Of “No-Tweet” Clauses and “Whereabouts Requirements”- Constitutional Challenges confronting Sport

Australian opener Philip Hughes stirred up a controversy on the eve of the third Ashes Test at Edgbaston, when a tweet attributed to him was posted on to Twitter, disclosing the fact that he had been dropped from Australia’s team for the match! Subsequently, Hughes’ manager, Neil D’Costa revealed that it was he who had posted the message on Twitter on behalf of Hughes, and admitted that he had made a mistake in terms of the timing of the Tweet, as the message found its way to Twitter well before the official announcement of the Australian team for the Test match! (See http://www.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/current/story/417068.html).

What is the fuss all about? Well, for starters, a Twitter message regarding the composition of a team for a test match can provide the opposition team with an opportunity to revise their strategies before the commencement of a match. Then again, such a message could also take us back to the dark days of match-fixing, when bookies allegedly fished for information on what a team would do if it won the toss, or what the pitch conditions were, which information was then utilised to place bets on matches or on specific parts of matches.

The question that would need to be considered by players, boards, agents, families of players etc. is to what extent can players share seemingly harmless information with the public? How do we distinguish a case of a genuine misunderstanding, from an intentional disclosure of information. Who bears the consequences of such improper conduct?

In this case, Hughes must have been disappointed at missing out on a Test match, and must have felt a need to express his disappointment! Being a 20 year old rookie cricketer, he probably did not realise the consequences of using the new media to convey his feelings. I do hope that governing bodies will be mature enough to treat players as responsible individuals, and issue mere directives to Players to exercise reasonable discretion while communicating match-related information with either their confidantes or the general public. As much as lawyers love to have more clauses to insert in a contract, it is certainly not desirable for the sporting community to have a new genre of player contracts cropping up in the aftermath of this incident, which explicity forbid the use of new media by Players! I am positive that the ICC and Boards do not want a situation where a “No-Tweet” or a “No-Blogging” or a “No-Facebook use” clause is challenged by Players on grounds that it impinges on their right to freedom of speech and expresssion!

On the other hand, the ICC and BCCI are currently grappling with the implementation of the new anti-doping code formulated by World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). This code requires players in the testing pool to inform the governing body (i.e. ICC, for the sport of cricket) through an online form about their whereabouts in advance, when not. WADA’s “whereabouts requirements” require an athlete to give his whereabouts during a one-hour time slot, any time between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. each day of the year. The information can be updated every three months. Such “whereabouts requirements” have been heavily disputed across various sports, including athletics and tennis, on the grounds that such disclosure requirements infringe on an athlete’s right to privacy. However, WADA has justified the “whereabouts requirements” on the grounds that they allow doping controls to be conducted without notice to athletes, and hence are one of the most powerful means of deterrence and detection of doping, which is essential for the protection of the integrity of sport. The issue has gained importance, after BCCI failed to meet the original deadline of July 01, 2009 for compliance with the WADA Code, as Indian cricketers raised concerns regarding their privacy and security being compromised. In his column in Mid-Day (http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/jul/310709-World-Anti-Doping-Agency-ICC-Lance-Armstrong-Roger-Federer-Cricketers-Doping.htm), Clayton Murzello has argued as follows: “If the likes of Federer and Nadal are doing it, why do the Indian stars have a problem is a question that will be thrown at the Indian cricket board. Unfortunately, we live in a world where rules have to be followed.” I, for one, don’t subscribe to this view. Regardless of the stature of sportspersons involved, if someone has an issue with their constitutional rights being infringed, then they do have a right to protest and ask for legally valid rules and regulations to be framed by governing bodies.

Interestingly, the two issues raised above present administrators and sportspersons with diametrically opposite constitutional law challenges (i.e. one regarding a player’s right to freedom of speech and expression, and the other regarding a player’s right to privacy). It would be fascinating to see how courts and administrative bodies across the world respond to these new challenges presented by sport!

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

The Gauteng Cricket Board-Cricket South Africa Dispute and its Implications for Stadium Management Practices

Cricinfo has reported that the Gauteng Cricket Board (GCB), which manages the Wanderers Stadium in Johannesburg has accused the IPL of violating various norms, during the hosting of the IPL matches, and in particular the semi-finals and final on May 24, including attempts to forcibly take over all stadium operations, such as ticketing and parking systems (http://www.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/415913.html). Unfortunately, rather than examining whether these allegations have any substance, the Cricket South Africa board’s members’ forum has refused to allot any international matches to the Wanderers until the GCB apologises for its allegations and submits its match hosting conditions and, as a result, Wanderers has been stripped of a Test, an ODI and a Twenty20 game it was due to host during England’s tour later this year.

The same article by Cricinfo also refers to IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi’s denial of these allegations by stating the GCB’s allegations are “completely baseless”, and by his reference to the “clean stadium agreement” that the IPL had signed with CSA, which he claims, gave the IPL complete control of the venue, including ticketing and parking.

