So whilst watching some of the South Africa vs New Zealand test match today I noticed that the muslim player Hashim Amla does not wear the sponsors logo - Castle lager. Maybe this is old news in SA but I haven’t been aware of it until now. How pathetic that SA Cricket allows this and furthermore that Castle Lager stands for it. This man is allowed to flout rules which apply to everyone else based on his “religion”. SA Cricket is weak, the sport itself is weak judging by Sunday’s attendance at the test match I watched and in comparison to its nearest relative - Baseball - it is dying a slow death.
As well as being an official Olympic sport in Beijing next year, Baseball had a record season in 2007 with revenues topping $6 billion. With the T20 and the world cup this year, I’d love to know how much cricket made.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://wozafriday.com/2007/11/17/cricket-get-a-grip/trackback/
18 November, 2007 at 10:17 am
Simon
Completely agree with you mate! It’s total bullshit that this character does not have to wear the sponsor’s logo. They’re paying handsome sums of money for him to be earning a salary, yet he does not show them the gratitude of even wearing their logo on his uniform - what a joke! He obviously doesn’t understand that by wearing the CL logo, he is not ENDORSING the product, but merely acting as an advertising MEDIUM for it.
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 .
20 November, 2007 at 1:35 pm
6000
Yes - it’s old news over here.
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.
21 November, 2007 at 11:17 am
David
It is not religious discrimination, he chooses not to wear the sponsors logo, therefore he chooses not to play for the team.
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!
30 January, 2008 at 8:59 am
Pamela
Yes it is old new here.
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.