Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - Of greed and stupidity

Can you imagine a world in which Warner and his multitudinous Brothers charged correspondents for the privilege of sitting in dingy screening rooms and reviewing their movies? Or where Sony imposed a fee on those charged with reviewing their CDs? Or where correspondents were obliged to stump up money to cover a General Election? Easier to picture a racoon winning the Tour de France without the aid of a copious helping of drugs, right?

The ultimate sufferers in this case, of course, are not reporters, editors and filthy-rich newspaper magnates, but cricket lovers across the world, notably those millions without access to broadband connections and satellite dishes. To impose accreditation bans for publications and agencies that refuse to pay for this alleged privilege is to deny the public the detailed, insightful reports that deepen their knowledge and fuel their interest. In other words, to put it in a way that might chime rather better with contemporary mentalities at board level, to deprive the public is to risk alienation and an almost certain drain on future profits.

Of course, we all know those boards tend to focus on short-term forecasts and jam today, but still. However impractical it might seem, a suspension of newspaper coverage might be just the ticket. All you editors out there: come on, take a stand – and teach these buggers a lesson.

I wonder when cricket administrators will realise that cricket is not meant to be played to fill the coffers of the filthy rich (a phrase most apt for the BCCI, if not for any other cricket board). Any sport becomes what it is because of the popularity that it enjoys amongst its fans. Raising ridiculous demands to charge fees for covering cricket matches is nothing short of a display of dictatorial power.

I would have expected nothing less than from the greedy,avaricious and money mad administrators from BCCI - led by the outwardly suave and personable (but inwardly Shylockian and covetous) Lalit Modi.If it were up to them they would have ads inserted between each ball in our TV coverage and charge over the moon over the pitiful,uncomfortable and concrete steps - which qualify for cricket watching in this country.The BCCI would follow Cricket Australia to hell and back (if there was a penny to be made out of it ,of course )- notwithstanding the complete lack of legal or moral justification to their stands.

Well said Shekhar. I'm disgusted with the stance taken by Cricket Australia. If their blatant grab for the almighty dollar continues, i will vote with my feet and stay away from the Boxing Day test this year and i also will NOT be taking my son to any of the ODI's. We'll stay at home and listen to the radio coverage. CA is alienating the very people who read the newspapers, scan the internet and go to the matches. Giving Sri Lanka only 2 tests and India 4 was a big enough insult. The game is being ruined by greed and the administrators cannot see any further than the piles of cash being deposited into the bank.

Photos at major sporting events is a major source of income for these news agencies , and its not entirely unfair that the cricket authorities charge them a percentage of their earnings for photographs in live matches.I think the problem here is lack of proper negotiation and compromise between the CA and the media , depriving the average cricket fan.Both the cricket boards and the news organizations are filthy rich and it does not make sense for them to squabble over such petty issues.

Rob, I can understand where you are coming from, but fail to see why newspapers can't fork out what is a very minor sum of money to obtain the intellectual property of a sporting orgainisation or any industry controlled by a central body. After all if TV, Radio, Web have to pay for access, why not the papers. By the way, don't get all melodramatic about Murali's record. If he gets it, there will be heaps of pictures and footage available to all to witness it.

It comes as no surprise to me that the media will try and defend its stance. Fact is, the agencies make money off something they get for free. Whats wrong in paying for something you make money off? The CA is allowing newspapers to send their own photographers in the stadia, aren't they? The world could do without the armchair 'journalists' who sit far away from the action and rely on stock footage on the television screen and stock photographs from an agency to write up their stories. Whatever happened to writing up a story from the scene of the action? Would it kill newspapers to send in their own photographers to the games rather than patronising the middlemen that are the agencies?

If CA & BCCI are going to try bullying media, media should bully back by just not reporting on any event they manage, not just the ones for which they demand money.
Indian media could ignore Ranji, Duleep et al.

Just a quarter page ad on the front-page stating that there is no coverage of cricket matches in Australia / India on account of inappropriate demands on the finances of the publisher by BCCI / CA etc. The newspaper community would appreciate support from event sponsors by way of a pre-condition to free publication.

Game. Set. Match.