I will reserve my comments on the relative merits of the positions adopted by the GCB, CSA and IPL as I don’t have access to the aforementioned “clean stadium agreement”. However, this dispute does highlight once again, the need to have clear stadium usage/hiring policies as the cricketing world moves into an era where professional T20 cricket leagues, international cricket and first-class domestic cricket all co-exist round the year.

Typically, a “Clean Stadium” refers to a Stadium that is free from commercial or promotional messages, advertising, displays or facilities of any kind except for those installed, erected or otherwise authorised by the Host Stadium/Host Governing Body for a predefined time period before and after a particular match/tournament so that the commercial rights would be available to the Host Stadium/Host Governing Body for exploitation, without any hindrance from any pre-existing sponsor/advertising rights holder. The Stadium itself is defined to include surrounding areas under the control of the Host Governing Body, used for the Matches, including without limitation parking facilities, VIP and hospitality areas, concourses, concession areas, fencing and entrances.

Globally, the practice is for the Event’s Governing Body to specify dimensions, quantity, standards and other technical specifications pertaining to various areas within a stadium, and such specifications can include those pertaining to the number of parking spaces that are to be provided, the facilities that are to be provided to the media, the camera positions, tv and radio commentary positions, medical facilities, toilets, hospitality areas, scoreboards, emergency lighting systems, public announcement systems, and special provisions for persons with physical disabilities.

In India, not much attention has been paid to the above issues till date, and it is very common for a Host Governing Body to issue just a simple letter (more as a matter of formality than as a legally binding obligation) to record the terms and conditions of usage of the Stadium. While this does appear convenient for the Stadium Owner and for the Lessee, the potential liability that a Stadium Owner and a Stadium Operator can be exposed to in the event of a calamity can be unlimited. Furthermore, the scope for disputes similar to the GCB-CSA-IPL disputes are significantly enhanced in a such situations, as there is no legally binding document, which can pin responsibility for certain actions on one or the other party i.e. the Stadium Owner/Governing Body or the Stadium Operator/Franchisee.

Apart from improving the entire “spectator experience” in a Stadium, it is also high time that Governing Bodies, Franchises and Sponsors work responsibly towards ensuring the highest spectator safety standards across venues in India.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Lessons from the Cricinfo Growth Curve-Understanding the Challenges before Cricket Websites

As somebody who religiously tracks any cricket-related information online, I have, for long felt that there always has been a clear blue water between Cricinfo and other websites which provide 24/7 cricket coverage. The quality of cricket coverage, cricket literature and analysis and the sheer depth of its database have made Cricinfo peerless. In a recent column on Outlook Business (http://www.outlookbusiness.com/inner.aspx?articleid=2770&subcatgid=1199&editionid=76&catgid=60), the authors have highlighted some interesting statistics that provide some insights in understanding what makes Cricinfo tick. For starters, it has a user base of 11.5 million. Cricinfo claims that each of its 11.5 million users spends about 50 minutes a month on the website and each session is about 10 minutes long. Its nearest cricket website competitors are way behind on the same parameters. As the Outlook Business column points out, Cricinfo holds its own even when compared with general websites, being ranked ahead of even the ubiquitous Indian Railway portal in terms of number of views.

It would be interesting to understand the underlying cricket market factors, as also the website-specific factors, which have contributed to the phenomenal Cricinfo story. First, lets look at the market factors. There are various nuances of the game of cricket which make it so attractive for a web-based platform. Even its shortest format lasts for atleast 3 hours, and with breaks of various kinds thrown in for good measure, a cricket fan can always follow the game even if he is pre-occupied with other work, by tracking the scores on a cricket website! So, unless office policies on usage of the Internet are very strict, a good cricket website has the potential to attract a sizeable chunk of busy office-goers to follow the game on a desktop!

Secondly, the game of cricket is not continuous. There is a time gap between each delivery as the ball has to be relayed back to the bowler at the end of every delivery. It is these gaps which allow the viewers to hear the expert feedback of cricket commentators on various aspects of the game, be it fielding, batting, bowling, umpiring or just an interruption in the game due to a dog coming on to the field!! A conventional cricket website (i.e. one which cannot or does not offer video streaming) can therefore assume the role that radio commentators would once perform, when they would allow the readers to imagine how a stroke was played or a ball was bowled! This adds to the excitement of the reader! Thirdly, the game lends itself to an enormous amount of statistics, which makes it a statistical delight. A well designed website would allow a cricket buff to explore this treasure trove and get him/her hooked! In that sense, the database of Cricinfo does stand out for its sheer global reach.

Furthermore, the views of expert cricketers/cricket commentators can be harnessed through various means including interviews, columns, podcasts, blogs and other interactive frameworks designed on a website. Finally, it is possible for a website (if it has the relationships to back it up) to offer fantasy cricket games, memorabilia, souvenirs and merchandise in a faster and perhaps more economical manner, making it an attractive wholesome package for cricket lovers.

