[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

What is a good basis for deciding this? Surely no one is saying that in this instance they should be paid the same. Entertainers are paid based on how many they entertain and how well they do so, which decides the how many.

Very valid question (no sarcasm here). But there are other key points the article throws up.

1. There should be some level playing area - wrt the same logic, 7 Cr vs 1Cr-2Cr makes sense; not 7Cr vs 50L
2. Another question - does a Parthiv Patel or a Axar Patel (3Cr) invoke a more important sportsman against a Mithali Raj?
3. The mens' contracts have seen % increase from 250% to 500% on a base of 1-2 Crores
4. These are BCCI contracts for sports-persons. The advertising and sponsor contracts are for entertainment/sellability basis. No one is expecting equality there.

Have the cricketers?

They did last year; given the world cup and the current series in SA and others.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

1. There should be some level playing area - wrt the same logic, 7 Cr vs 1Cr-2Cr makes sense; not 7Cr vs 50L


They did last year; given the world cup and the current series in SA and others.

To the first point - why? Based on what formula? Just a subjective gut feel assessment? Why not 3.5 crores? Why not 25 lakhs?

As to the second, I agree, but more to the point - are the games more watchable? And are more people in fact watching them? The attendance on the grounds does not seem to be much different much of the time, in much of the places.

And it also a marketing thing. Better promotion will drive increased viewership and via that, more pay. If that is done now, the better pay will be seen in a year or two.

And just because these are BCCI contracts, does that automatically mean more pay than, say, other sportswomen on contracts? If the interest in both is similar? Which then also begs the question - why not a dedicated to women BCCI, run by women as much as possible? Because cross subsidies, as in business, rarely deliver the results sought.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

*snip*

The original point raised by @libranof1987 was a simple view - the in-equality in the contracts for cricketers wrt men vs women. The additional points I raised were to give credence to that view. You are free to debate on the dynamics of the view/points and go above it.

Please feel free to ask any number of hypothetical questions; and make parallels to with other sports and as well as outside sports - you have a free hand to make sense out of it (note - this is sarcasm)

Over and out on this topic.

[Sawyer]

Oooh...thank you for that permission, I could not have gone ahead without it.

The ever reliable Sharda Ugra, writing on this subject today, has this to offer:
"This week, all of a sudden with the stroke of a pen, India's top-flight women cricketers became the highest-earning in the world. Before Wednesday, Australia and England were the best paymasters in women's cricket."

A relevant insight, that.

And a lot more follow up sensible stuff on this subject in her article that offers much to think about for those would like to.

[Sawyer]

More sensible thinking on the subject from none other than Diana Edulji:
"Edulji says, "At the moment there cannot be parity. You need to build up the women's game still, you have to market the game well, the players have to do well and win some championships, then you can close the gap slowly and steadily, but not at this stage."

I have no idea if TRPs are a reliable guide, but the new approach of having common TV rights sold by BCCI for cricket from both sexes will a good indicator of progress of the only kind that merits pay increases every where in the world - Performance.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

....At the moment there cannot be parity. You need to build up the women's game still, you have to market the game well, the players have to do well and win some championships, then you can close the gap slowly and steadily, but not at this stage."

It is ridiculous to even consider parity when the lowest paid male is making twice as much as the highest paid female. Let's at least get both sexes in the same ballpark, parity will enter the argument much, much later. It's a specious argument to divert this to 'parity'.

...pay increases every where in the world - Performance.

There's two problems with that. One, the investment needs to come first, before we hold players to a standard. It doesn't bode well when in a nation of a billion plus people and flush with marketing cash, no sports except one or two get any sustained and systematic long-term investment. It's not an accident that some countries most people can't place on a map bag more medals than India at international events.

Two, if it's pay-for-performance, I'll need someone to tell me exactly how someone like Rohit Sharma is on the same performance planet as Virat Kohli.

[Sawyer]

I respect Ugra a lot for all that I have read of her articles; all I know of Edulji is that she was a great player in her time, is supposed to have done a lot for the women's game after she stopped playing, based on which I seriously doubt she has any axe to grind in favour of the men when she writes what she has written about parity for the women - I merely quoted her.

I have not studied the men's contracts and I have no idea if they include - as they should - some kind of performance pay to sort out the payments further. And two wrongs don't make right - as a general principle - if there is no performance related indexing of what gets actually disbursed to the men.

