High on a Hill with a missing Goatee

The goatee is gone, hoping to return sometime in the near future. In a fit of rage induced by facialkeratinphobia, (rights reserved over that word), I decided that it was irritating me way too much not to shave it off or trim it. The former obviously proved far more economical in terms of effort....and time.

The current furore over cricketers' endorsements has got me into a slightly vocal mood and leads to another exception to my 'no cricket discussions' rule. I appreciate the BCCI's populist-induced stand that cricketers spend way too much time worrying about their endorsements rather than cricket. See here.

I'm really in favour of the opposing argument i.e. you have to examine the two separately. If our cricketer's aren't playing well and are unable to win matches for India, then their punishment is to have their contract with the BCCI withdrawn and be dropped from the team. It's fairly simple market economics which dictates that an unsuccessful cricketer will hardly be a prime target for the Cola giants.

It's no secret that the anti-endorsement view is targeted at a handful of top players with a large number of endorsement deals in their pocket. An aspect that most people, and it seems the BCCI as well (unless they're just being too Headmaster'ish in their approach), don't realise is that the contracts that these top players have with their sponsors usually have an option given to sponsors for termination if the player cannot command a place in the playing XI or XII.

I approve of the bit where players can no longer do ads in the 15 days before a series or during one, but the 'only 3 sponsors' bit is a bit draconian. Don't get me wrong on this, though - I firmly believe our cricketers make way too much and underperform too often. It's just that this can't be the way to get them to perform - but if it does work, I'll only be too happy to accept that I was wrong!