Each of these underlying cricket market factors has shaped the Cricinfo growth story. However, before its competitors or potential entrants into the cricket website market contemplate replicating a Cricinfo-like model, they would do well to also understand the website-specific factors that have contributed to Cricinfo achieving this critical mass. Cricinfo has thrived on bringing in viewers to track live scores on its website, and has subsequently got them hooked with exclusive premium content. Today, Cricinfo followers swear by its ability to deliver high quality ball-by ball commentary, features, interviews and interactive discussions on a wide variety of topics, spanning every cricket-playing country, in a most user-friendly manner. Even as this post was being finalized, Cricinfo unveiled its revamped website, which to me, looks set to raise the bar even higher for its competitors.

This leads me to ponder whether there is any space for new entrants in the cricket website marketplace? I do anticipate that the barriers to entry are significantly high in an already crowded cricket website marketplace (which is primarily targeted at eyeballs in India). Some of the challenges that will confront any potential entrant into the cricket website market are outlined below:

(1) Premium on Content: It is often said that everybody has a view on the game of cricket. The biggest challenge for cricket websites will be to deliver content which has a high premium attached to it. In the context of a cricket website, this would mean their ability to assimilate large amounts of information pertaining to cricket matches, players, teams, venues, etc. Even more critical is the ability of a website to analyse the information and provide the readers with interesting articles/columns, which can get the readers hooked, and allow it to stand out from the rest of the crowd.

(2) Competition for Advertisements: The cricket website industry is getting more and more crowded (what with conventional players from the newspaper and the television industry also setting up separate cricket-related websites or separate pages within their websites, as also mobile platforms). As would be obvious in any crowded marketplace, the competition for advertising revenues will only be stiffer. In such an environment, readers would be drawn to a website primarily on the basis of its content.

(3) Viewer Fatigue: In a sense, with cricket being played almost 365 days a year, sustaining the quality of the underlying cricket product itself will be a challenge. Consequently, sustaining viewer interest in the game itself will be an even bigger challenge for industries which are ancillary to the primary product. I fear that with a glut of T20 matches, viewer fatigue is likely to set in sooner or later, and this could have an impact on underlying business of reporting cricket.

(4) Purchasing Power: While a lot of cricket websites do generate significant viewership figures, it is interesting to note that most services offered are free services and not based on a “pay per view” model. While creation of premium content could be one factor in ensuring a migration from a “free” to “pay per view” model, websites also need to ensure that their offerings are priced in a manner that is commensurate with the purchasing power of the Indian consumer marketplace.

(5) Building Social Media and Digital Media Relationships: The growing influence of various forms of social media have not been lost on Cricinfo and the sooner its competitors or a potential new entrant realize the power of social media networks in harnessing fan communities, the easier it will be for them to attract greater eyeballs. In addition, it is extremely important to have an underlying technology platform which enables content delivery across different media platforms in a user-friendly way. This is easier said than done. In Cricinfo’s case, these were made possible by its acquisition by ESPN, which allowed it to leverage ESPN’s expertise in the fields of broadcasting, sports marketing and digital media. For a potential new entrant, it would require significant capital investments, which is a challenge in today’s environment.

(6) Clarity in the Legal Environment: The live ball-by-ball commentary application has been built around a live telecast of a cricket match by a television channel. A couple of years back, the Justice M Chockalingam of the Madras High Court initially restrained mobile operators from disseminating cricket scores and updates by SMS for the ODI cricket series between India and Pakistan, on a civil suit filed by Chennai-based Marksman Marketing Services Private Limited, which was the exclusive global SMS rights-holder for the cricket services. Within three days of this order being passed, Justice R. Bhanumathi vacated the interim injunction granted by Justice Chockalingam but asked mobile service companies and content providers to maintain accounts of revenues from the messages so that the plaintiff company could be compensated later if it succeeded in the main suit. The judge passed her order at the end of a hearing that saw lawyers for Marksman Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd, arguing against those representing several cellular companies and content providers on the question of whether there could be any copyright over scores that are telecast live. I have not been able to locate any subsequent decision of the Chennai High Court on this suit, and am not aware if a final judgment on the same has yet been delivered. This issue, will have significant implications for all websites and content providers, and hence there is an urgent need for clarity in the legal environment in India.

My own personal viewpoint on this matter is as follows: As long as the textual representation of a game can contain significant elements of originality (i.e. the language contained in the ball by ball commentary, the analysis that is made, the discussions that are held etc.), the author of such textual representation (i.e. a website) can claim the information to be “fair use” for the purposes of relaying news, and can also claim a copyright on its textual representation. This is primarily because the scores of a game are said to be in the public domain as soon as the telecast is made, and therefore it is not practically feasible to prevent the subsequent relay of information by a website/mobile service provider to its subscribers. This view has also been adopted in various other jurisdictions, including the USA, where similar issues had arisen in the context of a mobile service provider paging the scores of a NBA game.

