The advantage for ICL players is that the amount in the contract is a guaranteed sum, as opposed to BCCI fees, which require that players be in the team for the match in question.
Therefore, factors like being dropped from the team and injuries could impact the fees of players affiliated to the BCCI. The prize money, however, at Rs 4.2 crore is the same for both sides, though the BCCI revised it yesterday.
The editorial in the Hindu draws a parallel between the Packer affair and ICL.
The Australian media mogul felt spurned by the Australian cricket administrators when he bid for international broadcast rights. The current Indian cricket administration has inherited the problem from its predecessor, which refused Zee’s offer, sowing the seeds of the ICL.
Meanwhile in the Daily Times MU Haq, a life member of the Pakistan board and a former president of the Karachi Cricket Association, wonders why the PCB imposed life bans on its players who joined the ICL.
In a Packer-like situation, the BCCI and the ICL will in all probability kiss and make up sooner or later and lifting of bans on Indian players will be a part of the deal. What would be the status of Pakistan players then?
The ban on players is all the more unjustified as the ICL playing programme does not interfere with Pakistan’s domestic cricket schedule and contracted players will be released for national duty in the event of a clash in dates. So why the fuss. If our players are allowed to play county and league cricket in the UK, why the embargo on the ICL?
Also read Osman Samiuddin's piece on Pakistan and the fallout of the ICl signings on cricinfo.com
