Regional Leaders Recognises the Need to Revisit Lopsided Cricket Contract

May 01, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – At the recent cricket symposium, hosted in the twin-island republic of Trinidad and Tobago, the Prime Minister of that country called for the Caribbean Premier League (CPL) contract to be relooked at. At the same event, a cricket legend questioned who signs a 50-year contract.

Rowley’s comments were echoed by the Prime Minister of Barbados. Reports indicate that she called for the contract to be scrutinised for any potential restrictions on trade and urged the utilisation of any available rights to renegotiate the contract.

In the context of sports contracts, a restriction on trade typically refers to clauses or provisions within the contract that limit the freedom of athletes or teams to engage in certain activities or transactions that could affect their career opportunities or earning potential. These restrictions can take various forms, such as non-compete clauses, trade restrictions, or limitations on endorsement deals.

Prime Minister Rowley has recognised, yet again, that contracts are not cast in stone and can be renegotiated. His position however contrasts with that of Guyana’s political leaders who, saddled with the most lopsided oil contract, have stubbornly refused to renegotiate same.

Dr. Keith Rowley is a seasoned leader. He is a pragmatic politician who understands the dynamics of contracts. He recognises that no agreement is set in stone and that renegotiation is necessary to rectify imbalances. His stance on the CPL contract is consistent with the stance he has taken in relation to unacceptable contracts in his country’s energy sector. He has successfully renegotiated some of those contracts to ensure that his country gets a better deal.

Speaking in Guyana in 2018, this is what he said in relation to renegotiating contracts: “We have respected the sanctity of contracts while not accepting that contracts are set in stone. Contracts are engagements made between two parties and when you make contracts, if there is goodwill between the participants, and if the intention is for both participants to benefit from the nature of the contract, we see the possibility and the opportunity for the contracts being revisited so as to maintain the balance of the elements of the contract.”

He had added then, “Sometimes in negotiations, you have to point out the shortcomings of others and they might point out shortcomings on your part. (But) we have no fear in raising our dissatisfaction with the performance of certain contracts…”

Rowley’s call for the CPL contract to be relooked at reflects a commitment to fairness and equity, crucial elements in fostering a sustainable cricketing ecosystem. We do not know President Ali’s take on the CPL contract. He was reported to have said that the CPL was an opportunity and that it was important for all parties to work together to improve the West Indies cricket brand.

Despite attending the same symposium, Ali, in his presentation, did not comment on the CPL contract. It would have put him in an uncomfortable position to have endorsed Prime Minister’s Rowley’s call for the contract to be relooked at, when Ali’s own government refuses to do the same in respect to the Production Sharing Agreement with ExxonMobil, Hess and CNOOC.

While preaching the sanctity of contracts, Ali’s government is unwilling to confront the adverse implications of a one-sided agreement with the oil companies. His government has sought defending its stance by claiming it has to respect the sanctity of contracts.

Rowley understands the long-term and wide effects of a lopsided CPL contract. Lopsided agreements not only jeopardise the financial sustainability of franchises but also undermine the development of cricket at grassroots levels. A better deal would have ensured more resources for the development of West Indies cricket.

Ali was right about the CPL being an opportunity. It is an opportunity for the region to obtain a better deal from the franchise.

Securing a better deal for the region from the CPL will elevate, rather than diminish, the West Indies cricket brand. A more favourable deal has the potential to attract greater investment and enhance the overall quality and competitiveness of cricket in the region. By aligning contractual agreements with the interests of all stakeholders, including players, franchises, and cricket boards, the CPL can strengthen the integrity and credibility of the West Indies cricket brand.

The implications of lopsided contracts can have far-reaching consequences on the credibility and sustainability of the West Indies cricket brand. It can frustrate players and administrators.

This is why the Caribbean must take seriously Rowley’s call for renegotiation. Rowley’s no-nonsense and proactive approach sets a commendable precedent for addressing contractual imbalances. His approach, however, contrasts markedly with the position of Guyana’s leaders in relation to the major oil agreement where the mere mention of the word ‘renegotiation’ reflexively leads to a defensive posture.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• Contract, Prime Minister, reports, Revisit Lopsided Cricket Contract, Trinidad and Tobago

---