The continued growth of this exciting cricket-ancillary market will depend on how well both existing and new players are able confront the above mentioned challenges.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Analyzing the Post-IPL endorsement landscape: De-coding the perceived conflicts between a Player’s Individual and Team Sponsors

Cricinfo.com has carried a column titled “Endorsements get a shake-up” (http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/405833.html), which seeks to highlight the conflicts between individual sponsors of Players and team sponsors in cricket, particularly in the context of the IPL. The crux of the column, as suggested by its authors, is that the IPL appears to have altered the economics within the multi-million dollar player-endorsement industry, where individual player deals are now gradually losing ground to team endorsements.

To me, the entire issue of conflicts between player endorsement contracts and team sponsorship contracts is a case of “old wine in new bottle”. Such perceived conflicts have existed in the cricketing landscape, have been managed and can be managed in the near future as well. For example, this issue had also cropped up in the pre-IPL landscape in the context of the players’ personal sponsors being in conflict with BCCI’s and ICC’s sponsors for marquee events such as the Champions Trophy in 2002 and the Cricket World Cup 2003. Subsequently, the solution that had been agreed upon by Players and the governing bodies was that (i) players would endorse products of official sponsors of the ICC or the BCCI only in association with atleast two other players in any advertisement; and (ii) such promotions would be used only for a specified time period during and around the ICC/BCCI event in question. With the introduction of the IPL, it is just that the layers of conflict have increased i.e. the Players and their Agents now need to ensure that their new individual endorsement agreements are structured in a manner that there is no conflict with their obligations to (i) the ICC; (ii) the BCCI; and (iii) the Franchisee to which the Player is contracted to play for during the IPL, whereas prior to the conceptualization of the IPL, the third layer simply did not exist.

Rationalizing the Endorsement landscape in the context of the Franchise Model

When the IPL was conceptualized, it was clearly the objective of BCCI to (a) ensure the widest possible coverage and audience for the IPL; and (b) maximize revenue generation of the IPL. Towards this end, the BCCI invited bids from various corporates, and the eight highest bidders were granted the rights to operate eight city-based teams respectively. The BCCI has entered into a Franchise Agreement with each of the eight successful bidders, which outlines the rights and obligations of BCCI and the Franchisee on a host of issues, including the manner in which various revenues earned on account of the IPL are to be shared/distributed between BCCI and the Franchisees. While income earned from sale of media rights and from licensing and merchandising are shared between the BCCI and the Franchisees, income earned from certain other rights such as (i) the naming rights in respect of the Franchise and/or Team; (ii) the shirt sponsorship rights in respect of the Team; and (iii) official suppliership rights in respect of the Team are exclusively retained by a Franchisee. Furthermore, Franchisees are also entitled to retain gate receipts earned from stadium audiences for their “home” matches.

From the above, it is evident that for a Franchisee to earn a profit on its initial investment i.e. the Franchise Fee paid by it (For example, Reliance Industries Limited paid $111.9 million as a Franchise Fee to win the Mumbai franchise), a Franchisee needs to exploit its lawful revenue stream opportunities to the maximum extent possible. The basic commercial assumption that a Franchisee makes while acquiring the rights to a Team is that it can drive higher sales of its products/services (by reaching out to its target audience through the Team). It is in this context that Franchisees negotiate various sponsorship deals, riding on the brand recognition of its primary assets i.e. Players.

Yes, this does lead to situations of potential/actual conflict. The Cricinfo column points out some interesting situations of potential/actual conflict, which make for interesting analyses:
(a) a scenario where leading players are forced to endorse certain brands for their franchises in categories they have steadfastly refused to promote in an individual capacity;
(b) a scenario where some leading players are required to endorse “under-value” brands, which don’t match their stature; and
(c) the potential domino effect on a player’s individual value in the event of a failure of a franchise to attract sponsors.

Situation (a) ought to be addressed between the Franchise, the Sponsors and the Players, where certain Players can be given a limited right to opt-out of certain category endorsements (provided that they furnish adequate reasons for their refusal to do such endorsements). For example, if it is against the religious principles of an individual player to consume alcohol, and he is not willing to sport the logo of an alcohol brand on his shirt or helmet on those grounds, he should not be compelled to do so by either the sponsor or the franchise.

Situations (b) and (c) are where a Player and a Franchisee have to play ball with each other. A Player has to remember that in a team sport, the Franchisee has a significant role to play in shaping a Player’s career with such Franchisee’s IPL Team, as also in the development of his stature outside the field. Equally, a player’s or a team’s failure to perform on the field could have an adverse intangible effect on the brand value of a franchise (Examples being that of Kolkata Knight Riders in 2009 and Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2008). Hence, I do not think Players should be allowed to discriminate brands on the basis of their perceived values or on the basis of their impact on a player’s stature, as that would undermine the very economic basis of the Franchise Model, as described above.

