Cricket Australia has opened itself up to accusations of virtue signalling and a boycott of convenience by being content to play Afghanistan at the World Cup but not wanting to play them at other times.
It’s easy to show your contempt for the country’s treatment of women and lack of a program for female cricketers when you want to lighten your playing schedule but when there are two points on the line at a World Cup, it’s acceptable to play Afghanistan.
This view was also articulated by Afghanistan fast bowler Naveen-ul-Haq who posted on social media: “Refusing to play the bilateral series, now It will be interesting to see cricket Australia stand in the WorldCup #standrads (sic) #humanrights Or 2 points”
It’s an interesting subplot heading into Tuesday’s clash at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai and the match has plenty of meaning with Afghanistan still in the semi-final hunt after winning their past three matches following an early upset of England.
Despite rising to third with five straight victories, third-placed Australia are still not guaranteed a semi spot, needing a win over Afghanistan or Bangladesh in their last group game.
Cricket Australia’s execs cancelled (or merely postponed if you believe the corporate spin) what was set to be the first Test against the Afghanistan men’s side at Hobart in November, 2021, claiming they felt it was necessary “until a later time when the situation is clearer”.
A three-match bilateral ODI series in March of this year was also canned because of CA’s stance but the Australian men’s team did take on Afghanistan last November during the World Cup at Adelaide Oval.
To be clear, it’s admirable for a sporting organisation to take a stand when the easy option is to pass the buck to the federal government, which has a history for rarely being definitive in such matters irrespective of which party is in power.
CA chief executive Nick Hockley made it known before the World Cup that there was never any chance of Australia boycotting this match despite the previous decisions to refuse to play them at home and abroad.
He said in an ABC radio interview it was a pre-condition to compete in an ICC event like the World Cup to “fulfil all of your scheduled matches”.
“We chose not to play our last bilateral series against Afghanistan. I think it’s really important to remember the context of that time was that there had been a very significant curtailment of women’s rights in Afghanistan,” he said in reference to the Talbian regaining power in the war-torn nation and banning women from playing cricket under Islamic law.
“We consulted extensively at that time and I really think that ICC events, as compared to playing a bilateral one-on-one, are a bit different and certainly through that consultation process we foreshadowed that we had an upcoming World Cup that Afghanistan were more than likely to qualify.
Rashid Khan appeals for the wicket of Liam Livingstone. (Photo by Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
“A bilateral series is under our auspices and we are very committed to making sure we support the growth of cricket for women and girls all around the world, including in Afghanistan.”
Former Australian Test opener Ed Cowan, emphasising he was playing the role of devil’s advocate, debated recently on The Grandstand Cricket Podcast that “morals are morals” and argued there was no variation between playing a nation in a bilateral series or an ICC event.
“Making a stand only is really worth making a stand if you’re willing to lose something,” he said.
“Giving up three games of bilateral cricket is mere virtue signalling in many respects. If you’re serious about making a stand isn’t this the moment?
“You’ve got to be very careful about what you say and how it plays out in the future. I’m unsure Cricket Australia should have come out and said what they did because now I think they look slightly silly.”
Australia are not scheduled to play them again until Afghanistan is due to host a three-match T20 series in August next year at a neutral location for safety reasons.
They are pencilled in to host a Test in July or August of 2026, likely to be at a venue in North Queensland or Darwin.
Hockley would not say whether CA would continue its boycott with a decision to be made closer to the time of the scheduled fixtures.
“We have made it very clear what we stand for – that we’re a sport for all. We want to make Australians proud,” he said.
“Our hope is that working with the ICC and Afghanistan Cricket Board that their women’s program will be able to, over time, re-establish and we can resume playing bilateral cricket.”
South Africa was on the receiving end of the most famous sporting boycott of all when the nation was banned from the Olympics from 1964-1988 due to the apartheid policies of its then white minority government.
If you apply the Cricket Australia logic to that boycott, does that mean it still would have been acceptable to play South Africa in a sporting contest at a globally sanctioned event but not in bilateral competition?
Thankfully that did not happen during the apartheid era.
Rashid Khan and Hashmatullah Shahidi celebrate after their win over Pakistan. (Photo by Matthew Lewis-ICC/ICC via Getty Images)
Discrimination is discrimination, whether it’s based on race, gender or any other factor.