I was hoping that either you or Peter Roebuck would write on this matter and show CA’s decision for what it is: short-sighted and lacking any sort of common sense. No surprises, then, that the BCCI has thrown their support behind CA. What’s that about birds and their feathers?

It horrifies me to know that people of this caliber are supposedly the guardians of our beloved game.

The cricket lovers (the piblic) should not go to watch this matches . Period. The authorities will then only realize there folly. It looks like the CA board is sitting and taking desicions from a military state like Zimbabwe rather then a free country like Australia.

This column shows the stupidity of the average plebeian we face everyday in this world, you Rob are one of them. Clearly I am no friend of the capitalist manner in which cricket is run, but nor am I a friend of free riders.

These news agencies are just as greedy as the boards i.e CA, and BCCI. It would be quite hypocritical to say they aren't, since their stories and their pictures they sell for huge amounts of profits, nothing even close to the amount of work they put which minimal at best. This clearly goes back to basic economic problem of a 'free rider' why the hell should it be tolerated by anyone?

Nothing is free in this world, and the new agencies certainly do not get to be a exception.

The only surprise for me is that it wasn't the insanely greedy BCCI that made this move first. Clearly CA is now following where the BCCI led into the world of money obesssiveness.

Parth, you say that "Clearly I am no friend of the capitalist manner...." but I have to say that it is not clear at all. You seem to have a comprehensive misunderstanding of how the news press and their photographers work. And by commenting here you are one of the free riders of which you say you are no friend.

If you're going to throw insults around then at least have the good grace to present a body of work or a significant number of comments here and elsewhere so we plebeians (call me that in a pub and you're in big trouble) can make a decent judgement on you.

If this runs on unchallenged where will it end up? I'll tell you: People visiting cricket grounds will be searched as they enter, not only for non-ICC approved food and drinks but also for cameras and camera phones.

Personally I stopped attending international matches or having anything to do with the ICC label on it after their shafting of Darrell Hair. This is another reason for punters to stay away and teach the spineless, soulless bodies involved a lesson.

@ Parth & Vipul,

To be entirely fair, putting his comments on thiws website wasn't entirely 'free'. This website has ads and their marketing purpose was served in course of all of our discussions.

Either ways, I am quite surprised at WHY this issue has come up only now. All of the concerned parties have been around for a while; suddenly CA decides they cannot allow 'free riders' anymore? More so, hasn't this been the way the media always worked? Maybe its esoteric, but probably someone could write an article of the timeline, if any, of such events.

Best!

The photographs taken during a cricket match belongs to the cricket associations. If you sell it to third party, then you have to share the revenues. I don't see anything wrong, as CA has allowed newspapers who send their photographers to cover the match.
Agencies, buck up and cop out the dollars!

When I first read the headline "BCCI backs Cricket Australia", I wondered My oh My! What have we here? When I read the article, the picture became clearer! It just goes to once again cement the BCCI as a greedy wealth accumulating machine with no regard for development of cricket in India and no concern for players and fans alike! Bravo BCCI, Bravo!

I am not a conspiracy theorist ... but if someone were to tell me that this is a deliberate ploy by Cricket Australia to keep Muralitharan from receiving the deserved recognition by beating, Australia's own, Shane Warne's record on home soil, I might just have to concede his argument! Thats how much the timing of this whole affair stinks!

It is no surprise that BCCI has come up in support. They surely are reaping money, but they are doing nothing with it is the truth as shown by the mishandling of the Indian coach issue. I guess they should look for some groundsman to do the job. The day politicians got associated with cricket it got ruined. And one more thing, the stats of "so called cricket people" in BCCI, are there for everyone to see. They are not anything flash. These people will ruin the game. I offer complete support. I am of the opinion that even TV channels and cricinfo should stop covering the game so that these peopld understand things the right way

Its just another way to bruch off Muralithran's achivement against Warne,specially after Shane Waren's statement against Murali on BBC.com website as well as on couple of other sites.Mr.Warne stated that "Check Murali's action during the final test".I think that Australians cannot accept Murali's dominance in world cricket, and Shame on to BCCI who is backing Australians on this issue.