I do not believe that the IPL landscape poses any different a challenge to the Players, in terms of their endorsements, than what the Players were already accustomed to. In my view, so long as the concerned Parties i.e. the Player, his Individual Sponsor and the Team Sponsor are all clear about (i) the scope and extent of a player’s obligations under the respective sponsorship/endorsement contracts; (ii) the rights conferred on the respective sponsors under their respective sponsorship/endorsement contracts; and (iii) the duration for which these rights subsist; any perceived or actual conflicts in the endorsement obligations of a Player can be addressed. What this essentially calls for is a due diligence exercise to be conducted by a Player, the Sponsors (both Individual and Team) and the Governing Bodies in their respective capacities, bearing in mind their respective commercial and legal interests.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

The Implications of Chris Lewis’s Conviction- A Case for Designing Robust Player Management Systems in Cricket

On May 20, 2009, former England cricketer, Chris Lewis was sentenced to 13 years in prison by Croydon Crown Court after being found guilty of smuggling cocaine into the country on a flight from St Lucia. He was arrested at Gatwick Airport in December, along with a friend, Chad Kirnon, when customs officials found five cans of fruit juice in his luggage in which cocaine had been dissolved.

Predictably, there have been various reactions (some of sadness (http://content.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/405230.html) and some which refer to a promising talent that was rarely fulfilled (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/may/20/chris-lewis-profile)) to the above news. Most observers have pointed out that that this case serves as yet another example to modern-day players on how not to cope with life without the adulation and fan following, post-retirement from the game. While I agree with the sentiments expressed above, I do believe that cricket’s institutional mechanisms also hold have to shoulder responsibility to a certain degree in shaping a player’s career, and ensuring that cases akin to Chris Lewis’s case are avoided to the extent possible.

Cricket, like most other sports, has transformed itself from an amateur sport to a professional discipline in the last 15-20 years. Needless to say, with (i) the mushrooming of various T20 leagues across the globe; (ii) players being paid relatively higher sums of monies by their governing bodies; and (iii) celebrity endorsements being increasingly viewed as an integral part of brand marketing strategies adopted by corporates, the economic wellbeing of modern day cricketers is more or less assured. However, there have been innumerable cases of cricketers going astray due to their inability to handle their fame, image and finances appropriately. While the Player in question ought to be ultimately responsible for managing his career, image and brand in accordance with publicly acceptable standards of propriety, the governing bodies (i.e. the Cricket Boards, the Franchise Teams which the Player represents and the Provincial/State Cricket Associations) ought to shoulder some responsibility in shaping the career path of a cricketer.

As things stand, it would be interesting to know from various governing bodies, the initiatives that they have taken to ensure that appropriate player management systems have been devised. While most countries now have cricket academies, which seek to serve as training grounds for cricketers to hone their cricket-playing skills and sharpen their physical fitness, I am not so sure that the same amount of emphasis has been laid on developing a player’s soft skills. A few interesting questions that arise in this context (and perhaps could be the subject-matter of a professionally conducted survey) are outlined below:

(1) How may governing bodies offer non-cricketing education as part of their curriculum? To elaborate, how may governing bodies offer courses on basic education, etiquette and behavioral training, legal education, financial management, sports psychology and post-cricket professional opportunities?

(2) How may governing bodies invest in hiring professional experts of the highest calibre to render courses/modules on the above disciplines?

(3) How many governing bodies assist players in locating appropriate professional support (be it financial, legal, psychological or managerial)?

(4) Do governing bodies adopt processes through which only those professionals who are accredited (by complying with rigorous professional standards) can provide necessary support to players?

While I do not expect any survey to show too many governing bodies in a positive light, an honest appraisal of the absence of/shortcomings in institutional mechanisms and subsequent redressals by governing bodies, by putting in place, robust player management systems, will only help sustain the growth of the game of cricket, governing bodies and players alike.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

It’s just not Cricket! – Why audiences may dislike “DLF Maximums” and “Citi Moments of Success”

As IPL-II draws towards its final stages, I have been noticing a growing feeling of resentment in both the Indian and South African media with the IPL and its Sponsors, particularly with the intrusive nature of sponsorship communications adopted by the main sponsors of the league i.e. DLF and Citi. Sample the following criticism by a columnist Stuart Hess in his column in the Star (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=17&art_id=vn20090507055930749C348994):
“Sponsors might be happy to be thanked as often as they are by the IPL’s team of spokesmen – they can hardly be called commentators anymore, so much have they sold themselves to the corporations – but there comes a time when it wouldn’t be a bad idea to employ a little subtlety.
However, subtlety and the IPL are about as compatible as oil and water – the two just don’t mix – so we’ll have to put up with spokesmen screaming about a six that’s no longer a six, but a maximum sponsored by an Indian property company whose finances have taken a hit during the credit crunch, and a catch that’s a success backed by a bank that needed bail-out money from the Obama administration.”

Elsewhere, there has been severe criticism of the concept of having a “strategic time-out” after 10 overs of each innings on the grounds that it was introduced purely to provide the television broadcaster to sell more advertising spots and that it is a direct intrusion into a game of cricket, disliked by players and spectators alike.

