Let’s suppose that Head & Shoulders, for example, were to sponsor the national cricket team and require all the players to wear the H&S logo on their clothing. Would it be reasonable for one of the players to refuse to wear the logo on the grounds that they don’t use anti-dandruff shampoo? Hell no! That’s ridiculous! Yet it is exactly what Amla is being allowed to get away with .

But it’s still a rather contentious point.

Of course, Amla has the right to not wear the logo if it offends him on religious grounds. But should he then be dropped from the team? Or allowed to play but not be paid?
Tough one - cos that would be discrimination on religious grounds - not exactly sitting well with SA’s constitution.

All in all, like it or not, he’s exercising his rights. And I think it’s fair enough. In actual fact, the whiole row probably brought more publicity for whatever beer it was (wink) anyway.

In fact, if another non-religious player decides to ditch the Castle logo for a trivial reason not related to religion, and is then dropped by the team, THAT would constitute religious discrimination on the basis that Amla has received preferential treatment because of his religious beliefs!

And I disagree with you. If it offends him on religious grounds and the Sponsors agree that he need not wear it then what is the problem. As 6000 said they are getting more publicity from him not wearing it? So much has been written and said about it, now you will not forget who it is that sponsor’s SA Cricket.