Ever since the advent of professional sports, the player loyalty issue has been of prime importance. Who should a sportsman give more importance, his club or franchise which pays him and that too heavily in the case of IPL, or his country which gives him his identity?
It was the player ownership issue in England that gave rise to central contracts, and the subsequent rise of the English test side which was languishing in mediocrity when the counties owned players and they were supposed to keep them at higher priority than their country. Similar is the case in India now with the advent of IPL, and the huge pay checks that players receive from them, has made them produce their best for their franchises rather than their country.
This was the case when Sehwag waited for his franchise to be knocked out of the tournament before having his shoulder surgery done. This wait caused him to miss the whole of the Indian tour of Caribbean and the first two tests of the series against England and perhaps cost India their number one ranking in tests.
There is also the recent issue of Tendulkar, Gambhir and Rohit Sharma, all of whom are supposed to play for their franchise in the upcoming Champions League T20 in the coming fortnight. The same players however are missing from their country’s squad that is at the moment playing the ODI series against England due to injuries.
As long as the decision of their participation in the tournament is made by the Indian team’s physio and not by the physio of their respective franchises, there is no problem. This should also be the case in other situations as well as the player who is under contract to the national side is evaluated by the physio of the national team for fitness issues keeping in front the interests of the national team.
If this rule is followed then the issue of IPL affecting the fitness of the Indian players due to fatigue can be resolved.