In addition, there has been an added criticism of the excessive media coverage of the creators of the property (i.e. officials of the BCCI and the owners of the IPL teams). Sample the following criticism by Kunal Pradhan in his column in the Indian Express (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/premier-propaganda/453135/0):
“The stars of the IPL, they’d have us believe, are the strutting team owners and the IPL’s “owner” himself, Lalit Modi. Certainly, Modi (or, as Rajasthan Royals star Shilpa Shetty recently called him, “the brainchild behind the IPL”) is signing autographs like he’s the main attraction. Well-trained cameras follow him adoringly across the stadium, as he waves magisterially to the people his minions have summoned to gawk at the wonders of his IPL. You would be forgiven for thinking that you were watching one of Kim Jong-Il’s giant propaganda games from North Korea; since we aren’t allowed to see the relatively thin crowds, the resemblance is even more marked. And, in all this, the cricketers that actually prop up the system are forgotten — it doesn’t give a damn for them.”

Some of the above criticism maybe excessively harsh as the IPL is just in its second season and still has a long way to go before it can be considered as a mature sports property. Along the way, the creators of the property and the sponsors associated with the property will also need to transition into mature sports brands whose messages to their respective target markets are tailored in an appropriate manner, so as to enhance rather than dilute their respective brand values. Research has indicated that brands that reach out to their audiences through a meaningful gesture or by including their target audiences to become a part of the event, achieve greater returns on their sponsorship investment.

The IPL and its Sponsors will soon realize that effective brand communications are those that convey meaningful messages to an audience’s event experience. Those communications that divert the attention of the audience from the experience that they are trying to have, or intrude, onto an audience’s event experience are less likely to be viewed as being effective and more likely to be viewed as being merely a necessary evil. For cricketing audiences, a shot that clears the boundary is a six and will remain a six. A wicket obtained by a bowler is just that- a wicket! By trying to term a six as a “DLF Maximum”, or a wicket as a “Citi Moment of Success”, it appears that DLF and Citi have devised sponsorship communications which seek to alter time-tested fundamentals of the game of cricket, or which have the effect of intruding onto an audience’s event experience.

I do believe that if the audiences don’t like a product, the same would be reflected in lower television rating points and lower in-stadia audiences for the event. Furthermore, there would inevitably be a dilution in the brand value of organizations associated with the product. This, in turn, will force the hand of both the IPL and its Sponsors in various ways. Consequently, the participants in the IPL matrix i.e. the IPL, the broadcaster, and its Sponsors may re-negotiate their agreements with each other, so as to specify stricter quality control mechanisms on all aspects of the production of the event, including the manner in which brand communications are tailored. Perhaps, IPL-III may witness the beginning of more mature brand communications from the participants in the IPL matrix, whether by choice or by compulsion.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Powerplay Golf- A T20-triggered innovation!

The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-Industry/ET-Cetera/After-IPL-GMR-to-take-shot-at-powerplay-golf/articleshow/4493616.cms) has reported that the GMR Group is looking at making investments in powerplay golf, a fasttrack format of golf that is akin to T20 cricket.

I must confess that I have no knowledge of any form of golf and am currently grappling with the challenge of understanding the game of golf! Hence, I visited the Powerplay Golf website (http://www.powerplay-golf.com) to obtain a basic understanding of the rules of this new format and the history behind this innovation. What caught my eye on a review of the Powerplay Golf website was an honest acknowledgement by the inventor of the format, Mr. Peter McEvoy that this was an innovation along the lines of T20 cricket.

It is good to see that the newest format of cricket has actually triggered an innovation in a relatively more global sport such as golf! Constant innovation, which is geared towards making sport audience-friendly can only have a beneficial effect as the reach of sport would be extended, with more and more people taking to such sport! Consequently, the market for sport would also expand gradually, over a period of time.

What was also heartening to note was that this new format has been welcomed by many of the game’s governing bodies around the world. The PGA launched a powerplay golf championship in 2008 and accomodated the same within its 2008 schedule. What is also interesting to note is that Powerplay Golf has provided for a system where any golfer, golf club/event organizer or any entity which has a business interest in Powerplay Golf (such as GMR Sports) in a particular country can become an official Powerplay Golf partner in that country, by registering with Powerplay Golf (by sending an email). Thus, conceptually, this format of golf seeks to encourage private entrepreneurship.

In this context, it is quite ironical to note that while the game of golf has borrowed an innovation from the game of cricket and has even found a way to accomodate the latest innovation within its schedule, the ICC, which administers the game of cricket is still grappling with the issue of having to accomodate the IPL and other T20 leagues within the playing calendar of its member countries! The ICC is also currently grappling with the issue of recognition of various T20 cricket leagues funded by private entrepeneurs that have sprouted up in various countries (for e.g. the ICL, the proposed American Premier League being the two most high profile examples). In the interests of making the game of cricket global in nature, the ICC ought to devise methods by which private entrepreneurship can be encouraged in countries where there is significant potential to develop the game of cricket, while not cutting at the roots of governing bodies who administer the game of cricket in these countries.

