How are T20 mercenaries of today different from the WSC players?

[Leo23]

from 1977 to 1979 a lot of international players including legends like imran, Viv, miandad, lillee,chappel,hadlee etc etc deserted their countries to play in wsc cricket

a league that was not approved by the international cricket body and the players opted out of their national teams because of more money

so why aren't these former legends not criticized as mercenaries and sell outs?

there is no difference between them and players like de villiers,pollard,gayle etc today who prefer franchise cricket to international cricket because of better pay

 

[AFM]

As far as I know, it was only the Aussie players who didn't play international cricket due to WSC.

 

[Leo23]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

 

[Leo23]

As far as I know, it was only the Aussie players who didn't play international cricket due to WSC.

all players missed a lot of international matches due to wsc

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

Technically not much, apart from magnitude of the amount.

There is a critical level of what one should earn from a career - in 70s, cricketers were earning such that, for their better future it was quite logical for them to go to WSC (which actually forced every board to coil their tail & increase payment for cricketers). Before WSC, most cricket administrators were knobs - they were not capable enough to sell cricket as a mass entertainment, neither ready to pay cricketers adequately - hence those bluffs around pazama cricket, rubbish like protecting the heritage of cricket. Packer taught those elitists few tricks about how to make money & what public wants. It's not about status of Test cricket, ODI or T20 - rather it's the concept of selling your commodity as mass entertainment - cricket didn't lose it's virginity for the colored dress or artificial lights or white balls.

Now, there is a fine line between greed & fair payment. In 1970s, Indian top players didn't go to WSC, not for the love of their country only, rather they were earning still enough from their national team & media endorsements. I am certain that without playing Counties much, still Gavaskar, Bedi & GR Vishy were the highest earning cricketers in 1970s - hence, it didn't make sense for them to jeopardize national career, while rest others were just not good enough.

Now, it has gone to the level of pros.......

 

[ManFan]

WSC gave players money that they could survive on. Many cricketers would often work other jobs just to meet ends needs. T20 mercenaries today have luxuries from their respective boards that others could not dream of. Back in 2011, Imran Khan said that an average test cricketer today makes more than he did in his entire career. Let that sink in.

 

[Leo23]

Technically not much, apart from magnitude of the amount.

There is a critical level of what one should earn from a career - in 70s, cricketers were earning such that, for their better future it was quite logical for them to go to WSC (which actually forced every board to coil their tail & increase payment for cricketers). Before WSC, most cricket administrators were knobs - they were not capable enough to sell cricket as a mass entertainment, neither ready to pay cricketers adequately - hence those bluffs around pazama cricket, rubbish like protecting the heritage of cricket. Packer taught those elitists few tricks about how to make money & what public wants. It's not about status of Test cricket, ODI or T20 - rather it's the concept of selling your commodity as mass entertainment - cricket didn't lose it's virginity for the colored dress or artificial lights or white balls.

Now, there is a fine line between greed & fair payment. In 1970s, Indian top players didn't go to WSC, not for the love of their country only, rather they were earning still enough from their national team & media endorsements. I am certain that without playing Counties much, still Gavaskar, Bedi & GR Vishy were the highest earning cricketers in 1970s - hence, it didn't make sense for them to jeopardize national career, while rest others were just not good enough.

Now, it has gone to the level of pros.......

WSC gave players money that they could survive on. Many cricketers would often work other jobs just to meet ends needs. T20 mercenaries today have luxuries from their respective boards that others could not dream of. Back in 2011, Imran Khan said that an average test cricketer today makes more than he did in his entire career. Let that sink in.

subjective arguments

terms like greed,fair money, luxuries etc etc are relative

also many rich cricketers opted to play in wsc and only very few of them were doing other jobs

bottom line is that both sets of players have opted out of national duty due to more money

so either criticize both or criticize neither

also the imran khan point is not relevant

of course players make more money today

the value of $10 today is not what it was 30 years back

50 years from now on a professional will earn 5 times what they earn today but that does not mean that it is not unfair

 

[MMHS]

subjective arguments

terms like greed,fair money, luxuries etc etc are relative

also many rich cricketers opted to play in wsc and only very few of them were doing other jobs

bottom line is that both sets of players have opted out of national duty due to more money

so either criticize both or criticize neither

also the imran khan point is not relevant

of course players make more money today

the value of $10 today is not what it was 30 years back

50 years from now on a professional will earn 5 times what they earn today but that does not mean that it is not unfair

I'll take your judgement, if you can put some numbers - what Khan or Richards was earning from PCB/WICB and now what MoHa/Gayle earns from respective boards - central contracts, match fees & others (In short cost to company basis). After that (If you can give absolute numbers), we can figure out what was effective amount in relative context.

