OK; what about this argument: There's a Test series between England and India in India; while there's either a Lions or performance programme tour in Sri Lanka that starts a fortnight earlier. The day before the England team was clear to leave for India; an Icelandic volcano starts erupting and the resulting ash cloud causes all flights in the vast majority of Europe to be grounded for a couple of weeks (
this is actually something that happened). The ECB and the BCCI, not wanting to lose the start of the tour are forced to accept that there may be a possibility of either cancelling the first test or using the Lions/PP team as England's first test team. The First Test goes ahead as scheduled, while the actual England test squad arrives on the morning of the second day to begin preparations for the Second Test.
There are of course some minor problems in this argument (the fact that cricket players would fly more than a fortnight before a tour to India for example, and the fact that the ECB wouldn't just take the players to the nearest airport with flights to India
), however unless the contract is written specifically to say that the existence of a pay dispute would deny the right of the visiting team to select whatever representative squad that it wishes, they are legally identical. The fact that one is a dispute over pay and the other is an act of God is irrelevant, since they are both factors in which the WICB is forced to alter their representative team. I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the matter (cricket fans have plenty reasons to be annoyed when this sort of thing happens), I'm just saying that I don't see how the BCCI can claim money when the WICB did all that they could to ensure that the series would continue while the matter was being dealt with. Besides, its not like the BCCI hasn't recently decided to reduce the size of an away tour to fit in a home tour, costing a cricket board a fair amount of cash and also one of crickets traditional matches, is it?
See its not the same thing. Its about what is the essence of a contract.
In the ash example, you promised a side, which couldn't go because there was an act of nature, you cannot control that, and for violation of contracts, act of god is a perfect defence. Similarly, for injury ,if a player gets injured there is noting you can do about it.
With a pay dispute though the dynamics change. The reason why is that you are commiting to field players, with whom you have no such agreement in place. Its like me offering Messi in the example above, even though Messi and I have no agreement that he will play in the match. This could be either because I never even approached Messi, or if I did approach him but the finances were not agreed upon, or even if I am very sure Messi will take the deal, but there is room for him to back off.
So I am offering something I know I cannot deliver, and thus its fraud. It would be another thing if Messi and I had an agreement, but he got injured at the last minute, and then there is nothing one can do. However if I don't even have an agreement with Messi to begin with, then I am commiting fraud if I tell people Messi will feature in the match.
Similarly, WICB didn't have an agreement with the players. Those players had not agreed to the pay structure, there were still discussions going on, so how could WICB commit those players for the tour, by annoucing the squad. If WICB had announced a weak squad to begin with and said well out players are not ready to play so this is the best we have to offer, that would be different.
However you cannot announce Messi while negotiations are still on going, that leads to tickets being sold, sponsorship fees being calculated on the higher side, and then say oops, Messi backed out, sry.
The fact that one is a dispute over pay and the other is an act of God is irrelevant
I am a lawyer, don't make me laugh with this. Act of Nature is a valid legal defence. See I know BCCI is not the most popular board there is, and ppl generally oppose the BCCI in whatever it says. If the BCCI says the earth is round, I am sure ppl would jump in and say BCCI is lying to earn more money.
However just picture the roles being reversed here. Ind went to WI, and over a pay dispute, Ind returned midway over a pay dispute. I mean would anyway be offering enve half the sympathy to BCCI, if WICB wanted damages?
Hardly an issue
