This season, expect two things. one, a lot of comforting sky blue on your screen. And two, a lot of hysteria about winning not being everything but the only thing. Sure, India had jolly well win this cricket World Cup-having already made such a grand global spectacle of itself.

We refer, of course, to the who-gets-the-publicity tussle between the International Cricket Council (ICC), representing the Cup's four global-level sponsors, and the Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), acting on behalf of the domestic-level sponsors of Indian cricketers. The two went eyeball-to-eyeball, with the ICC threatening to disqualify the Men in Blue, and the BCCI counter threatening to wreck the entire show.

The ICC blinked first. India is all set to play-and on its own terms too. Indian cricketers needn't turn their backs on the brands that pay them their big bucks. So, there's little to stop local brand endorsements and all the rest of the cricket hoopla (except during the actual duration of the Cup).

That's fair. Think of the Cup as a giant magnet for eyeballs, to be sold to advertisers, and you'll find that logic favours the BCCI's stance. But for reasons related to prevalent market forces, not dusty old contracts. India, after all, delivers an overwhelming share of eyeballs to the Cup, and it's no surprise that most cricket ads are aimed at this market. Instead of global sponsorship deals being forced top-downwards by the ICC on all audiences, a better way to ensure efficiency (in terms of bang-for-the-buck maximisation) would be to let each domestic market work out its own publicity dynamics. This way, a Cup sponsor does not pay for eyeballs in strange places, and local brands get the autonomy to meet local-level objectives.

That's a good argument. All's well that ends well, then? Maybe not. The manner in which the ICC was forced to blink was far from gentlemanly. To be blunt, India exercised the brute might of its monetary muscle.

An estimated 80 per cent of cricket revenues originate from here. And three of the four global-level sponsors of the Cup as well: Pepsi Foods, Hero Honda and LG Electronics. In fact, the ICC blinked only after the Delhi High Court ordered the RBI to hold back the three's sponsorship dollars (an estimated $30 million each) if the ICC were to eject the Indian team from the Cup for alleged violation of the 'Players' Terms'. And so it was that India displayed its indispensability to the World Cricket Order.

But was it really necessary for the Indian judiciary-and central bank, for bails' sakes-to get dragged in? Much as people enjoy the Lagaan imagery, the us-versus-them approach to the ICC does little good for Indian cricket in the long run.

What's more, the ICC still intends dragging the BCCI to a Swiss arbitration court. The global sponsorship deals it struck had promised exclusive publicity to the four sponsors, with protection against 'ambush advertising' by non-sponsors. Meanwhile, international murmurs of Indian hegemony refuse to die down.

India's best bet now is to win global opinion over by making a case for efficiency wrought by market forces. Taking the logic further, one could even make a case for devolving the whole sponsorship business to individual cricketers. Millions of Indians tune in to cricket only to watch Sachin Tendulkar. That's why he's so disproportionately rich-a market fact. This may bother you, if you're an enthusiast of cricket as a team game.

Yet, growing commercialisation might actually strengthen team spirit. Take the US, where football teams are like corporations, and players are up for auction to the top bidder. Some footballers do have iconic status, but Pepsi prefers to use the daydreaming rock star Ozzie Osborne in its break-time ads. In general, loyalties tend to be team oriented, and here, branding plays a role.

In the just concluded Super Bowl XXXVII, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers thrammed the Oakland Raiders. And the Raiders' main shareholder, Al Davis, is wondering whether to revert to the name LA Raiders-the brand that once hammered the Washington Redskins in the famous Super Bowl XVIII. More than trophies, it won opinion.