Equal Opportunity Cricket

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, April 2002, Torpoint

One of the British Empire’s lasting progeny is the game of cricket. Most of the leading West Indian, Indian, and Pakistani international players also play for the professional county teams in England, the highest level of domestic cricket. In addition, many immigrants from the former colonies play the recreational variant of the game in local English leagues — where players observe English traditions such as wearing white trousers and breaking for tea. But somehow, these players are never deemed quite English enough. Racist chants are directed at nonwhite players during top-level matches (though reported incidents are less common today than in the 1990s), and nonwhites are still underrepresented in administrative positions. At the local level, Asians, who have tended to form their own clubs, find some white clubs reluctant to play them. Also, league regulations about the quality of grounds have often excluded Asian clubs that cannot afford such maintenance.

In 1999, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the governing body for every level of cricket in England, issued "Going Forward Together," a report that discouraged racist comments and urged clubs to include more ethnic players and administrators. It also emphasized acceptance of styles of spectating that diverge from the traditional white English model, which values decorum and restraint over flamboyance and noise. The report was a response to the dismal state of English cricket in the 1990s: The England team had fared badly in international competition, spectator numbers at county matches fell, and fewer people were playing recreational cricket. To prosper in England, the report recognized, cricket needs the support of all ethnic groups at all levels of the game.

Dominic Malcolm, a sociology lecturer at the University of Leicester’s Centre for Research into Sport and Society, faults the report for not going far enough. In the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, he argues that the cricket board’s recommendations will not achieve "equality of opportunity" until the board recognizes the de facto and institutional racist practices that "have the consequence of being exclusionary." Malcolm backs these contentions with a survey of the academic research into ethnic prejudice in recreational cricket and racial stereotyping in professional cricket. For example, studies of recreational cricket in Essex and Yorkshire reveal overtly racist remarks between players during matches and conclude that the culture of white cricket is a form of institutionalized racism. Undercutting the cricket board’s call for equal opportunity, Malcolm claims, is its empathy with the white cricket world and an assumption that nonwhites must conform to white cricketing norms if they are to be accepted at predominantly white clubs.

The professional game poses different problems. Sport sociologists have often argued that "stacking" — restricting players from particular ethnic groups to certain positions — frequently reflects and reinforces prejudices. Malcolm’s own research shows that Indian players are tapped for positions requiring supple wrists and fingers such as "spin bowlers" (throwing balls slowly but with tricky trajectories), whilst black West Indians are chosen for positions of innate athleticism, such as "fast bowlers." Malcolm also shows that Asian and black cricketers playing on county teams experience racist taunting, though they rarely complain of discrimination.

Malcolm commends the cricket board’s condemnation of racist spectator behavior, but he dismisses the board’s call to accept rowdier traditions of spectating as a form of stereotyping that assumes that nonwhites are more likely to be rowdy. Surprisingly, Malcolm ignores the accusation that players in international matches have accepted bribes to fix matches. Asian bookmakers have been key figures in this corruption, though white players have also been involved. Yet discussions of the problem often point the finger at Asian prominence in the administration of international cricket.

Malcolm is right to conclude that the cricket board’s report will achieve little for ethnic harmony in cricket. However, no sport does more on this front (hardly any Asians play soccer or rugby in England), and as a sport played and followed by England’s three main ethnic groups, cricket has greater potential to counter racism. But cricket, like any sport, can promote only limited progress on race relations. If ethnic prejudice were removed in employment, housing, and the criminal justice system, perhaps then initiatives such as "Going Forward Together" could make more of an impact.