ICC marketing dispute looms for England

Another World Cup, another contract dispute, or so it seems for England's cricketers. Four years ago, prior to the 1999 World Cup in England, it concerned match fees and bonuses, this time round it is over the marketing rights of players.

The decision facing Nasser Hussain's squad is whether to sign an agreement with the International Cricket Council that would ban them from endorsing any product that may be in conflict with the governing body's sponsors.

Australian and Indian players have already refused to sign and time is running out for England with the ICC Champions' Trophy in Sri Lanka only weeks away and the 2003 World Cup just round the corner.

While this does not yet affect England's players directly, it is a matter of principle. Unlike the likes of Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly who are used regularly in India to advertise companies such as Fiat and Samsung, England's are not yet as marketable. However, this does not mean they will not be used or that if they are, they can second guess the ICC's sponsorship deals in advance. This is the reason for England's delay.

The problem that the ICC wants to avoid is that of "ambush marketing". This is when rival companies attempt to steal the thunder of the main competition sponsors by targeting players to advertise their product.

Rejecting the view that the ICC had ignored the rights of players in its commercial arrangements, Malcolm Speed, the chief executive, said: "We are on high alert on this issue and we will not let the people who are supporting the sport be ambushed. It is nothing new. It is in place at the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the Rugby World Cup and the Football World Cup and it was a key element of the arrangements agreed with the players for the Cricket World Cup of 1999.

"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 for him, the money or playing for his country."

This is not the sort of language that tends to get the players on your side, especially when some of them have long-standing contracts with sponsors who could take legal action should their contracted players back out of deals.

Tim May, the former Australian Test cricketer and now joint chief executive of the Federation of International Cricketers Association, defending the players stance, said: "Nobody has the right to suppress anyone's rights and obligations. The ICC is putting players with pre-existing contracts in an absolutely impossible situation."

Speed added: "The ICC wants the best players in the world to play in the Champions' Trophy and the World Cup and will do everything it can to make this happen. It would be terrible if the legal system stopped the best players playing. That is not in the interest of the game or the players."

One player who will not give a hoot about such issues will be Sussex's James Kirtley, who is expected to be named today as the replacement for Darren Gough in September's Champions' Trophy. Kirtley played in four matches during this summer's NatWest triangular series before breaking his hand in practice. Despite not having the greatest of success he remains the closest thing England have to fill in for the injured Gough.

Another player whose place in Sri Lanka may be in doubt is Andrew Flintoff. After scans on his troublesome groin injury proved inconclusive Flintoff saw a surgeon last night hoping that one way or another they will find out what has been causing his problem.