Staring down the barrel of a gun

He said it was a ‘‘well-established practice in elite sport’’ that, for the benefit of the game, protection against ambush marketing is given to the sport’s commercial partners.

He denied the charge that players’ rights had been infringed and said the ICC’s sponsorship and marketing agreements dated back two years, giving them ample warning.

‘‘This is nothing new…It is in place at the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the Rugby World Cup and the football world cup and it was a key element of the arrangements agreed with the players for the Cricket World Cup in 1999.’’ In India, advertisers who put their money on Indian cricketers are an unhappy lot. ‘‘We have only one player in the team endorsing our product. The story could be different the next time. But advertisers will be the real losers in this game and we will be examining the issue in detail’’, officials in Coke said.

On the other hand, Samsung officials say the contract it entered into with players still stands whatever the ICC diktat. ‘‘Legally, there’s nothing stopping us as our contract with players were entered into much before the ICC contracts. But we will abide by whatever the players decide’’, sources in Samsung said.

In Melbourne, Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA) chief executive Tim May said though no Australian player was in direct conflict with a major sponsor, ‘‘they had taken this stance because, just because they don’t have one now, they may well have one in the future.’’

The contracts were illegal, he said, as they were inducing players to breach existing contracts. May told Reuters player associations around the cricketing world had advised their players they should not accept the playing agreements in their current form. ‘‘We’ve forwarded the advice (to the Australian players),’’ he said. ‘‘An offer has been made, an offer has been rejected, I would have thought the issue is now back with the ICC.’’