To the lickers of media
Do this media sell their content free to mass media or people?.Think about that for moment.Then
decide who is more greedy?.In today's world,if not everybody then most people and organisation are greedy.What is wrong with making money of sport wich provide entertainment to people who pay for it.Why would be free for one community (media) when others pay for it.

Seshan - there is nothing "Free" about the coverage the print media give to cricket. They charge top dollar for newspapers and the stories on websites attract huge advertising revenue. Surely the game that makes them their profits deserves a share of the spoils! Everybody talks about the great TV Rights deals that associations negotiate and how that money will help develop the game - why not apply the same to print media. Why are they in some way exempt. They already profit from the celebrity of the players with spy photos of their private lives becoming public property. About time they supported the game - not just sponged off it.

Perhaps if the other cricketing nations paid attention to innovations like this, instead of attacking anything Australian, the gap in quality between the Aussies and the rest of World Cricket could show some signs of being bridged at some point.

Let CA and BCCI learn from the marketing strategies of companies like Microsoft..Microsoft gives its softwares(trial versions) free for individual users to learn the software, why does MS want folks to learn the software? it is because companies will start using/buying the software only when a lot of folks know how to use it. As you rightly pointed out, BA and BCCI will miss all the free advertisement they were getting all these years, when less people get the news then less people will watch the game..CA/BCCI wake up.

Faisal - as usual the paranoia around anything said about Murali strikes again. All Warne said was to check Murali's action during the test to end the speculation about it. Even after laboratory testing, there is still elements in the media that question whether the action displayed in testing degenerates and is in fact back to being illegal in match play. Warne suggested this be put to the test to get a final answer on the subject - whichever way the result falls.

I can only assume the huffing and puffing at the mere suggestion indicates a deep seeded concern in SL Cricket, and it's following, that such a test would show what some suspect - that Murali's action - while just barely legal in formal testing - falls below legal in the rigours of match play. I'd hardly be surprised if a number of other bowlers had the same results.

Haydos1: Could you explain what makes a cricket match "intellectual property"?
Sanjay: I've had a think about your question and decided that the ICC is the more greedy.

While I don't agree with the CA/BCCI stance (as someone pointed out, a well-written match report is excellent advertising for the game - perhaps the reporters should charge the sporting body concerned...), it does seem inevitable. Everywhere you look (not just in sport), someone somewhere is eyeing something free and trying to work out how to charge for it.

Accusations of greed aside for a minute, Rob is dead right. To slap on media charges and blacklist reporters is a) utterly stupid, and b) a dreadful advert for Cricket Australia.

Access for reporters should ALWAYS be free. If they have to pay to be there, then Cricket Australia has absolute power over them. The reporting is no longer independent. How can any paper critise this the shambolic BCCI or CA if they are threatened with a ban on access to games?

What on earth is happening with cricket? Hardly anyone has access to it on TV now, we have a World Cup where half the stadiums are empty because no one can afford to go, there are entire series being played each week, which no one cares about, and now we are facing a media blackout. Is this really the way we want our game run?

I remember the ICC saying the WC was a success, because they had matched the profits of the previous WC, with only half the supporters. That's great. Double your prices and half the audience. That's a success.

Perhaps in the future, players will have to pay to participate in private spectacles in front of a select group of Indian billionaires.

Cricket is being treated as a holy cow by cricket boards in Australia and India. It is a shame that they look for dollars from News Papers for pictures covered as part of news coverage for the matches. If things can go in sport like this, tomorrow politicians too can learn from cricket boards. George W Bush, Howard, Gordon Brwon, Putin, Sarkoshy all can ask newspaper companies to pay them for publishing their pictures in news. Nice begining all around. Good luck.

As someone who is studying, analysing and writing about public relations in cricket, here is an example of how not do it. To deprive the public is indeed a sure fire way of risking alienation as without public support and goodwill, the consequences for the whole sport of cricket are huge. Excellent long term relationship building needs to be at the heart of sports public relations - sport may be a business but it's a unique one and without public support it will suffer.

