Cricket in the Crosshairs: Examining the Equity in Cricket Report

Cricket is the latest casualty of the culture war. A team of equity experts has concluded that the sport is sexist, racist, and elitist. These are the key findings of a landmark report by the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket (ICEC), a panel commissioned by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) to investigate discrimination and inequality in the game. The report, titledHolding a Mirror Up to Cricket, is the result of two years of research begun in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Across its 317 pages, the ICEC says that racism is "entrenched in English cricket.” It calls on the sport's governing body, the ECB, to "urgently address deep-rooted and widespread institutional, structural, and interpersonal discrimination across the game." Data was collected from 4,000 people, a small, self-selected group who responded to the Commission's online call for evidence. The BBCcalls the report ‘damning’; I call it evidence of their disdain for middle-class white men.

One of the 44 recommendations to the ECB is the demand for equal pay for men and women. Players of the white-ball version of women's cricket are said to receive an "embarrassingly small amount" compared to men's, raking in just 20.6 per cent of what their male counterparts are paid. But is this really evidence of discrimination? Women's cricket is not as popular as men's cricket. The big names in men's cricket pack the stadiums; the seats are all filled with people paying big money to be there. This disparity reflects the market. The equalisation of pay on this basis is unfair and does little to address the financial discrepancy between the sexes. It's not that women are not as good; it's a matter of economics. Perhaps more advertising and more competitions would bring about more interest in the women's game. Who knows? Maybe I'm just sexist.

It should also be noted that we are in the midst of a major sporting event on the cricket calendar: The Ashes. The men's competition consists of five tests, each lasting five days. By contrast, the women's series is a multi-format series consisting of a test and a series of one-day internationals and T20 games. The men play for 25 days and the women for 11. Do we really need to mention this issue?

What the ICEC has released is an incoherent, statistically flawed, and overtly political report steeped in social justice rhetoric. For example, the appendix contains the word 'cisgender' 45 times. I have no idea what pronouns have to do with cricket. I didn't see mention of abandoning the term 'maiden over' anywhere in their findings. But what needs to be addressed is the allegation that racism is "entrenched" in the game. The report blames the decline in black British participation on that fashionable phrase, structural racism—in fact, very few black kids choose to play cricket, opting for the chances of making big money in the world of basketball and football.

By far the biggest 'structural' barrier to entry is the one the report fails to confront—or simply ignores. Significantly, in the absence of almost all live cricket on free-to-air television, I grew up watching England play Australia in the Ashes on Channel 4. Now that has all gone. If test matches came back to terrestrial TV, it would perhaps spark interest among the next generation of children from ethnic minority backgrounds. No, it's far easier to say cricket suffers from​​ institutional racism.

Cricket is complicated—try explaining the LBW rule to a non-fan. It also requires a lot of time and space to play. Since the late 1970s, both Conservative and Labour governments have sold thousands of school playing fields, leading to a significant decline in play in the public sector. Other factors include the closure of grammar schools and a decline in club cricket. Cricket is also in serious financial trouble. Schools that do play cricket require expensive kit, equipment, and qualified coaches. Private schools are in a better position to offer this. But the simple fact is that most state school kids aren't interested in a game that can last five days and end in a draw. 

Being independent is not the same as being impartial. If you dig a little deeper into the report, you will find evidence of its own 'conscious bias'. It recommends the Marylebone Cricket Club, a 236-year-old private membership club, abolish its prestigious Eton vs. Harrow and Oxford vs. Cambridge matches held at Lords every summer. How does calling time on two of Britain's oldest sporting events improve inclusivity? It doesn't. Dress it up with whatever fashionable language you like; it is an explicit hatred of tradition. 

Is cricket elitist and exclusive? I have no doubt about it. Sorry for the pun, but it's not that black and white. There are many complex problems requiring nuance that explain why participation in cricket is difficult for some minorities. But producing a highly politicised and divisive report that claims that all disparities are examples of discrimination is not the answer. All you achieve is alienation, which pushes people away. This report is the view of a minority of activists and does not represent wider public opinion. 

Cricket is quintessentially English. The report includes a foreword by John Major. In 1993, the then Conservative Prime Minister was asked what being English meant to him. He replied "Fifty years from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county cricket grounds." I would argue that, as a signatory to the report, that is about to change.