 

[Leo23]

^^

it is unfair

 

[Leo23]

I'll take your judgement, if you can put some numbers - what Khan or Richards was earning from PCB/WICB and now what MoHa/Gayle earns from respective boards - central contracts, match fees & others (In short cost to company basis). After that (If you can give absolute numbers), we can figure out what was effective amount in relative context.

again it is highly subjective

we don't know what "effective" amount is

it depends on family background, where you live, number of people in family, lifestyle etc etc

all these factors mean that we cannot pass judgements on who is mercenary and who is sell out

would the wsc players like viv, imran, miandad, hadlee etc etc not accepted the wsc offer if they were paid handsomely by their boards???

maybe yes maybe not which is why we cannot pass judgments

ultimately both sets of players chose money over national duty

everything else is relative and subjective

 

[MMHS]

again it is highly subjective

we don't know what "effective" amount is

it depends on family background, where you live, number of people in family, lifestyle etc etc

all these factors mean that we cannot pass judgements on who is mercenary and who is sell out

would the wsc players like viv, imran, miandad, hadlee etc etc not accepted the wsc offer if they were paid handsomely by their boards???

maybe yes maybe not which is why we cannot pass judgments

ultimately both sets of players chose money over national duty

everything else is relative and subjective

You asked the question, then answering yourself. I thought, you wanted a perspective, so wasted some time. Obviously, they went for money over representing country - if it's that straight, then why ask?

 

[thehub]

Technically not much, apart from magnitude of the amount.

There is a critical level of what one should earn from a career - in 70s, cricketers were earning such that, for their better future it was quite logical for them to go to WSC (which actually forced every board to coil their tail & increase payment for cricketers). Before WSC, most cricket administrators were knobs - they were not capable enough to sell cricket as a mass entertainment, neither ready to pay cricketers adequately - hence those bluffs around pazama cricket, rubbish like protecting the heritage of cricket. Packer taught those elitists few tricks about how to make money & what public wants. It's not about status of Test cricket, ODI or T20 - rather it's the concept of selling your commodity as mass entertainment - cricket didn't lose it's virginity for the colored dress or artificial lights or white balls.

Now, there is a fine line between greed & fair payment. In 1970s, Indian top players didn't go to WSC, not for the love of their country only, rather they were earning still enough from their national team & media endorsements. I am certain that without playing Counties much, still Gavaskar, Bedi & GR Vishy were the highest earning cricketers in 1970s - hence, it didn't make sense for them to jeopardize national career, while rest others were just not good enough.

Now, it has gone to the level of pros.......

Sorry Bro. I know you have seen a lot of cricket and know about the game better. But this bolded part is not correct at all. BCCI was one of the poorest boards then, if not the poorest. Cricket was not as popular as what we have been seeing since late 90s. No way BCCI paid that much to Indian cricketers, so that cricketers avoided WSC offers or Indian cricketers were richer than English or Aussie cricketers.

 

[MMHS]

Sorry Bro. I know you have seen a lot of cricket and know about the game better. But this bolded part is not correct at all. BCCI was one of the poorest boards then, if not the poorest. Cricket was not as popular as what we have been seeing since late 90s. No way BCCI paid that much to Indian cricketers, so that cricketers avoided WSC offers or Indian cricketers were richer than English or Aussie cricketers.

Still today, ECB pays more to it's players than BCCI in straight dollars. But, Indian top cricketers were always high earners - even in 1930s, Marchent was awarded RS 100 for each run of his first century by some maharaja, one of such many gifts & in those days, you could buy 1KG gold for RS 5000 or so. If I can recall correctly, Kapil bought his first BMW in 1982-83 or similar time.

BCCI's riches actually doesn't reflect the top cricketers earning. For example, take 1952 - India's economy was nothing compared to today, still that time Raj Kapoor was paid RS 100,000/movie - that's converted to $ close to what Clarke Gable or Humphrey Bogart was paid. It's the power of mass - Gavaskar had lots of endorsements even in 70s, while Vishi was Civil Servant of Karnataka Govt. - those days, the career of a Civil Service officer was better than a Test cricketer; for PAK, Javed Burki opted for a CSP career, leaving PAK captaincy. Vishi didn't go to WSC, because he used to play for India in lien from his service, but they didn't allow him lien for County or WSC. Rest were just not good enough for a call from WSC.

