Right to Click

Rock star Mick Jagger once signed his autograph with an expletive, aggrieved that one day the recipient might make a profit from auctioning it without paying him a royalty. Years later he concluded that it was only fair if others made money from his name; after all, he had made millions out of it himself.

Maybe cricket administrators need to think the same way.

The latest move by the Australian Cricket Board to demand a fee from news agencies to cover the games and publish photographs is a classic case of "if-you-make-money-because-of-me-I-need-a-share". While a commission based system might work for TV broadcasting rights, it will not do so for news media. An analogy would be the NYSE charging the Wall Street Journal for publishing stock quotes or market updates. Royalty in the media is most definitely a No.

While such mercenary ideas usually originate from the BCCI and its bean-counting coterie, the Aussies have proven that they are not far behind in this regard. Unfortunately, while every such move by the BCCI has been widely criticized by the cricket pundits, the current crisis in Australia has hardly evoked a response from the pen-wielding experts, especially since it concerns the media. Surprising yet understandable, since all things Aussie are usually revered in Cricket.

Marketing is the key to any event and sport is no exception. By alienating the media the game might be deprived of its primary vehicle to reach to the masses. Sport and media share a symbiotic relationship where one cannot survive without the other and the administrators must realize that they are already the recipient of free marketing through newspaper coverage and the media is paying them through increased ticket sales. Hence charging them for coverage is definitely double-dipping.

Also, if newspapers start paying for the sporting event that they are covering they might want to play a role in influencing its outcome too, much like in Irving Wallace's The Almighty. After all they will then have become investing stakeholders and might rightfully want games to end the way that their returns are maximized. This will be a clear throwback to the doldrums that the game found itself in with the match-fixing allegations in the late 90s.

Sports and its organizations need to make money but they might be better off doing so with better quality of games and increased market share rather than resort to such ludicrousness. On the lighter side, they could at least be creative and subtle about their motives, like Shaq, who once said - "I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi and wear Reebok"