A clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'
The cheap fight between the BCCI and the Indian Cricket League
has now plunged to new depths.
The BCCI today announced
that India's contracted players would not be allowed to play
in the English domestic season if the side they were representing had ICL players in it.
The ECB had initially followed the BCCI's diktat and banned ICL players from playing in the English domestic season. But just over 2 months ago, three South African players won an appeal and they were ruled eligible to play for their counties. The ECB's requirement was that players' home national cricket boards provide permission in the form of a 'No Objection Certificate'. Andrew Hall, Justin Kemp & Johan van der Wath did not get the NOC and were not allowed to register
In the case
that Kerry Packer
filed against the ICC and TCCB in 1977, Justice Slade ruled in favour of Kerry Packer & his motley crew
. He said "A professional cricketer needs to make his living as much as any other professional man."
In the light of that judgement, it seems to me that preventing Piyush Chawla, Ajit Agarkar and VVS Laxman from playing for county sides just because those sides have ICL players in them is a clear-cut case of 'restraint of trade'. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
says (Article 23) "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
hope someone forces the BCCI to quit the hallucination drugs
and get back to reality. Today, cricketers are stopped from playing for other teams because those teams have ICL players. Tomorrow, will they be asked to stop staying in touch with those friends who've played in the ICL? After that, will the records of the ICL players be deleted?
If you do have an opinion, leave a comment and also vote in the poll
Labels: bcci, ecb, indian cricket league, restraint of trade, twenty20