I also don't believe that the reason for the Indian "performance" at the Olympics is only because of lack of funds, just as I do not believe that throwing money at the problem will solve it. That many people from many countries as poor as India, with much worse organised sports than what we have had, have done a lot better at the Olympics for as much as 50 years now is proof of that. I am not referring to the China levels of success - that is a different story of which systematic investment is a key component. But between China at one extreme and India at the other, there are many small and poor countries that have offered even less than what India does to its sportspeople, but have consistently done better than us through the merit of largely individual effort.

Our pathetic performance at the Olympics is a conundrum to be honest, and one that deserves a thread to itself. As the ladies badminton players have proved, a gap in the mental make up needed for the winning of gold and an acceptance of silver and bronze as major accomplishments is also part of the story. So, it isn't just cash and investment that are factors.

[Chetan_Rao]

Precisely why I said pay parity is a specious argument to make right right now, and I don't say that with any malice. You're right throwing money at a handful of people isn't going to solve anything.

What we need is systematic and long-term investment. That includes modern training facilities, proper scouting & recruitment programs, quality coaching & conditioning staff, medical & rehab support, and constant appraisal of the entire setup to weed out inconsistencies and fine tune it over a period of time. We can't leave it to private entities because they'll never invest in anything without an instant RoI.

Easier said than done, but we owe more to our sportspeople than occasional chest-thumping at a major event and shamelessly snatching credit if they manage to win something despite our apathy.

[Sawyer]

If we can't leave it to private entities, the alternative is the sports ministry, and look where that lot of clowns has taken us in over 50 years. So what's the third option?

The kind of things that you are talking about is what China does, as an example. But I recall the 1982 Asiad, before China was a sports superpower, but even then had a lot more world class sports people than what India has even in 2018, almost four decades later, if one took away the cricketers from the list of world class Indian sportspeople today. Maybe BCCI should be the third option! There are many villains in that lot, but collectively, they deserve respect.

We ought not to overlook the missing individual dedication to the pursuit of sporting excellence; somehow we don't seem to see that in a nation of over a billion people and that doesn't come from money alone; we have a population of 100-200 million where income levels are comfortable enough to allow this pursuit if it is desired above all else. Unless that is there, all else will be money thrown at fallow fields. Things are changing no doubt, but the rest of the world seem to pull off the Australian trick of moving the line so that we still come up short of it.

As I said, this Olympics thing is another thread that will also go on endlessly once started.

The other conundrum is the state of Indian football - a game that has a lot more following globally and even in India than the lost cause we persist in - field hockey.

Back to cricket.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

If we can't leave it to private entities, the alternative is the sports ministry, and look where that lot of clowns has taken us in over 50 years. So what's the third option?....

Take the better of both worlds: PPP. Not ideal, but gets both the private profit motive and govt. inefficiency out to some extent.

back to cricket...

Our cricket system suffers from much of the same malaise. Our grassroots setup is horrendous, and plenty of talent goes missing for a variety of reasons before catching the eye of powers-that-be. All sports and sportsmen would benefit from professionally run programs.

[GTO]

Mod Note: Please get the discussion back on topic - that is, cricket. Thanks!

[Eddy]

What a cracker of a test match in South Africa. SA are one down chasing a 100 for victory. Aussies will never give up, and SA are well capable of choking

[selfdrive]

Rooting for South Africa to win a series against Aus for the first time on home soil. I hope it works out in this and the next 2 tests.

Interestingly, Rabada went ahead with a full blown celebration despite already under review for his first innings shoulder nudge of Smith. I hope it paves the way for the returning Morne Morkel to take his wicket tally over 300 before he retires.

Edit: Markram dismissed as I posted this. 34/2 chasing a 100. Interesting. I hope Rabada hits the winning runs

[Chetan_Rao]

I was half-expecting SA to get mauled after their disastrous limited overs performance against India, combined with injury worries and AUS just getting off a successful Ashes. This is competitive and riveting stuff!

P.S. de Villiers settling nerves the only way he knows . 60/2.

[Eddy]

Superman AB is playing like only he can....and Sehwag could


Edit: Not sure if anyone is following the WC qualifiers. Afghanistan started as the favorites but lost the first three games and are almost out. Their qualification for the super 6 now rests on whether Nepal can chase 153 against Hong Kong. I hope they can make it to the super 6 and then the main draw.