Dalmiya scuppers ICC's peace deal

World cricket was taken back to the brink of crisis last night when the Indian board rejected a settlement over players' sponsorship deals. The ICC Champions' Trophy, which starts next Thursday – if not the World Cup itself in February – was thrown into doubt when Jagmohan Dalmi-ya, the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, announced the decision after an emergency meeting.

There was no doubt that brinkmanship was on display on all sides. Dalmiya was determined to protect his country's financial interests while having the last word, the International Cricket Council were anxious not to make a special case of India. There remains room for compromise, but it is still possible that India will not send a first team to the Trophy in Sri Lanka, and if that happens the repercussions will be enormous.

Dalmiya and his colleagues effectively rebuffed an agreement reached between the ICC and India's leading players, represented by Ravi Shastri. The players had agreed to withdraw from personal advertising for the duration of the Trophy, and for 15 days after it, rather than the 30 days specified in the original tournament contracts. "It is an agreement for common sense and both parties are happy," Shastri said on Friday. "It now goes back to the Indian board, who must decide what team to pick."

There was something in Shastri's words which left room for uncertainty, and so it came to pass. The whole row, originally involving every country, has essentially involved the rights of players to advertise products during and and around ICC tournaments which may be in conflict with tournament sponsors; and the rights or otherwise of the ICC to use players' images. At stake in all this is the $550m (£350m) TV rights and marketing deal between the ICC and the Global Cricket Corporation, steered by Rupert Murdoch. Without first teams at tournaments, the GCC would need no second invitation to pull out or renegotiate down, with catastrophic effects for the game and its players.

India's players, more affected by personal endorsements than those of any other country, were worried about their home Test series against West Indies, which starts soon after the Champions' Trophy. But some straight talking and some concessions led to a settlement.

But Dalmiya emphasised that he was worried that the ICC had put nothing in writing about their part in the agreement. He insisted that the Indian board would wholly compensate all players for any losses incurred, but that was only part of the matter.

"I am not willing to expose the Indian board to financial liability for a future claim by the ICC or their sponsors," he said. "The ICC haven't been willing to give us an undertaking that the Indian board will not be liable for any future claim if the players accept the ICC's renegotiated contract." So, he announced that the players had been given until Monday to sign the original contracts. Since they were so dramatically opposed to them in the first place, that is distinctly unlikely.

The ICC, having taken up Dalmiya's request last week to deal with the players directly, cannot now suggest that it is all the board's responsibility.

There is still time for a last-ditch agreement. If that happens the ICC can watch the Champions' Trophy and wait for the next crisis. Zimbabwe's involvement in the World Cup looms on a near horizon.