For several players in the Champions League, there's a serious dilemma. Take senior pro Jacques Kallis, who could play for the Warriors, his state team in South Africa who have nurtured him all these years - or the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB), who pay top dollar for his services. Just
how is this choice made?
Warriors CEO Dave Emslie claimed that Jacques Kallis was contractually bound to play for his IPL team if the RCB made it to the Champions League. "We would have wanted Kallis but the decision did not lie in our hands. We never had a choice," he said after it was announced that Kallis would play for RCB.
That came as a bit of a surprise, as the general perception was that the player had the right to decide which team he would represent. The Warriors chief, however, sounded very clear on the issue. "One can argue the merits of the case but that is the rule," he added.
His assertion, however, appears at variance with what the CLT20 official website says about the rule: "If a player is selected to play for an 'away' team rather than his 'home' team, the 'away' team must pay US$200,000 as compensation to the 'home' team. 'Away' teams are not eligible for compensation if a player chooses to play for his 'home' team."
The use of the word chooses implies that the decision rests with the player.
Moreover, Mark Boucher, Kallis' teammate at the Warriors, seems to believe that player has the right to choose. In his column a few days ago, Boucher wrote: "Kallis' decision to play for RCB is blow to us. "The Warriors, however, have enough depth and have shown that they can play without their international stars."
Nevertheless, if Kallis is actually contractually obliged to play for the RCB, as the Warriors CEO is claiming, the question then is, can an individual's contract take precedence over the rules of the tournament.