Good call Shawry, seems to be a touchy subject with those on the sub continent, especially the island sitting to the south, and Dinesh Iyer the fact that the ICC changed the rules so his action would be legal in the first place smacks of a conspiracy theory to me. Wheres South Africas Botha these days didnt his action look like a replica of Murali's? Thats rights he is not from Asia.

The print media is totally right to resist Cricket Australia's bid to generate funds from collecting a percentage of their earnings. CA's attitude smacks of unending greed. If this is not resisted now, then there will be no end to claims from people in all trades or businesses. To give a few instances the small corner restaurant which sells COKE or PEPSI and has an advertisement signboard in their establishment can seek a percentage of their GLOBAL sales. Madame Tussauds will have to fork out a percentage of their gate to the celebrities who are on display. How about the print media charging CA for printing their press releases by considering it as an advertisement and if they refuse to pay they should retaliate by stating on any 'controversial' subject that CA had no comment to make. The list is endless and all these demands are as ridiculous as that of CA.

The moment you turn anything professional, it is controlled by accountants. Name any sport that has gone professional, and the same is happening -
the idea that it is "only a game" goes out the window. It is about money, and anyone who can get another dollar somehow, will do so.

Hair shafting, Woolmer, Zimbabwe's $11 million dollars this year from ICC, drugs - the list goes on.

Stop moaning. Accept your fate and get what enjoyment you can, but don't hope for second that professional sport will deliver amateur attitudes and enjoyment.

Eddie, It is quite simple really. CA is the sole organisation that can authorise Test, one day cricket in Australia. They in patrnership with the ICC are the only ones with the rights to International cricket in Australia. Therefore they own the Intellectual property for international cricket in Australia

Here's an idea -

Let cricinfo stop placing ads on their website. Once the media have taken a stand against "greed", let them become a shining example of the very noble cause they espouse. No more ads on cricinfo! No more charging for cricket coverage!

It is hypocritical of the media to expect the boards to not make money off events they own, while at the same time the media makes money off the events they do not own!!

Iam yet to hear a single explanation from the print media (which includes cricinfo) why they should be treated as special cases different from the Television medium. TV companies shell out money for the video rights, so should print media shell out for the photographic rights.

Cricket boards make enough money out of the game. Don't they get the fact that coverage of lower forms of the game will be reduced if News Agencies are shut out of the Internationals? It will become a game of tit for tat and ultimately cricket will be the loser. There are that many other sports around (A League soccer in Oz) that the pages in the sports sections can easily be filled without much change to the amount of papers sold. It would be cheaper to take agnecy copy of overseas sport than to send a reporter to a Pura Cup game which is watched by 100 people. Cricket Authorities need to think about that!!

Nothing is free but of course but photographers and journalists don't work for nothing - the assertion that newspapers get cricket coverage for 'free' is not one which has been very deeply considered. And there is a big difference between ball-by-ball TV coverage and an article and a photo in the newspaper. The comments by CA spokesman Peter Young make me dubious that the agenda is quite what is being stated; 'Where cricket generates commercial value, we believe that some of it should be available for investment in the future of cricket.'
So CA receives no revenue from sponsorship? TV rights? Um, what about ticket sales? So if cricket has no future that's the fault of the press? Whatever the real reason for demanding these fees, the 'future of the game' line does not hold water.

Rudi Korezion said sorry for mistake he made when SANGAKKARA was ruled out at close of Sri lanken Victory.His wrong decision changed the entire match.We have seen Rudi is doing these mistakes frequently.He ruled out Jayasuriya in first test for a catch but Replays ant commentators confirmed jayasuriya is not out that time.These old umpires should be checked for eye sight by ICC frequently

Eranga stop grumbling at the umpiring - we all saw the mistake Rudy made but he is human just like all the other umpires, we have had dishonest asian umpires in our fold not long ago who sided with their teams unflinchingly - Rudy had the balls to accept his mistake and must be commended for that and that alone - if Gavaskar and company batted with neutral umpires he would have scored at least a dozen less centuries and Murali would have been about 100 wickets less that 700 not to mention the number of 'favourable' decisions Sanga has got from Sri Lankan umpires in ODI's - at the end of the day the right decisions and the wrong ones balance out !!!!