हिन्दीಕನ್ನಡമലയാളംதமிழ்తెలుగు

Lanka resolves ICC sponsorship row with players

Published: Saturday, August 31, 2002, 16:39 [IST]
 
Share this on your social network:
   Facebook Twitter Google+    Comments Mail

Colombo: Sri Lanka has resolved a dispute with cricket players over sponsorship contracts with the International Cricket Council (ICC), local cricket officials said on Saturday.

Graeme Labrooy, a spokesman for the Sri Lanka Cricketers Association (SLCA) said the matter was resolved amicably on Friday at a meeting with officials of the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL). The SLCA had demanded for players a 30 per cent slice of the guarantee money paid by the ICC to the BCCSL for hosting the ICC Champions Trophy. The SLCA following a meeting with the BCCSL last week said Sri Lankan cricketers will not sign the contracts for the matches from September 12 to 30 unless they are assured of the 30 per cent slice. Labrooy, a former fast bowler who appeared in nine Tests between 1986 and 1991, said the BCCSL has agreed to pay an undisclosed figure before the commencement of the ICC Champions Trophy tournament - the amount however is less than the SLCA's 30 per cent demand. Labrooy said the officials told the SLCA that BCCSL was not on a sound financial wicket and the funds received from the ICC was needed for the development of the game. The present ICC contracts prevent players from endorsing products from rival companies of the ICC's sponsors 30 days before or after major ICC events, including next year's World Cup. At least two leading Sri Lankan players are thought to have contracts, which endorse conflicting products of the ICC sponsors. The players were of the view that if they are forced to promote only a selected product they should be appropriately compensated. All 10 Test-playing nations are to be joined by Kenya and Holland in the biggest international cricketing event ever to take place in Sri Lanka.

Extras:
ICC heeds BCCI plea, extends deadline on row
Dubai meeting likely to resolve sponsorship conflict

Write Comments