Two days after the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket released its report and recommendations, a friend of mine sat next to a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club at a non-cricketing lunch.
She had guessed that he was an MCC member because his hat sported a band of the club’s unmistakable red and yellow colors. They engaged in conversation about cricket and my friend mentioned the ICEC report.
He boomed, who do these people think they are? What do they know? Undeterred, my friend asked for his views on woman’s cricket, especially the commission’s recommendation for pay equality. She was greeted with a stare and a single word, “never.”
She ploughed on with some facts about inequalities and rising levels of interest in women’s cricket. This was countered with a comment that she was very well-informed.
Readers will be aware that the MCC governed cricket between 1787 and 1993, when these functions were transferred to the International Cricket Council and, domestically, to the Test and County Cricket Board. This was superseded in 1997 by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).
In 1999, the ECB published a Clean Bowl Racism report, which concluded that racism existed in cricket. Its chief executive officer said: “Complacency on racial equality is not acceptable. We must open our doors to everyone.”
Why is it, then, that, according to the ICEC findings, the same issue of racism, to which is now added sexism and classism, is still widespread, almost a quarter-of-a-century later?
In 1999, the England men’s Test team contained four players descended from South Asian and Caribbean immigrants. In this week’s team, there is one.
The first Black man to be selected for England was in 1980. He was born in Barbados, moving to England aged 14. A further 13 made their debuts for the men’s team up to 1997, three born in England. Since then, 127 men have made debuts, only six being Black male players and 15 of South Asian descent. In that time, only two Black female players made debuts.
The commission highlighted that, “it is well-established that the concept of race has no biological basis and is rooted in historical justifications of imperialism, colonialism, and enslavement.”
It added that race became, “a way of organizing human beings into biological categories and was used to explain perceived differences between them, particularly asserting the superiority of the Europeans over Black, Brown, and Asian ‘others.’”
The social construct of race is controversial. UK public statistics are collected and reported by ethnicity, a self-defined form of group identification, based on national, tribal, linguistic, cultural, and religious origins or backgrounds.
Since the late 1940s the number of immigrants into the UK from South Asia has increased. Based on the 2021 Census, almost 7 percent of the population of England and Wales is now accounted for by South Asians.
Yet, according to the ICEC’s research, this ethnic group accounts for almost 30 percent of those playing adult recreational cricket. In first-class cricket, a disproportionate 5 percent of players were British South Asian in 2021.
The report is packed with the results of data analysis. Research conducted by the commission comprised an online survey in late 2021 of lived cricket experiences, to which 4,156 people responded, one in two reporting discrimination. Interviews were conducted with a variety of cricket bodies, alongside primary research with male and female cricketers.
This has not stopped critics from accusing it of building conclusions on a “fairly flimsy foundation of self-reported and subjective experience,” which “was not subjected to meaningful scrutiny or analysis.”
Apart from this accusation, the other battlelines drawn up focus on predictable topics. One which is guaranteed to generate purple rage is the annual Eton versus Harrow public school match that was first played at Lord’s in 1805.
The fixture has become controversial, seen by some as indicative of classism. The MCC proposed to remove the match from its schedule only to be overruled by its members. One of the ICEC’s recommendations was that, after 2023, the fixture should no longer be played at Lord’s. This is unlikely to happen.
Another ICEC recommendation that professional women cricketers should receive pay parity has been countered by the argument that no one wants to watch or is interested. As highlighted in last week’s column, this is no longer the case. The more matches are played, the more exposure gained, then the likelihood of attracting additional income, sponsorship, and media coverage will be increased.
Critics of the ICEC have posited that there is “a strain of animosity” running through the report. Presumably, this is felt most keenly by some MCC members and those who share their views, deeming it to be a personal attack on their status, credo, and position in society.
Despite many initiatives to provide opportunities for ethnic groups by counties, the MCC, and inner-city foundations, the progression of South Asian and Black cricketers into professional cricket appears to have slowed in the last 20 years. Various reasons are given — a lack of facilities in state schools and in public places, prohibitively expensive equipment, not enough ethnic coaches, and a bias in favor of those who can afford extra coaching.
Another reason commonly advanced is that football has become more popular, especially among ethnic minorities. It is played in state schools, equipment is cheaper, and there are highly developed scouting systems.
Additionally, men’s Test cricket has not been available to view on terrestrial television since 1999.
The overriding impression from the ICEC’s report is that, among cricket’s policymakers in England and Wales, almost entirely White and male, there has been a belief that discrimination is not rife in the game in its territory. This may be echoed by many White players and supporters.
According to the commission, the reality is different. The ECB’s current management has an unenviable task to change perceptions, reverse inertia, and implement at least some of the ICEC’s recommendations, given the ingrained beliefs of powerful constituents.
