Afghanistan’s place as a full member nation of the ICC is clearly untenable due to its Taliban government’s attitudes towards female participation in sport.
Cricket Australia has for the second time cancelled international fixtures with Afghanistan due to this reason, it’s about time the ICC stepped in.
The desire of cricket to keep expanding its base of participating nations should not take precedence over the human rights issues that are taking place in Afghanistan.
Nearly six years ago, Afghanistan and Ireland were elevated to full member status by the ICC, meaning they became part of an expanded group of 12 nations who could play Test cricket.
Glenn Maxwell plays a shot against Afghanistan in Adelaide at the T20 World Cup. (Photo by Sarah Reed/Getty Images)
Afghanistan’s rise from war-torn nation to a Test nation was hailed as one of the more remarkable meteoric rises in the history of international sport at the time.
While the Afghanistani and Irish associations get a much smaller slice of the ICC funding pie than the main revenue-earning country, India, or established nations like England and Australia, they get significantly more than the Associate nations on the next tier down in cricket’s global structure.
And they are included in the ICC’s Future Tours Programme along with all the traditional cricket-playing nations. Afghanistan is due to play 21 Tests, 45 ODIs and 57 ODIs in the 2023-27 schedule – their total of 123 matches is higher than South Africa (113), Ireland (110) and Zimbabwe (109).
Part of the many conditions that were part of Afghanistan and Ireland’s elevation to full member status was a commitment to women’s cricket, a huge growth area for the sport.
Full member nations must have “satisfactory women’s pathway structures in place” and “a sustained and sufficient pool of players to support strong and consistent national level selection across the senior men’s, U19 and women’s teams”.
When they were granted top billing in 2017, Afghanistan did not have a women’s team competing in ICC fixtures but was building towards achieving this goal after awarding central contracts to 25 players in 2020.
The Afghanistan Cricket Board stated at the time it wanted “to have a women cricket team albeit adhering to the traditional Afghan and Islamic values”.
But when the Taliban seized power in August the following year, several players fled the country, such as Roya Samim, who relocated to Canada, and Nilab Stanikzai and Shafiqa Khan, who found refuge in Australia.
In an interview with SBS soon after the takeover, the deputy head of the Taliban’s cultural commission, Ahmadullah Wasiq, reaffirmed women’s cricket would not be allowed under their regime.
“I don’t think women will be allowed to play cricket because it is not necessary that women should play cricket,” he said. “In cricket, they might face a situation where their face and body will not be covered. Islam does not allow women to be seen like this.”
Cricket Australia cancelled what was going to be an historic first Test against Afghanistan in November of 2021 and followed suit again last week when it called off any plans to stage a three-match one-day series at a neutral venue, as required in the Future Tours Programme. The Taliban has banned girls from high school since March as well as parks and gyms, while last month it decreed women would not be allowed to attend universities.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch cricket on KAYO
As is often the case with the ICC, it is trying to put a positive spin on the situation without doing much to resolve the issue.
The ICC established an Afghanistan Working Group in November, 2021, to report to the governing body’s board about the nation’s attempts to comply with its requirements surrounding women’s cricket.
Twelve months later, the working group reported it had held a “positive and respectful” meeting with an Afghanistan government representative who gave in principle support for women’s cricket.
“There are obviously challenges for it to resume but we will continue to work with the ACB to take this forward. The Working Group will closely monitor the commitment undertaken by the Afghanistan government and will continue to report back to the ICC board,” said the working group chair, Imran Khwaja, who is also the deputy chair of the ICC board.
Progress, if any is actually taking place, is painfully slow.
The ICC should suspend Afghanistan’s full member status until meaningful change occurs.
Zimbabwe had their status suspended for three months in 2019 by the ICC due to “political interference”. The ICC was concerned its funding was being used to fill government coffers rather than to support the game in the African nation.
If concerns such as these are enough to warrant a suspension, surely Afghanistan’s current state of affairs also deserves such sanctions.
Cricket needs to keep expanding its global footprint but full member status can’t be granted when it’s not deserving.
Many of the associate nations who want to follow in the footsteps of Afghanistan and Ireland would no longer see Test cricket as the ultimate goal anyway. They are better able to compete with the big dogs in T20 cricket, as we saw earlier this summer when teams like Namibia, Scotland and the Netherlands were able to upset full member nations.
