ABSTRACT
The theoretical law of contract often fits uneasily into the relationship of employer and employee. Classical contract theory, particularly with respect to the idea of a free negotiation of the terms of the agreement, seems largely inapplicable when the bargaining power of the parties is often markedly unequal. A key feature of British industrial relations for a large part of the twentieth century was the doctrine of collective laissez-faire and the absence of significant legislative regulation of contracts of employment. Common law actions remained, but without any of the contemporary legislative protection such as the redundancy and unfair dismissal provisions. The reliance on trade unions to provide bargaining weight against employers provided the collective dimension to negotiations across numerous industries and workplaces. Professional sportsmen, indeed, entertainers more generally, have an additional dimension to their contractual position, a relationship with a paying public and a vocation that the spectators may view enviously. Those that pay to watch may have a vicarious relationship with those 'privileged' enough to play for the club.2 An often heard complaint about players who are not performing to the right level is that they are 'not fit to wear the shirt', the donning of the club's colours is seen as a privilege denied to the fan through lack of ability or opportunity. This public dimension to this extraordinary employment relationship will often focus on the terms and conditions enjoyed by the players. Not only are the spectators drawn into discussions over a private contractual matter of the player's terms of employment, but newspapers and other media maintain a constant speculative approach towards such contracts. The speculation applies not just to wage levels at times of (re)negotiation, but also whether contracts will be completed, for instance, whether a player will be transferred. This trend of reporting has developed apace as the cost of wages has risen,
although given that hard details of such terms are inevitably scarce the media-contrived figures ought to be treated with some scepticism.3 The spiral of higher wages has led to continuous allegations that player-power dominates the higher levels of the games. This term, 'player power', is often used in a pejorative fashion to indicate that the balance of power has somehow shifted in a way that is contrary to the interests of the game as a whole. The reaction of the cricket authorities, and indeed parts of the media, to the development of World Series Cricket in the late 1970s often shared this perspective. It seemed as if players were to blame for seeking to improve their living standards and consequently betraying the traditions of the sport, whatever these might be.
