indian cricket

Unfair to compare men and women: Former India captain Diana Edulji on contract disparity

The BCCI was criticised for the retainers announced in the latest set of central contracts.

One of the talking points to emerge from the most recent windfall for Indian cricketers in the form of BCCI’s new central contracts (apart from Mohammad Shami and Jayant Yadav) was the disparity between the lowest earning male cricketer and highest earning women cricketer. If you were good enough to make it to Category C among the men in blue, the retainer was worth twice the likes of Mithali Raj and Harmanpreet Kaur - the top women cricketers placed in category A. From the last round of contracts, the maximum retainers in the top category for women increased from Rs 15 lakhs (2015) to Rs 50 lakhs this year.

Here’s a break-up of the different categories:

Graphic by Anand Katakam
Graphic by Anand Katakam

The disparity drew plenty of criticism on social media:

But is the comparison valid? Isn’t there more nuance to this issue?

Speaking to Mid-Day, Diana Edulji, former India captain and member of the Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators (CoA), said the comparison is not that straight-forward.

“It is unfair to compare the men and women cricketers. Women’s cricket still has to be nurtured and it will grow over a period of time with more television coverage of their matches. The new BCCI media rights will have women’s cricket covered extensively. Women’s tennis also took a long time to where it has reached today,” Edulji was quoted as saying.

A similar thought was echoed by Snehal Pradhan, former India cricketer turned freelance journalist, who reiterated the fallacy in comparing the likes of Mithali Raj and Virat Kohli. Writing for The Quint, Pradhan pointed out that there is an issue that needs the board’s immediate attention:

“England women took a pool of close to 20 players, and invested heavily in them, while their county cricketers saw no real increase in payments. The approach won them a World Cup in the short term, but they have a problem of finding quality replacements in the long run, with the gap between domestic and international cricket yawning. Similarly, the Indian women’s team, the top of the pyramid, is now looked after financially. But domestic match fees need to keep increasing, to a point where players need not look to government jobs for financial security. While these fees have been raised from Rs 3,500 per day to Rs 12,500 per day (half of that for T20s, lower amounts for age group cricket), it is still not nearly enough to allow players to train full time.”    

On the other end of the argument, senior journalist Dileep Premachandran, argued that while disparity is understandable, the extent of it is disappointing. Writing for News18, Premachandran wrote:

“A fringe player who may not play for India in the foreseeable future will be paid twice the retainer that one of the greatest women’s cricketers will be. Yes, we know that comparing men’s and women’s cricket is like mixing apples and oranges. Yes, it’s the men who command the millions of eyeballs that bring in the revenue. Yes, it’s the Indian Premier League (IPL) – contested by the men – which has put obscene sums of money in the BCCI’s bank accounts.

But there lies the rub. The cricket board is not a for-profit enterprise. The bottom line shouldn’t be its priority, especially when it enjoys such riches. The fact is that individuals like Mithali and Jhulan, who have done so much to raise the profile of Indian women’s cricket while earning far less than 50 lakhs over the duration of such long careers, deserve so much more.”  

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.