The Women’s Under-19 T20 World Cup which is underway in South Africa highlights the changing face of global cricket.
Bangladesh beat Australia in the first match of a 16-team tournament which features countries such as Indonesia, the United States, Rwanda and the UAE.
Nick Hockley. (Photo by Mark Evans/Getty Images)
This latest drama involving Cricket Australia’s cancellation of the Afghanistan series has predictably led to the old “sport and politics shouldn’t mix” debate rearing its ugly head.
The Afghanistan Cricket Board labelled the decision “pathetic” and threatened to complain to the ICC over Australia “prioritising political interests over the principles of fair play and sportsmanship”.
CA chief executive Nick Hockley was spot on when he responded by saying “basic human rights is not politics”.
That’s not to say CA has always done the right thing when it comes to helping the smaller nations. Australia have rarely played sides like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Ireland while scheduling regular clashes home and abroad with money spinners India and England.
There is a perception that Australia will use “security concerns” to call off an inconvenient tour against some nations who are not high on the list of priorities.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Leg-spinner Rashid Khan’s threats to not return to the BBL will have little to no impact on CA’s decision-making.
He’s a popular player and has been warmly embraced by the Adelaide Strikers and their fans since his arrival in 2017 but in the grand scheme of things, if he does not come back next summer, CA is not all of a sudden going to change its policy.
If other nations follow CA’s lead or the ICC bans Afghanistan from international competition, Rashid and his national teammates may have no option but to travel the global T20 circuit, similar to how the likes of Barry Richards and Clive Rice switched to English county cricket when South Africa was expelled due to apartheid.
There is no easy or quick fix to this issue but the ICC needs to act rather than hide behind working groups and press releases for the best interests of cricket, which after all is what it’s supposed to do.
Sedz
Guest
Also Australia should be banned for touring Pakistan. Pakistan rulers were in bed with Taliban and they provided shelter until US left. So shame on them and Australia for not banning them.
Peter
Guest
Totally agree CA picks and chooses when to take a stand if they were serious about this they would t have played them in The T20 World Cup because nothing had really changed from the cancelled test.
Andrew
Roar Rookie
The butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker.
Jordan
Guest
The ICC has no power in this situation, or any situation. They are a convenient punching bag, but it is (like always) up to the full members to decide on anything. The ICC is just an administrative body that implements the decisions of its members.
mrl
Roar Rookie
Again!!
JamesH
Roar Guru
I agree it should be unified, but at the same time I would be disappointed if Australia's approach was 'no one else is addressing it so why should we?'. Australia's stance makes it more likely that other countries and/or the ICC will take the issue seriously, and that it might spread to other sports or even industries (at which point the Taliban might actually start to feel some pressure). I can't see CA coming out on the wrong side of history here, even if the Taliban won't budge.
Big Daddy
Roar Rookie
You caught everyone early with this one . By the sound of it he f####d himself .
Grand Panjandrum
Guest
No humour intended, particularly on the second paragraph
Grand Panjandrum
Guest
Some in that team would like the Taliban. Groups don't rise to power off the back of total unpopularity. The fact is that about 25% of the Afghan people support the Taliban. Play that average out in the squad and you've got a couple that would be supporters.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
I haven't been able to make up my mind on this issue, going back and forth. This is a good clear review. Thanks, Paul.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I have the ICC policy, but is buried somewhere 1000 comments and about 100 pages back in my comments from 18 months ago. Was a consistently discussed topic, at the time though. A bit of an impossibility to find and drag back out unfortunately - Google is no help :( But it was definitely topical and relevant at the time. -- I disagree re CA being disadvantaged by ICC events...CA was the host of the T20WC and absolutely had an input into scheduling. That's an unchallengeable given, as evidenced by the schedule which was finalised re Aus matches almost entirely being in prime time on weekends - or thereabouts. Every ICC event has always worked with the host re prioritising scheduling to meet the host nation's requirements. Would be nonsensical to argue that the host nation (in this case, CA) has no say in ICC scheduling for an ICC event - both dates and venues. It's always been the case. For consistency, CA should have boycotted its T20WC fixture. Unfortunately, they have boycotted what would have been, loss-making bilateral engagements with Afg where there was no *gain* for the Australian team (or CA), but in between CA chose to not only play, but actually host, Afg, in the ICC T20 WC, where not doing so would have been detrimental to Australia and by extension, CA. It's pretty clear cut, as much as semantics may provide the opportunity to *justify* otherwise. i.e. "it was an ICC event". CA has been v inconsistent in its policy approach both pre and post Taliban takeover.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Do you have a source on that ICC Policy? I’ve never heard of that one before, all the reports I’ve read indicate that Afghanistan had made a commitment to implement a women’s program when granted full membership, which they made token steps towards pre-Taliban. In any event, I don’t see the relevance of bad decisions in the past to this decision. Afghanistan should never have been granted full membership in the first instance, a decision CA was party to. That doesn’t mean the current decision is not the right one. I don’t have a major problem with them playing one-off games at World Cups, I don’t see an inconsistency between playing when forced to at ICC events and boycotting bilaterals. Why should Australia be disadvantaged in big tournaments because the ICC refuses to do the right thing? That said, if CA did boycott World Cup games, id support that too.