But apart from India, almost every cricketer that were approached went to WSC - even Tony Greig, who was English captain than & arguably highest paid English cricketer. Apart from Thompson & Yellop, everyone of AUS top 17 cricketers. Packer wanted exciting players, hence obviously Geoff Boycott wasn't called, while Botham was too young & unknown then. But, Knott, Amiss & Underwood (Woolmar & Willis as well, but not sure) went there, while almost entire WI team went, only Al Kalicharan stayed back because he was offered Captaincy. From NZ, I believe Turner was invited to WSC & there were 4/5 SAF cricketers - Proctor, Le Roux, Richards, Rice. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] can tell better.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Hypocrisy and nothing else

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

No different IMO. An even better comparison is those who toured SA as part of Rebel tours purely or money knowing very well that it would most likely mean the end of their Test Careers.

Except that now India is where the money is at and that naturally doesnt sit well with many of the traditional super powers from the bygone ERAs and the standard stereo types and subtle racism that still exists.

 

[Leo23]

You asked the question, then answering yourself. I thought, you wanted a perspective, so wasted some time. Obviously, they went for money over representing country - if it's that straight, then why ask?

i am questioning the hypocrisy

 

[squarecut]

Still today, ECB pays more to it's players than BCCI in straight dollars. But, Indian top cricketers were always high earners - even in 1930s, Marchent was awarded RS 100 for each run of his first century by some maharaja, one of such many gifts & in those days, you could buy 1KG gold for RS 5000 or so. If I can recall correctly, Kapil bought his first BMW in 1982-83 or similar time.

BCCI's riches actually doesn't reflect the top cricketers earning. For example, take 1952 - India's economy was nothing compared to today, still that time Raj Kapoor was paid RS 100,000/movie - that's converted to $ close to what Clarke Gable or Humphrey Bogart was paid. It's the power of mass - Gavaskar had lots of endorsements even in 70s, while Vishi was Civil Servant of Karnataka Govt. - those days, the career of a Civil Service officer was better than a Test cricketer; for PAK, Javed Burki opted for a CSP career, leaving PAK captaincy. Vishi didn't go to WSC, because he used to play for India in lien from his service, but they didn't allow him lien for County or WSC. Rest were just not good enough for a call from WSC.

The facts mentioned by you are all made up and have no basis in reality.

To take just one example, what is the meaning of Vishwanath being civil servant of Karnataka. I am not aware of any such designation in India. Vishwanath was a humble bank employee. Gavaskar was employed at Nirlons. Gavaskar had a few endorsements in 1970s, but they earned him peanuts compared to how things are now for present day cricketers.

Indian cricketers lived modest lives till 1970s. After retirement, a retired player would get to organise a benefit match. The ticket earnings of that match would go to him. This was the major source of money that a cricketer got to see in their career.

The only well to do cricketers in India were those who inherited property. Like for instance Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi.

Coming to cricketers who were government employees, the cricketer who rose the highest in his job was Ajit Wadekar, who retired in a rank enquivalent to secretary to Government of India.

 

[MMHS]

The facts mentioned by you are all made up and have no basis in reality.

To take just one example, what is the meaning of Vishwanath being civil servant of Karnataka. I am not aware of any such designation in India. Vishwanath was a humble bank employee. Gavaskar was employed at Nirlons. Gavaskar had a few endorsements in 1970s, but they earned him peanuts compared to how things are now for present day cricketers.

Indian cricketers lived modest lives till 1970s. After retirement, a retired player would get to organise a benefit match. The ticket earnings of that match would go to him. This was the major source of money that a cricketer got to see in their career.

The only well to do cricketers in India were those who inherited property. Like for instance Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi.

Coming to cricketers who were government employees, the cricketer who rose the highest in his job was Ajit Wadekar, who retired in a rank enquivalent to secretary to Government of India.

Read a book by Gavaskar - "Idols", that should explain what was the situation in WSC & why Indian
Players declined Tony Greig's offer. Gavaskar actually agreed to join, only later decided not to, when his brother in law decided to stay in his job (may be in bank, I am not sure, but it was in a Govt bank).

 

[ManFan]

Yes the value of money has changed. But when an ORDINARY player today makes more in one year than IMRAN KHAN did in his entire career, that should tell you the difference in pay between the two eras.

