Sport and Politics: the influence of Capital, the absence of Leadership

However, the England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has been urged by both MPs as well as members of the House of Lords to boycott England’s fixture against Afghanistan, as a show of strength against the Taliban regime’s “appalling oppression of women and girls and the removal of their rights that continues unabated”. Since regaining control in 2021, the Taliban has reinstated an outright prohibition on Afghan girls and women playing sport.

World Cricket’s ‘Big Three’

It’s been over a decade since the ‘Big Three’ of England, India and Australia gained even more control of world cricket through plans and revenue-sharing agreements sanctioned by the sport’s global governing body, the International Cricket Council. The countries’ respective boards, the ECB, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) , and Cricket Australia have been at the forefront of driving change, both commercial and regulatory, in the global game.

Richard Gould, the ECB chief executive, made clear last year that England would not entertain any bilateral series against Afghanistan for as long as the Taliban were in power. Though it’s worth noting that England has never played a bilateral series against Afghanistan, even prior to the Taliban regaining power in 2021. England’s stance follows that of Australia, who have cancelled bilateral men’s fixtures against Afghanistan three times since 2021, including indefinitely postponing the first meeting between Australia and Afghanistan’s Test teams.

Unlike fixtures at ICC tournaments, bilateral matches and series are organised and run by the host ICC member – they front the costs borne by and amass the revenue generated by the series, with the ICC itself having limited involvement. While bilateral series between the “Big Three” and some of the other more established cricket nations are financially lucrative for the hosts, it’s expected that an Afghanistan tour would not generate the same level of returns.

ICC tournaments

On the other hand, Cricket Australia has previously stated that its men’s team will still play against Afghanistan at World Cups on the basis that “there is a distinction between playing bilateral series” which falls under Cricket Australia’s control “as compared to playing in a World Cup tournament which is an ICC event and subject to their regulations”. Indeed, the Australia men’s team played – and defeated – Afghanistan in the 2023 ODI World Cup. Had Australia lost (or boycotted) that fixture, they would have been eliminated from a tournament that they in fact went on to win.

Meanwhile, although the ECB has re-confirmed that it has no intention of engaging in a bilateral series with Afghanistan while the Taliban regime is in power, it claims that their participation at ICC events is a matter for the governing body as a whole, and not for individual members. The ECB has argued that a “coordinated, ICC-wide approach would be significantly more impactful than unilateral actions by individual members”.

The ICC Articles of Association

What, then, does the ICC, the global governing body of the sport, say?

The ICC has established a set of criteria for a national board to gain Full Member status. Among such criteria are the following requirements: (a) men’s and women’s cricket must be under the same board; (b) participation in at least one women’s Cricket World Cup or women’s T20 World Cup over the previous four years (or currently featuring on the ICC’s official women’s ODI rankings table); and (c) a satisfactory women’s pathway structure must be established.

It is clear that with no women’s team or programme, Afghanistan does not meet the criteria for Full Membership. Nevertheless, it remains today one of only 12 Full Member nations of the ICC. The ICC’s position is that it does not recognise the Taliban as a legitimate government and it will not penalise Afghanistan Cricket for abiding by the laws set by the Taliban.

Leadership and Governance

Who, then, will pick up the leadership mantle? The Big Three point to the ICC. The ICC declines to espouse its own membership criteria and principles. Meanwhile, the women of Afghanistan will continue to be barred from playing sport, while its men will be permitted to compete in global tournaments (only). The financials may add up, but does anything else?

Anand Patel is a competition/antitrust and regulatory lawyer with over 10 years' experience advising on competition law and compliance issues, the drafting of rules and regulations, and disputes.