And while the Afghanistan men’s team flourishes and earns respect for its efforts in doing well at a global tournament, many of the nation’s top female players have fled the country following the demise of the women’s program.
The ICC needs to be held accountable for its typical paper tiger stance during this ongoing issue.
All 12 full member nations are supposed to have a fully functioning women’s program but the world governing body has conveniently turned a blind eye to Afghanistan.
The ICC set up a “working group” two years ago to address the issue and has repeatedly been in contact with the Afghanistan Cricket Board but no progress has been made.
As hard as it would be to tell a nation that only earned full Test status six years ago that it is losing that right, that’s exactly what the ICC should do.
Otherwise nothing will be solved and the Afghanistan men’s team will continue to gain acceptance while their female counterparts will likely never get the chance to do likewise.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Removing the Taliban from Afghanistan is way easier than removing those 3. Removing the Taliban just means bringing the population's actions into line with its relgiocultural values. Removing the NSW cartel requires selection on form; far less likely a possibility.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
I find it hard to reconcile how immovable you claim the NSW bowlers are from the Australian side versus how straightforward it is to remove a government borne of violence.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I do. A stance by the majority would dismiss this extremist minority. The men don't want to.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
I wasn't referring to any specific politician. It was a facetious remark to point out the ridiculousness of how straightforward you're claiming the act of overthrowing a violent regime would be. Do you genuinely think that the male Afghan population are all living the high life? Or that standing up to the regime would lead to you walking away with your head still attached to your body? Life is not a Michael Bay movie; bad guys tend to win.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
No despots there. Mark McGowan was loved. West Aussies lived the best life during covid. The east had no idea because your information comes only from the eastern media. The moment men realise that partnership with women is better than servitude, Afghanistan would change. It can...but it won't.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
Are you speaking from any position of authority or experience when you speak of how easy it is to overthrow an oppressive regime? Did you help execute a coup against a particularly despotic former WA premier that the Eastern states didn't know about or something? If so, can we utilize your wisdom around the rest of the world? North Korean citizens need to heed your words. And if you have time to resolve the tensions in the Middle East, that'd be much appreciated.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
@ Jamesb. Re the ICC reducing the ODI WC - the problem here I think is that ICC has few revenue streams - ODI WC, T20WC, ODI Champions Trophy, WTC Final. I can't remember the precise figures, but I'm pretty sure the ODI WC is by far the biggest money earner for the ICC (i.e. vs the T20WC simply because of the amount of ads 50 over cricket allows for). If the ICC income reduces, then revenue flowing via the revenue-sharing-model to the less-financially viable ICC members also reduces. So I'm sure the ICC thinking is not only about length of tournament, but also where that tournament is played - the middle of the night playing times for the nations generating the bulk of the broadcast revenue is going to see a revenue hit. Which is why I think we will keep seeing ICC tournaments swinging back to the South Asia/Australasian timezones fairly reqularly.
jamesb
Roar Guru
I never said that it was easy. Every country has issues. I think South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia will host it in 2027. There has been a suggestion from the MCC about reducing ODI’s after 2027 WC. Maybe a possible solution is to reduce the length of the 50 over world cup. Could Sri Lanka and Bangladesh co host a reduced WC? This current edition did begin on the 5th of October. Today it is 7th of November. The WC should have been done and dusted by now. Instead it will still go on until November 19. It’s way too long. Just look at FIFA WC. Not many countries can host a 48 team WC on their own. And with cricket returning to the Olympics in 2028, the ICC may be in a position to reduce the length of world cups in the future. With LA staging the Olympics, they will have the infrastructure in the future to host a cricket world cup.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
ICC Associate Members - all of whom can qualify for the ODI WC (whether they would get there via qualification tournaments is another matter, but irrelevant) - includes China, Iran, Myanmar, PNG, Qatar, etc... In fact there's about 100 ICC members. Afghanistan has Full Member status which is now problematic re playing Tests given it's in violation of the eligibility criteria, but CA actually not playing them in ODIs raises the question what would CA's stance be about playing any of those other nations given all have issues regarding repression and other human rights violations in one form or another.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The problem with that jamesb, is you're assuming the issues that prevent hosting are somehow solvable by the ICC. The South African posters on here tell me that at the moment, RSA is having rolling black outs throughout the country - sure you guarantee some power for key games at key times, but you can't guarantee it day in, day out for 50 straight days like you need for this cup. It'd also be a disaster for fans, placing significant strain on the country. I'm not sure the ICC can 'solve that'. As for Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, these countries are financial basket-cases, they're broke. The Aussie cricket team was donating money when they toured there last time. Again, these tournaments cost a lot of money to host, how are these countries meant to do that? None of this is ideal, I get the sentiment, but it's just not as easy as you make it sound.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
They can and should. The Taliban gives Afghani men a very comfortable life...it takes a courageous man to stand up. Naveen Ul Haq is not such a man.