 

[Leo23]

Yes the value of money has changed. But when an ORDINARY player today makes more in one year than IMRAN KHAN did in his entire career, that should tell you the difference in pay between the two eras.

yes just like how an ordinary car is more expensive than a ferrari 30 years back

50 years from now an ordinary cricketer would earn more money than what kohli is earning today

that does not mean that kohli is being paid less and that future ordinary cricketer will be over paid

your argument is weak.

 

[ManFan]

yes just like how an ordinary car is more expensive than a ferrari 30 years back

50 years from now an ordinary cricketer would earn more money than what kohli is earning today

that does not mean that kohli is being paid less and that future ordinary cricketer will be over paid

your argument is weak.

You are only thinking about in terms of inflation. Of course pay will be different now than 20 years back. My point is that due to the immense lack of pay back than for elite cricket players, they chose WSC. Where as today, players are payed tremendous amounts of money playing for regular cricket boards. There is no need for them to leave their boards and sign mercenary contracts. I don't agree or disagree with what a player does at the end of the day. However if you think both cases are the same, than you are mistaken. Quit playing the moral high ground and choosing an arguement because you want to be different.

 

[squarecut]

Read a book by Gavaskar - "Idols", that should explain what was the situation in WSC & why Indian
Players declined Tony Greig's offer. Gavaskar actually agreed to join, only later decided not to, when his brother in law decided to stay in his job (may be in bank, I am not sure, but it was in a Govt bank).

I have read "Idols". I have read "Sunny Days" as well. I have read his articles that he regularly used to write in magazines. Later he syndicated them as SMG syndicate. I have followed the careers of Gavasakar and Vishwanath right from their test debuts. No Indians played in WSC mainly because most of them were not considered good enough for WSC, may be with a few exceptions. And those exceptions- viz Gavaskar etc declined the offer.

 

[DRsohail]

Technically not much, apart from magnitude of the amount.

There is a critical level of what one should earn from a career - in 70s, cricketers were earning such that, for their better future it was quite logical for them to go to WSC (which actually forced every board to coil their tail & increase payment for cricketers). Before WSC, most cricket administrators were knobs - they were not capable enough to sell cricket as a mass entertainment, neither ready to pay cricketers adequately - hence those bluffs around pazama cricket, rubbish like protecting the heritage of cricket. Packer taught those elitists few tricks about how to make money & what public wants. It's not about status of Test cricket, ODI or T20 - rather it's the concept of selling your commodity as mass entertainment - cricket didn't lose it's virginity for the colored dress or artificial lights or white balls.

Now, there is a fine line between greed & fair payment. In 1970s, Indian top players didn't go to WSC, not for the love of their country only, rather they were earning still enough from their national team & media endorsements. I am certain that without playing Counties much, still Gavaskar, Bedi & GR Vishy were the highest earning cricketers in 1970s - hence, it didn't make sense for them to jeopardize national career, while rest others were just not good enough.

Now, it has gone to the level of pros.......

u spoke my heart..i was thinking the same......thanks for explaining it ...

 

[Leo23]

You are only thinking about in terms of inflation. Of course pay will be different now than 20 years back. My point is that due to the immense lack of pay back than for elite cricket players, they chose WSC. Where as today, players are payed tremendous amounts of money playing for regular cricket boards. There is no need for them to leave their boards and sign mercenary contracts. I don't agree or disagree with what a player does at the end of the day. However if you think both cases are the same, than you are mistaken. Quit playing the moral high ground and choosing an arguement because you want to be different.

are you sure that the players would not have opted for wsc cricket if they were paid handsomely by their boards?

or was their greed for money limited to a certain amount?

 

[ManFan]

That's the problem. If the boards had paid more than they would not have chosen WSC. Kerry Pecker offered them 25000 when they were getting paid 200 a test match.

 

[Leo23]

That's the problem. If the boards had paid more than they would not have chosen WSC. Kerry Pecker offered them 25000 when they were getting paid 200 a test match.

great to see that you know those players very well because of which you know that they would not have chosen wsc if they already had enough money because their greed was limited to a certain amount unlike the "sell outs" of today!

 

[ManFan]

you are correct. I don't know these players. What I do know is how much they did get payed and how much they received from WSC from their own mouths and also why they chose WSC. Modern players have all the luxuries that the WSC generation did not ( fitness trainers, money, physicians, nutrition, contracts ).