In the prosperous Arabian Gulf oil states of the United Arab Emirates, where a wealthy and visionary businessman had built a high quality cricket stadium in Sharjah out of desert sand, three of the nine teams that constitute international cricket's premier league – India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe – had assembled for the week-long, limited-overs Coca-Cola Trophy tournament.

They were accompanied, as usual, by the entourage of former players turned television or newspaper commentators and administrators that now attend such events.

All appreciated the seriousness and the implications of the impasse between the players and the board that jeopardised the West Indies tour of South Africa. All were desperate for news, covered adequately by the Emirates three English language dailies, by the available British papers that took advantage of the fact that it was all taking place in their own backyard and by BBC World Service.

And most had some view on the matter.

Whenever the subject came up, the word ``ransom'' was freely bandied around for there was little appreciation of the way the players went about making their point. But there was also a wide acceptance that the episode could be the catalyst for further developments that would ultimately benefit the international game as a whole.

Several had been there themselves during their playing days.

Tony Greig quit the England captaincy to help spearhead the formation of Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket of which Michael Holding, the great West Indies fast bowler, and Barry Richards, the sublime South African opener of the apartheid era, were also members.

All were now in the television commentary box along with Ravi Shastri, the Indian all-rounder of the 1980s who had his brushes with his administrators, and Geoffrey Boycott, disgraced most recently for his woman-beating conviction but earlier for his alignment to the first English rebel tour of South Africa.

Richards, Greig and Holding saw the likelihood of the impasse leading to a more involved role for the International Cricket Council (ICC) on issues such as player relations and standardised contracts.

Richards advocated the setting up of an international players association – an idea long since mooted and already discussed between a few Test captains – that would negotiate with the ICC on a more equitable system of payment for all.

``This whole business could be a forerunner of things to come unless some action is taken now,'' he said. ``The ICC has to act now to ensure that it doesn't spread from country to country. We're going to find that there is a large discrepancy between the fees of the so-called richer countries as opposed to the poorer ones and this can only lead to difficulties with international programming in time.

``The process had to start now,'' he added. ``We have to start developing it in reasonably quick time or else this sort of thing will happen not only with the West Indies but with other boards.''

Holding maintained the players had ``gone too far with the stand they took'' but was not pessimistic about its possible repercussions.

``They agreed to go ahead (on the South African tour) and, whatever sparked the turnaround, it was wrong for them to agree initially and then to say they weren't going any more,'' he said.

``Whatever negatives you can see from it, there can also be some benefit,'' Holding said. ``There has to be some way that the ICC can get as strong as FIFA (football's world governing body), to have a real punch, a real say, as to what exactly happens in world cricket.

``The ICC should dictate how money from television rights is shared between all its member countries and how the game and the players fees are going to be structured,'' he added.

``At the moment, the ICC doesn't have a great deal of power. Perhaps a situation like this will make them realise they have got to get involved in the game and not just in an office in London but in the general structuring of the game worldwide.''

Greig also believed the disparity in pay between players of different countries was fuelling resentment.

``As I see it, the players are talking to each other, and as soon as the Aussies are finished negotiating for a better deal, they are likely to start talking to the West Indies players and vice-versa,'' he said. ``It's going to be a never-ending process.''

To prevent it, Greig believed the various boards needed ``to get their heads together and work out a formula that's similar to each other's.

``I really don't believe you should ever let things get to the point when you start catching planes in the opposite direction and start holding people to ransom,'' he said. ``That's not acceptable to me and not good for cricket.''

Boycott made the point about the disparity in pay – but within the West Indies team itself.

``What I've been reading, and I have no reason to doubt it, tells me that the captain is getting something like US$35 000 for the South African tour and the junior players around $15 000,'' he said. ``That can't be right. If that's what they're fighting about, the players have a point although I don't think they should have made it the way they did.''

The obvious question to Greig and Holding was whether they saw a parallel between the present situation and their signing on with Packer.

``There is absolutely no parallel for two reasons,'' Holding said.

``When we went to World Series Cricket we were still available for the West Indies and did play Test cricket for the West Indies. There was no conflict,'' he countered.

``We did not strike or give the board an ultimatum to pay us better or we were gone. It was a decision we took because here was someone who was interested in the welfare of cricket and we got a better deal. We could see our way forward.''

Greig said there was some comparison ``in that we were disenchanted.''

``We said at the time that cricketers would be the better of for it (World Series Cricket) and they have been,'' he said. ``Time will be the judge in this case whether cricketers will be better off for it or not.''