Linphoma
Guest
Ok, say the ICC embraces women's cricket, inspite of the sovereign government, as represented by the Afghan cricket authority. Identify Afghan qualified women in the diaspora; Pakistan might be fertile recruiting ground. Plus the senior players already escaped/emancipated. House them somewhere under ICC finances like the Afghan women's football team in Melbourne. Coaching, mentoring, education and playing meaningful fixtures against 2nd tier nations and local competition might see a rose blossom. It would be a meaningful PR exercise for the worldwide cricket brotherhood. Just my two bobs worth saddened by politics and ideology.
Pedro
Guest
Not sure about this. We managed to have no problems playing Zimbabwe when they were run by one of the most appalling regimes in the world and Pakistan when they were harbouring bin Laden and offering something more than tacit support to the Taliban. I don’t think there is a country in world cricket who can claim a perfect human rights record. It all becomes a matter of degree. On balance I say let Afghanistan (men) play international cricket. The alternative achieves nothing except a faint glow of self righteousness.
Vamsi K
Roar Rookie
What ICC can do without hurting the players but at the same time sending a message is to ban Afghanistan or let the players who are anyways abroad form their own board and select a female team as well from whatever available players they can find. Alternatively ICC can actually create an ICC 11 and select players from nations which don't have test playing status. Can even form ICC Europe 11, Asia 11 and so on if there are enough players.
mrl
Roar Rookie
Who did Michael Clarke F..k on December 17…?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
The problem here Tempo, is that CA endorsed an ICC policy in the late 2010s (along with the BCCI and others - I think it was around 2016) that stated (roughly) that ICC Full Membership was contingent on developing the women's game, UNLESS, there were mitigating factors such as religious beliefs that would otherwise preclude female participation. That is what got Afghanistan Full Member (Test) status) in 2017, without a developed and committed-to women's development pathway. That was less than 5 years before the Taliban took Kabul and thus took control of national governance. In no way do I condone the Taliban's societal doctrines (esp towards women), but at the same time, we can't let CA have a free ride here, taking a position that gives them reputational capital gains re refusing to play the ACB side when it suits them to do so, yet concurrently being active participants in endorsing ICC policies that provides exemptions to female involvement on "religious" grounds. CA picking and choosing when it is "appropriate" to play Afghanistan, when the picking/choosing comes down on the side of *don't play* when CA has nothing to gain from it but financial loss (home Test 2021, away UAE tour 2023), but coming down on the side of *playing* - (T20 WC 2022) when CA had much on the line as hosts and the need for tournament points. It may not be an easy situation to navigate, but CA has been far from consistent. And its inconsistency unfortunately aligns with a pattern of "what suits CA best".
Brian Westlake
Roar Rookie
That was nearly humorous. Nearly
Grand Panjandrum
Guest
The US didn't abandon the people to the Taliban. The US concluded about 8 years ago that they couldn't win the war, and extracted themselves from it. They lost. Unless it's a country like Grenada, the US doesn't know how to win a war anymore.
CPM
Roar Rookie
It’s not their fault that after receiving test status the US and its puppet allies decided to abandon them to the Taliban. I’m sure that their woman’s team would have been playing today if it were not not for this betrayal, and yes the ICC must be taking the lead on this not some virtue signaling association.