[Full text below]
On
the second day of the third Test at Southampton, Moeen Ali wore two wristbands.
One said “Save Gaza”, the other said “Free Palestine”.
I
happened to be at The Ageas Bowl that day, and at one point Mo was fielding not
10 yards from us. You would never have noticed the wristbands. But the cameras
did.
The
ECB defended his right to wear them, saying his stance was “humanitarian, not
political.” This seems reasonable. Ali is Muslim, but not Palestinian. Born in
Birmingham, he’s of Pakistani descent.
The
ICC saw it differently. Its code prohibits players from “conveying messages
which relate to political, religious or racial activities or causes”, and Ali
was warned by match referee David Boon (yes, he of the 52 beers on the plane,
now in a rather more sober capacity,) not to wear them again. He is free to
express his views on such causes away from cricket, but is not permitted to do
so on the field of play. Again this seems reasonable.
Then
the very next day, the England team – including Moeen – wore Help for Heroes
logos on their shirts to commemorate of the 100th anniversary of WW1. Help for
Heroes does terrific work, raising a great deal of money and awareness to help wounded
British veterans of recent and current conflicts. But surely no one would pretend
it isn’t political. Anything involving the human fallout of nations in armed
conflict is by definition political.
Twitter
got very aerated. The media’s punchier elements latched on to the apparent
hypocrisy. The old arguments about how “sport and politics should never mix”
came trundling out.
Sport
and politics have always mixed, whether or not they should. In cricket, the
Basil D’Oliveira affair played no small part in bringing apartheid to
world-wide public attention, and lit the touch paper for South Africa’s exile
from international sport that helped end the regime.
More
recently, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga risked their lives and guaranteed their
own exile from their homeland, wearing black armbands mourning “The death of
democracy” in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe during the opening match of the 2003 Cricket
World Cup.
Would
these incidents have been allowed under today’s rules?
But
with hindsight, would anyone rather they hadn’t happened?
Sport
at all levels is a great arena for doing good. If you play cricket, chances are
you’ll have played in your fair share of charity matches.
In
the international game, the McGrath Foundation Pink Test in Sydney, fighting
breast cancer in memory of Glenn’s late wife Jane, has in a short time become a
cricketing institution. The Lord’s Taveners, A Chance to Shine: it’s
everywhere.
Cricket
must continue to do its bit to support and draw attention to worthy causes, but
there will always be fine lines to be drawn. I do not envy those who must draw
them, but the key to doing so must surely be consistency.
-
ends 482 words -
No comments:
Post a Comment