Perhaps, the ICC could study the manner in which playing calendars are structured in other global games, and also study how private entrepreneurship models are encouraged in such games. The game of golf could be a starting point!

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

BCCI’s Amnesty Offer to ICL Players- Whither Economic Tort Laws?

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has, on April 29, 2009 announced an “amnesty” offer for all Indian players associated with the Indian Cricket League (ICL). The ICL Players have been given time till May 31, during which time they are needed to sever all ties with the ICL, for them to be re-eligible to play domestic cricket in India from June 01, 2009. The BCCI has further stipulated a cooling period of one year before the ICL players can be re-eligible to play international cricket for India.

While several players and officials associated with the ICL have welcomed the above announcement made by BCCI, as it allows them to resume playing what is termed as “official cricket”, the above announcement raises an interesting legal issue: Where do the Indian industry and legal system stand on the issue of respect for contractual relationships?

Presumably, the ICL has executed valid contracts with each of its players, Indian and overseas. Both parties to the contract i.e. the ICL and the Players are required by contract law to either perform, or offer to perform, their respective promises, unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of law. The BCCI, by making this amnesty offer to ICL players, with the express stipulation that the Players sever all ties with the ICL by May 31, 2009 may well be seen as inducing a breach of contract by the ICL Players or as intentionally interfering with contractual relations between the ICL and its contracted Players.

In various countries across the world, including the US and the UK, both inducement of a breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations have been regarded as a “tort” or more specifically an “economic tort” i.e. a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, that is recognized by the courts and which will be compensated by damages. While different jurisdictions have adopted different tests for determining whether there has been an inducement of breach of contract or not or whether there has been an intentional interference with contractual relations, there is a broad consensus on the basic principles that need to be applied in both scenarios.

The House of Lords, in its common judgment for the following three cases Douglas v. Hello!, OBG v Allan, and Mainstream Properties v Young ([2007] 4 All ER 545) has applied the following tests to determine whether there has been an inducement of a breach of contract:
(i) Whether there has been a breach of contract;
(ii) Whether a person knows that he is procuring a breach of contract; and
(iii) Whether the breach of contract is either an intended end in itself, or the means to an end (but is not merely a foreseeable consequence of the intended end).

On the other hand, to demonstrate an intentional interference with contractual relations, courts in the US (See White Plains Coat & Apron Co. Inc. v. Cintas Corp. and Cintas Corp.2, 2007 NY Int. 50, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, Inc., 88 NY2d 413 (1996)), to my knowledge, have held that the plaintiff must show:
(i) the existence of its valid contract with a third party;
(ii) a defendant’s knowledge of that contract;
(iii) defendant’s intentional and improper procuring of a breach,
(iv) and damages.

While various kinds of civil wrongs, such as public nuisance, negligence, defamation, trespass to person, trespass to immoveable property etc. have, at various points in time, been recognized in courts of India, I am not aware of any judicial precedent, other than ICC Development (International) Limited v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) 26 PTC 245 (Del)) which has even discussed the elements of what constitutes a tort of inducement of breach of contract, let alone recognize the principle. In the ICC judgment, Justice Aggarwal briefly touched upon the essential elements for a cause of action based on breach of contract by inducement, they being (a) interference in the execution of the contract; (b) such interference must be deliberate; and (c) such interference must be direct. In that particular case, Justice Aggarwal held that none of the above ingredients were made out and hence dismissed the plaintiff’s application for grant of an ad-interim injunction.

If, as is widely expected, any of the ICL Players were to accept the BCCI’s “amnesty” offer, it would be interesting to see whether the ICL would initiate legal proceedings against the BCCI on grounds of either inducement of breach of contract or intentional interference with contractual relations. It would also be interesting to see the response of the judiciary in India to any such legal proceedings, and whether the judiciary would utilize this particular case to develop the jurisprudence on economic tort laws in India.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Tapping the Sports Licensing and Merchandising Potential in the Indian Context

The Indian media has widely reported the licensing rights deal that ace cricketer Harbhajan Singh has entered into with Delhi-based License India. This represents another milestone in the growing maturity of the relatively nascent Indian sports market. In recent years, the Indian sports market has begun to structure its business in a more organized manner. While licensed products bearing the names of prominent cricketers is not unprecedented (for example, “Tendulkars” as a restaurant springs to mind) an organized licensing and merchandising strategy for a brand such as the one adopted by Harbhajan and License India is relatively novel in the Indian context. With the Indian Premier League also in the process of developing a centrally planned Licensing and Merchandising Program (“L&M Program”), there surely are exciting opportunities for corporates to develop properties around sports brands, be they leagues or teams or players.

However, it is essential to understand certain key elements that are involved in enabling a successful monetization of a brand through a L&M Program.

