If former South Africa all-rounder Lance Klusener wins some kind of settlement from the United Cricket Board (UCB) in his dispute over whether he should have been offered a new contract, he may well be left to ponder exactly what it is he has achieved.
In a purely legal sense Klusener appears to have a sound argument, based on a statement from selection convener Omar Henry that Klusener had been ‘rested†for the short tour of Bangladesh after the World Cup.
Klusener (or his lawyers) will argue that this was sufficient cause for him not to seek alternative winter employment — a contract with an English county, for example. He may have a decent case legally, but there’s also no getting away from the fact that this matter goes beyond the law.
Klusener’s agent, Andrew Shedlock, has been reported to have said that ‘all Lance wants to do is play for South Africaâ€. Well, yes, maybe. But surely if this was so there are better ways of going about it than suing the body that, in effect, chooses cricketers to represent South Africa?
Equally, it surely does Klusener’s (or Shedlock’s) professed aim no good whatsoever to threaten to sue the South African captain, as was reported in this week’s Sunday Times. While Klusener may well have cause to be aggrieved at being left out of the side, the entire tone of his response suggests someone who wants extra chocolate biscuits if he’s not allowed to play.
While all of this trundles on, the South African Cricketers Association (Saca) is keeping a significantly low profile, arguing that to take one side or the other would represent a conflict of interests. Saca wants to concern itself with the contents of the contracts offered to South African players, but it believes the business of deciding who should get those contracts is the province of the national selectors.
There’s a practical side to Saca’s position. The body has bumped heads with the UCB almost since its (Saca’s) inception, but in recent months the two organisations seem to have found smoother common ground.
Saca was centrally involved in arranging the contracts for the current tour of England. At the very least it might have been thought that Saca and the UCB had found a way to work with each other.
Until last month’s International Cricket Council (ICC) meeting, that is. Saca is affiliated to the international players’ association, Fica — which is already represented on the ICC cricket committee — and wished, reasonably enough, to be afforded observer status on the management committee.
Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, the West Indies and England agreed to this; India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh were opposed to giving South Africa the casting vote. South Africa also voted against the proposal — in contradiction, it would seem, of its own thawing relations at home with Saca. No explanation has been given for this but, as ever, there has been speculation. If South Africa believe a players’ representative body to be acceptable at national level, why should it be opposed to representation at international level?
One theory abounds — that South Africa wants the support of the sub-continental bloc, particularly India — the country most opposed to player representation — when it comes to nominating the next ICC president.
It is no secret that UCB president Percy Sonn is eyeing this job, but whether he voted along with India in an individual capacity or on behalf of the UCB is not clear. There are any number of reasons why players should have a say in the running of the game, the most obvious being that for administration to run smoothly it is nec-essary for administrators to know how the players feel and what they want.
The most probable (and least damaging) conclusion would seem to be a quiet settlement between Klusener and the UCB, and a subsequent tightening of South Africa’s contractual and selection procedures.
While Saca doesn’t want to have a say in who gets contracts, it might well have been in a position to warn the UCB of potential legal pitfalls.
As much as the board might wish otherwise, in the eyes of the wider public the players are the most important constituency in South Africa — and the more content they are with their lot, the better the game will be played.
The UCB needs, once and for all, to make up its mind what it wants to do with player representation. Speaking with different voices at different levels does no one any good at all.