South African-born Kevin Pietersen has, Yahaluweni, long been a mercenary at heart.

Of course, in today's world and the times in which we now live, he isn't the only one eager to become a hired gun.

Anyone who watched that gaudy Indian Premier League showbiz auction example in Mumbai for the top players, would have seen how they are all lined up to the highest bidder.

More worrying perhaps, is how that auction was allowed to get out of control. It showed a distinct lack of professionalism. Little wonder then how memories resurfaced of last year's horrific TV media circus surrounding the Graham Ford coaching announcement fiasco.

What the auction of players did achieve is where IPL, and their BCCI backers, earned the image of being a cheap fast food chain selling off prized recipes to the highest bidders. Amid all this comes a rival plan in England to keep the county players happy.

But Pietersen is a good enough example of where to start as the top international players look at being bankrolled and accrue a lifetime of financial security that goes with it. That is if they know how, as an example, to invest such big auctioned sums of between US$1-million and US$100 000 and not squander it. This is where good financial advice is always handy.

As for Pietersen's example, it is how his life and those players around him have changed with the advent of all the untold wealth now available. And this while around him millions not so fortunate battle tonight to put a sustainable family meal on the table.

This is not just because Pietersen, whose credentials as a future international star were ridiculed by Ali Bacher when he was managing director of the then United Cricket Board (of South Africa). At least he had an alternative and switched to the English county system as a result of Cricket South Africa's nefarious and subjective quotas selection policy.

Pietersen and other central contracted England players were more than miffed at being shut out of the IPL. Suddenly, though the dollar or (better still) pound sterling signs are lighting up bigger opportunities and bigger financial packages. All this is seen as a reward for becoming more British than the British. Not that he is shy either of backchatting, in typical tabloid fashion the South African coaching system that gave him a chance.

Pietersen is typical of those who have conveniently forgotten how they were once crying about the burnout factor as the international calendar became crammed with more meaningless limited-overs games. Now he is eager to get his hands on more money as an American benefactor steps into the breach.

It becomes dizzier as well when you look at the sums on offer. Sir Allen Stanford, a Texan millionaire investment banker and philanthropist of a variety of sports as well as orphanages and other good deeds, has offered a deal to the England (and Wales) Cricket Board that is worth US$100-million for five years. It means in collateral terms US$10-million a challenge match involving a West Indies side.

The first game is planned for Antigua in October and a return game next year at Lord's. Little wonder that Pietersen and other England players have become as excited as expectant father's over the money on offer.

They will be looking after their fitness as well as playing schedules ensuing selection before each Stanford sponsored game is played. After all, US10-million split between two teams is not mere pocket money, is it? In a sense, what a player can get out of one game is worth all the trouble of playing in the IPL.

Yet, while so many are now chasing the big moolah on offer, there are other areas of the game that require attention.

Several emails in recent weeks from South African and Australian sources suggest that players are starting to ask pertinent and prickly questions of administrators and where the game is heading. It is not only the IPL and last year's disastrous World Cup in the Caribbean that is worrying them. It is about who is running the sport and their business qualifications.

This is not aimed it is said by most, at those within the ranks of the International Cricket Council who do have business management skills and university degrees. It questions those who are on the ICC's board of directors.

Issues being questioned by the players have become manifold. Pressing are the political mess and financial fraud cover up the ICC find themselves with the growing Zimbabwe question and that country's future as a viable member of the ICC.

As one South African contact points out, there are frustrations whether those administering the game understand the growing implications as well as the fiasco of CWC07 and how it was seen by sponsors and others eager to market the game.

'They have been scared off by the procrastination of the ICC board as a whole, and those who went to the Caribbean on a freebee holiday,' are words that cannot be easily ignored.

'Any number of hangers on were put up in fancy hotels and treated as VIPs when in fact they are not even members of the executive of the board of those countries playing in the semi-finals and final of the tournament.

'How some of these people were invited is a mystery when former captains were ignored,' were remarks.

Now Tim May, a former Australian Test off-spinner and chairman of the Federation of International Cricketers Associations (Fica), has pointed a few fingers in areas that are going to upset some of the hardlined establishment. Although he doesn't entirely agree with how committee member Ian Smith has expressed himself, there is an admission for cause for concern of how the game is being handled.

As it is, Fica has a voice on the ICC's cricket playing committee headed by Sun Gavaskar.

What is upsetting the players association and some of the more internationally aware members are the politics involved and how, in some respects, the use of politics is allowed to be used as a weapon and hiding transparent issues.

There is a need of accountability from the ICC over some their decisions and whether countries such as Zimbabwe should remain a full member when countries such as Ireland and Kenya are ahead of them and even Namibia can overtake them are questions being asked.

What all this suggests is how the game is changing and in a direction that the establishment-driven are not going to like as their roles are challenged by the players backed by law and other degrees.

This brings me back to a point discussed in these files last week. It is about the question of selection policy and what are known facts and supported by more than one witness and what obviously has been misconstrued by someone who doesn't understand simple English.

If you recall, it was a question statistics and selection policy. This, though, if talk around the pavilions is a guide, just the tip of a volcano about to burst and split open as the players involved will happily confirm.

It seems last week's files, highlighting the performance of players not selected as against the performance of players selected for the national A squad, has hit a nerve. The statistics were presented to give the public a glimpse of what is real and what's perceived.

The facts remains that despite his denial (see letter) Chandika Hathurasinghe, the A team coach pushed for the selection of players with inferior performances to the point of heated argument with the chairman of selectors, Asantha De Mel.

Only the intervention of interim committee member K Mathivanan resolved the problem through the inclusion of all players in the squad.

These days, a visit to some of the clubs around Colombo and the talk is clear enough; there are many who will tell you the same story. It is also rumoured that Harthurasinghe had the A team physio, Priyantha Wickramasinghe replaced for reasons similar to the selection fiasco, he wants his own way. Next he will have media like me banned from attending A Team nets.

As for selection policy, De Mel knows what he is doing when he is looks at and selects those players who are performing in the domestic competitions. This is where the convener needs support from all coaching staff and other selectors. He is not a man governed, as are some, by self interest.

There has been a good email response to last week's column from senior domestic players who have performed well over a long period of time with little reward for effort. They have been ignored for too long and deserve an opportunity for hard work and good performance. Let us again look at some facts.

Lasana Dias was selected for taking 28 wickets at 32.57 and scoring 69 runs at 7.66, while Shanuka Dissanayake who took 33 wickets at 25.60 and scored 524 runs at 32.75 has yet again been ignored.

Again, how come does Kanchana Gunawardane, scoring 543 runs at 31.94 is pushed ahead of the best performing opening domestic batsman Tharanga Paranavithana: 893 runs at 74.41?

Hiding behind the excuse outlined in his letter of complaint that he is just one selector doesn't wash at all as there is a serious lack of transparency, as well as the row with De Mel, which he fails to mention but observed by others.

You can guarantee that the clubs who have been producing players who perform well on a regular basis will be watching with interest future developments in regards the progress of players groomed for national duties.

As with their international brethren, the time may yet come when questions are asked about the coaching staff that has been foisted on them and the selection transparency used.