jamesb
Roar Guru
" You can hardly keep going to the Windies, who fail to bloody qualify" Unfortunately in this world cup, the Windies are out of sight, out of mind. Kinda forgotten, which is pretty sad. Ideally you would rotate between the countries and give everyone a turn at hosting it. Whatever issues are plaguing other countries from hosting a wc, there should be attempt to try and solve those issues. We shouldn't be just content with going back to the same three or four countries to the host the tournament, otherwise you are not growing the game.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Long nights during such conflict.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Just some clarification here. ICC members need only be Associate Members to play ODIs. Therefore even if Afghanistan were stripped of its Full Member status (no Tests), it could still be an Associate Member and play bilateral ODIs and WC ODIs, even if it doesn't have women's teams/comps/development pathways etc. ICC Associate Membership provides for cricket boards not to have women's domestic cricket structures for cultural or religious reasons. Cricket Australia voted as a member of the ICC Board to approve the Associate Member eligibility criteria in 2017. So clearly CA's position re not playing Afghanistan in ODIs (as per earlier this year) is about broader issues, rather than womens' cricket in Afghanistan, otherwise they would be hypocritical. Be under no illusions, CA very carefully worded its statement in January this year to reference its protest at the Taliban's restrictions on female education and employment and to not say it wasn't because women can't currently play cricket within Afghanistan, because it knows very well it is a party to allowing members not to have womens cricket (Full members aside).
The Bush
Roar Guru
I'm not sure it's that big of a deal that it's happening in India again. Some South African posters on here have said before that RSA is not in a position to host a tournament like this right now, England had it last time and us the time before that. You can hardly keep going to the Windies, who fail to bloody qualify and Sri Lanka/Bangladesh aren't suitable or able to. Logistically, options are limited.
sedz
Roar Rookie
I only hope this game is played where it is considered safe. Rizwan said before his India game that he will dedicate the victory to Gaza. Rightfully, India won the game. Last time when Pakistan won the game against in UAE, he prayed in the ground. And Rizwan immediately prayed in the ground. Waqar said "Waqar Younis says Rizwan offering Namaz in front of Hindus during Indo-Pak match was special".
sedz
Roar Rookie
Let me also say if this WC is hosted in Pakistan as asked, And one of the commentators accidentally comes up with Israel flag. Thats it. One of those guys will blow up. Almost all the fans will come with stuff that can blow themselves up. lol. I am pretty sure this comment will be blocked
sedz
Roar Rookie
Let me also say if this WC is hosted in Pakistan as asked, And one of the commentators accidentally comes up with Israel flag. Thats it. One of those guys will blow up. Almost all the fans will come will come with stuff that can blow themselves up. lol.
sedz
Roar Rookie
1. Afghanistan are allowed full member status without having a women’s team. When they were given the full status they were not ruled by Taliban. Back then US and NATO forces controlled them. 2. The ICC have allowed a few countries to dictate terms. I agree and it has been the case. 3. And even in this world cup, India are hosting it, just twelve years after the last time back in 2011. Again, where do you host it? Do you think hosting in Sri Lanka will bring money? Or if hosting in Pakistan is safe? Probably you can host in UAE. But they have just 3 grounds. 4. Next time, it is hosted in US and Caribean islands. As an expatriate we love this is happening there.
jamesb
Roar Guru
The ICC have allowed a few countries to dictate terms. Australia cancels a bilateral series without any sort of consequence. Afghanistan are allowed full member status without having a women's team. And even in this world cup, India are hosting it, just twelve years after the last time back in 2011. Perception is that India runs the sport. ICC is a toothless tiger.