Do cricketing authorities have any moral compass at all?

January 2025

For women, life under the Taliban is like living in a prison. Even prisons have windows but the latest edict from the Taliban is that no new buildings can have a window through which a woman can be seen. Existing buildings must have such windows blocked up or screened off. The reason is “seeing women working in kitchens, in courtyards or collecting water from wells can lead to obscene acts”. Thus spoke Hibatullah Akhundzada, leader of the Taliban.

This is just the latest draconian measure. Women have no rights to free movement, education or work. Outside they must be completely covered over. Protections for girls and women subject to domestic abuse have been demolished. There has been a surge of forced marriages for girls and women. A full report, published by Amnesty called Death in Slow Motion reveals the full horrific nature of life for women, if ‘life’ be the correct word to use, in Afghanistan.

Enter cricket and the question of whether England should play Afghanistan: men, of course, because women are not allowed to play cricket or anything else, and members of the nascent women’s cricket team fled the country. This brings up the familiar question of whether we should engage in sporting activities with countries that have little concept of, or adherence to, human rights. We have discussed Saudi Arabia’s huge investment in sport and the recent disgraceful decision to award them the football (soccer, US) World Cup.

Bizarrely the Guardian reports (7 January) the England and Wales Cricket Board are refusing to schedule games against Afghanistan out of concern for a deterioration of basic human rights for women in the country. They are however, along with Australia, happy to play them in next month’s Champions Trophy. They are quoted as saying that they do not think a ban would make much difference to the ruling party there and that a unilateral decision would be less effective than a unified one by the International Cricket Council.

What should be the response for sporting bodies to taking part in sports with regimes who do not observe human rights for all or part of their citizenry? Does playing sport offer hope as the ECB argue? Or does continuing to play sport bolster the regimes and enables them to bask in the publicity while doing nothing to improve rights? Indeed, does sport actually make matters worse? During the communist era, East Germany and USSR for example, used sport to promote the idea of a healthy and successful society. The Saudi regime is investing billions in its sporting activities simply to promote the country to the world. We call it ‘sportswashing’. This enables regimes to sanitise their image knowing that the excitement of sport will give them massive uncritical coverage.

Will playing cricket against Afghanistan offer hope in the country? It might provide some amusement to Afghan men to watch their team, but the women? On the one hand it might put a spotlight on the country and its appalling treatment of women (good). On the other, it offers some favourable publicity to the regime and demonstrates to Afghanis that when money is on offer, the West very quickly loses its moral scruples (bad).

Meanwhile, a group of politicians led by Tonia Antiniazzi (Lab), has written to the ECB expressing their deep concern. The ECB’s responses can be seen in this BBC Sport report. Neither local MPs, John Glen nor Danny Kruger have signed the letter.

Sources: ECB, The Guardian, Amnesty International, BBC

Peter Curbishley