Money. The sound of the five-letter word, even the very mention of it, governs everything around us. 'Money makes the world go around' went a popular number from the 1972 film 'Cabaret'. It's difficult not to agree with that sentiment, particularly at this juncture when cricket faces a new crisis thanks to the ongoing contract row between the International Cricket Council and the affiliated units on one hand and the players and the Cricketer's Associations on the other. The choice before the latter is, bluntly put, money or country. Such a scenario could not have been imagined in the past but with mega dollars governing the game, perhaps it is not surprising that the situation has led to the current impasse.

'Money is the root of all evil' is a saying we all learnt while at school. Apparently, money is also the root of all controversy and misunderstanding. The game has weathered many a crisis in the past - Bodyline, the throwing controversy and the vexed question of South Africa among others. But over the last 25 years cricket has encountered more problems than it had come across in the preceding 100 years.

It's tempting to trace the genesis of the present crisis to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket. Besides promoting the game in a razzle-dazzle manner, it also brought in more money into cricket, made the players superstars and resulted in greater misbehaviour by the cricketers, which saw the advent of the match referee and monetary penalties. But in marketing the game in such a colourful way, WSC also made cricketers a marketable commodity.

Soon the prima donnas, besides earning handsomely from the game directly thanks to more money pouring in through television coverage worldwide, could also make a pile endorsing products. Major companies signed up the superstars on exclusive contracts. With such a scenario, the present row over clash of contracts was, as the cliché goes, an accident waiting to happen. Only the word controversy should replace accident.

Players and administrators are the twin pillars of the game. It is true that spectators come to watch the cricketers in action and it is the players who bring in the large television audience. But without the administrators bringing in more mega bucks into the game through signed contracts with sponsors, the respective boards and, consequently, the players would not enjoy the monetary benefits. This is the stand taken by the ICC in the present controversy.

Listing impressive figures, the game's governing body has pointed out that in 2000, all Boards, through the ICC, agreed to a number of sponsorship and personal endorsement restrictions in return for 550 million dollars for the commercial rights to ICC events through until 2007. The ICC is to distribute a record 102 million dollars of this income to the Boards and the players from the ICC Champions Trophy to be held in Sri Lanka next month and the World Cup in South Africa early next year. In addition to this payment, South Africa is to receive tens of millions of dollars to stage the tournament, including the funding for ground redevelopment and infrastructure while 13 million dollars is to go directly to fund the development of the game around the world.

© CricInfo

In return, the ICC is seeking to ensure that the agreements previously reached with the Boards are adhered to. According to ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, the Boards and the players are the two of the key beneficiaries of the ICC's commercial agreements. Under the circumstances, the ICC's stance in protecting its commercial partners appears to be consistent with other sports and based on cricket's previous experience.

Given this well-established precedent, it would be a surprise, according to Speed, if any elite cricketer or his management had the view that the player would be free of any obligations to the ICC tournament sponsors in the Champions Trophy and the World Cup when negotiating any personal endorsements.

"To my knowledge no player or his manager at any stage sought the view of the ICC as to the restrictions that would be in place before they signed these agreements. If a player now finds that, through his own actions, he has put his commercial interests ahead of his ability to play for his country, he needs to decide what is more important to him, the money or playing for his country," he observed in a letter send out the various boards around the world.

The fact that it could come to a point wherein the player puts money ahead of playing for his country shows the serious extent to which the controversy has reached.

According to the ICC, under the Participating Nations Agreement (PNA) signed by the affiliated units for the Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup, each Board is committed to sending its best team to these events. The ICC expects each Board to meet these commitments by securing their players agreement to participate. It must be mentioned here that the negotiation of payments and other terms and conditions for players is the responsibility of the individual Boards. The game's governing body has also advised player representatives that it is not in a position to modify the ambush marketing restrictions in these agreements.

But the players have taken a diametrical opposite viewpoint as exemplified by the statement of Tim May, the former Test off- spinner and chief of the Australian Cricketers' Association. Terming ICC regulations preventing players from endorsing products conflicting with official sponsors as illegal, May said it would mean a player would have to breach an existing contract.

"That's not only unreasonable, it's unlawful" he said, mincing no words. According to May, the players want to play in the Champions Trophy tournament in Sri Lanka next month, but they remain very concerned about that one clause. "It isn't about a money grab, it's about a fundamental principle," May is quoted to have said.

"A player is not being allowed to endorse any product or service where that product or service conflicts with that of an ICC major sponsor. There are some international cricketers who will be affected by this. For the Champions Trophy, there's not one Australian player that would have a direct conflict with a major sponsor," May said. "However the players have taken this particular stance (of not signing the ICC contracts) because, just because they don't have one now, they may well have one in the future."

© CricInfo

India's players, in a rare show of unity, have followed this stand. Star cricketers like Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and Anil Kumble endorse a wide range of products through newspaper and television advertising and would stand to lose a huge sum of money if they agree to the ICC contract. Players from several other countries have also refused to sign the contract.

The cricketers are of the view that their case is strengthened by the fact that they were given the contracts just one month before the Champions Trophy tournament and also their contention is that there is no precedent for such a one-sided contract in any other sport.

David Graveney, chief executive of the Professional Cricketers' Association (of England), has admitted that the existing agreement would leave high-profile players in breach of existing contracts. In a succinct comment, he pointed out that players could not be expected to second-guess ICC sponsorship deals in advance. He is of the view that England players would sign the agreement if ICC relented on a couple of conditions.

The conflict of commercial interests, therefore, is very much out in the open and with both sides unrelenting, the deadlock may not be resolved for some time. Given the paucity of time, it is possible that only an ad hoc agreement or an unhappy compromise may be arrived at. The saddest aspect of the controversy is that the players, instead of keeping their minds on events on the field, have been forced to concentrate on monetary matters. How deeply all this will affect their performances remain to be seen.

© CricInfo