Many of our regional commentators, intellectuals and politicians have correctly placed the struggle strangling West Indies cricket within the global economic battlefield. We have recognized that our players are selling their skills in a global marketplace. Usain Bolt flies to Europe and the IAAF World Championship to make a living, and Chris Gayle flies to India and the Indian Professional league. It is not of their creation. They bear no responsibility for capitalism and its excesses. It is the legacy they inherited from us. Noted commentator, Trevor Campbell correctly placed sport in the context of the information revolution and globalization. He effectively identified the sources of the forces that pushed and pulled our people across the globe and continue with even greater force today. Yes, we seek to follow capital and the means of maximizing our ability to earn. Yet, I sense a kind of dissatisfaction with the examples our sportsmen and women represent. They are described as self-interested and governed by a new individualism: apparently not seen in these parts before.
If we see the WICB, and Digicel by extension, and in either direction, as the purveyors of this new information based, globalized capitalism, then it’s the actions of Gayle, Sarwan, WIPA and company that stand against the full force of globalization and the end of
West Indies cricket as we know it. It appears that using the construct described by Mr. Campbell, Digicel, an information based globally integrated corporation which replaced Cable and Wireless, another information based globally integrated corporation, as WICB sponsor, fits the model as the conduit through which capital flows. Gayle and company have attempted to resist the force by simply saying ‘pay us a fair wage and give us a decent contract so we won’t be pushed and pulled across the globe’. This we need to replicate
West Indies cricket at its highest. Today, our players don’t have the benefit of economic security offered by contracts in the British cricket circuit. Usain Bolt recently commented that he was glad he did not run in the
US circuit because of the spate of injuries suffered by athletes who extend themselves into the
US season as well as the European season. Of course, Bolt can say that while sitting on a decent sum from his sponsors another globally integrated corporation. Many in the chorus of ex-cricketers attacking the current ‘strikers’ played in
England and other less reputable places. But the point is clear. He/we don’t want to be pushed and pulled around the globe for a wage.
There is also a notable ferment not so easily disguised, that these athletes are ungrateful and incapable of understanding the importance of country. Mr. Campbell is essentially saying the same thing as Sir Hilary, whom he critiqued. Noted cricket expert, Sir Hilary Beckles was described as beholding to a time long past when the primary importance in cricket was to whip the colonial power. This is not my commentary on whether Sir Hilary’s position was accurately described. I do know he showed a clear contempt for the striking players and their representatives. The difference between Campbell and Beckles, of course, is Mr. Campbell’s application of a ‘Marxist’ analysis on the sport. In short, he follows the money. Some get all bent out of shape whenever the word Marxist is used. I do believe this approach advances the understanding of the jockeying forces. But he ends at the same point as Sir Hilary: These ungrateful, young, athletes. If we really apply a Marxist approach to labor we will recognize the forms of resistance against monopoly capitalism employed by today’s WI players.
Moreover, Gayle cutting short his stint in the Indian Professional League meant he took a cut in pay to play for country. Based on my unscientific calculations, Gayle lost half of his $800,000 fee in order to go to England and play for the West Indians in a hastily scheduled tour and yet we question his desire to play for country. I find this bizarre. Fidel Edwards’ IPL contract was for $100,000. He forfeited some of that to play for country, in the cold and generated real fire for his country. As an aside, individualism is the very essence of West Indies cricket.
This individualism is not antithetical to collective action for success on the field and, as will soon be demonstrated, off the field. Have we not seen Kanhai on the go, or Gayle, or Headley. I can go on. It is still why the team is regarded as the most popular team in cricket. Granted some of the luster is no longer. But it only needs a good polish. When one of our Jamaican sisters blasts through the finish line ahead of the pack, she looks for her clocked time, and then for her Jamaican sisters, they embrace, drape themselves in the flag, salute their supporters and wait to collect their checks.
Besides, nothing is more collective than a worker strike. Our region, no the world developed a working and middle class because unions improved conditions and wages. Unions seemed to have lost favor even among Marxists. This is nation building. In fact it is something larger, self replication. Bolt pointed to fatigue and the possibility of injury for not running in the US. Puma, like most sponsors would love the most possible exposure wherever possible. Kudos to them if they support Bolt in his decision not to tour the US. And Kudos to the WI players for being the only thing standing between us and complete control by monopoly capitalism: or is it the information based globalized capitalists; Digicel and its agent the WICB.
Comments