(1) Match the Brand with the Appropriate Product Profile: At the outset, the Licensor and the Licensee both need to be convinced that the licensed brand is relevant to, and matches the profile of, the target market.

(2) Commercial Expectations of Licensor and Licensee: Again, at the commencement of a relationship itself, the Licensor and the Licensee need to set realistic expectations, in terms of the respective responsibilities and gains desired by both parties. Typically, the Licensor is obligated to ensure that he/it has the necessary intellectual property rights which can be the subject-matter of a L&M Program. The Licensor is further required to ensure that its Brand Equity is preserved at the highest possible standards. The Licensor also needs to understand that the monetization of the brand can occur only over a long term, and should therefore not expect results in terms of revenues overnight! The Licensee is expected to ensure that it has the capacity to absorb high manufacturing costs (because licensing is essentially a volumes game in the long-term). The Licensee is also required to ensure that the risks of counterfeit products being available in the market is mitigated to the maximum extent possible. The Licensee is also obligated to incur significant costs in promoting the licensed merchandise.

(3) Affordability: While consumers would expect high quality merchandise to be sold to them, at the same time, they would also be conscious of the price at which such merchandise are being sold. Therefore the pricing points ought to be commensurate to the purchasing power of the end consumer.

(4) Accessibility: To maximize sales of merchandise, there ought to be an optimal number of consumer touchpoints at which such sales can be effected. In the inaugural season of the IPL, I did notice that although there were several showrooms of various team sponsors in Bangalore, many of these showrooms just did not have enough stocks of merchandise!

I do believe that the Indian sports market offers significant potential for creating more brands, which can transcend into licensable properties, provided that the key elements mentioned above are factored in while conceptualizing L&M Programs.

About the Author:

Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.

Technology Aided Performance- Who does the Law “bat” for?

As all and sundry brace for another season of the IPL to start, the long standing debate on how much of technology is good for sport and how much is not so good has again gathered steam. In an article on Cricinfo.com,
(http://content.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/399274.html), leading Australian cricketing commentator and former captain of the Australian cricket team, Ian Chappell has strongly advocated the need to preserve a balance between bat and ball. Mr. Chappell attempts to back his argument by referring to statistics which show that in Twenty20 cricket, a little over 22% of the runs are scored by hitting sixes. He further argues that this six-hitting has been made possible, inter alia on account of improvements in the quality of cricket bats, and not so much due to a risk being taken by a batsman against quality bowlers. He has therefore concluded that it is high time that officials seriously considered the impact of such technological innovation on the competitive aspects of the game of cricket.

I for one, wholeheartedly support Mr. Chappell’s argument that sport should essentially be based on the physical performance or skill of the athlete, and not be dependent on a make-believe performance enhancing gizmo or substance! Yet, I suspect that in this instance, the lawmakers may have actually been unfairly targeted. As recently as in May 2008, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), which is the primary law making body for the game of Cricket, had recognized that in recent years, the bat had begun to dominate the ball and that with developments in technology, a few cricket bats had appeared on the market with potential performance enhancing properties. The response of the MCC was to introduce a new version of a prior law, which specified the details about the design and dimensions of a cricket bat. The Law, known as Law 6 (http://www.lords.org/data/files/law-6-and-appendix-e-10183.pdf) which lays down details about the bat, was drafted following extended discussions with many bat manufacturers, willow growers and the ICC, claims the MCC on its website (http://www.lords.org/data/files/changes-to-the-law-concerning-cricket-bats-manufactures-10184.pdf).

This new Law 6, which took effect from October 01, 2008, seeks to regulate
(i) the manner in which various parts of a cricket bat such as the handle, the blade and the toe ought to be manufactured;
(ii) the materials that are to be used in their manufacture;
(iii) the dimensions of the cricket bat; and
(iv) the grading of bats manufactured for different levels of cricket.

On a review of Law 6 purely from a legal perspective, it appears to me that the lawmakers have actually been on the ball (so to say!) in trying to regulate technology aided batting performances. In fact, the MCC has also been proactive to issue a guide for bat manufacturers, so as to explain the rationale for Law 6 and its import in plain English language (http://www.lords.org/data/files/changes-to-the-law-concerning-cricket-bats-manufactures-10184.pdf). If on a review by cricketing experts, (including Mr. Chappell) from a cricketing perspective, it is felt that the bat still holds the upper hand vis-à-vis the ball, the appropriate course of action would be for eminent cricketers to debate the relative merits and demerits of Law 6 from a technical and cricketing perspective, and then approach the MCC or the ICC’s Cricket Committee with further amendments to Law 6, if required.

Until then, batsmen around the world can clear their front leg and send the ball soaring over the fence for many maximums!! Watch out all you bowlers, there won’t be any place for you to hide!!

About the Author:
Amrut Joshi is the Founder of Gamechanger Sports Ventures (www.gamechangerindia.com). He can be contacted at amrut@gamechangerindia.com.