Sporting victory

English cricket makes principled stand over Zimbabwe

The decision by the England and Wales Cricket Board's to let its team play a World Cup match in Zimbabwe on February 13th may not have been universally popular, (though the fact that a group of anti-Mugabe demonstrators broke through security at Lords to make their protest during the news conference is a scandal in itself in this age of terrorism), but to those who support the ideal that sport should be devoid of politics whenever possible, it represents as big a victory as any England is likely to secure at the competition.

Don't get me wrong, I'm personally a neutral on the subject of President Mugabe's Zimbabwean regime. Of course, we can all have knee-jerk reactions to the apparent injustices, but I wouldn't presume to be well enough informed to make a judgement worth inflicting on others.

What I do know, however, is sport. And in sporting terms there was no reason for England to pull out of the match. Why should the English have been expected to make a unilateral decision on a boycott? If it's wrong for England to play in Zimbabwe at present then surely it's wrong for all the competing teams. If so, then it was incumbent on the International Cricket Council to make the decision for cricket as a whole and switch the scheduled matches to another location. As we know, the ICC gave the matches the go ahead. So why the double jeopardy?

In addition, the World Cup has been on the schedule for years, with Zimbabwe earmarked as a co-host. Similarly, Robert Mugabe didn't become Zimbabwe's leader last week. His regime has been in place long enough to build a reputation infamous enough to generate strong feelings worldwide.

So why should cricket have been forced into making a decision at the 11th hour? I'm not aware of any atrocity that acted as a trigger to the British government's opposition to the match. I'm not dismissing Zimbabwe's social and economic crisis for a moment, but whatever incidents have occurred in recent weeks, weren't they just more of the same? So why the last minute grandstanding by Prime Minister Blair and others? If they had objections they've had years to make them public.

Finally, how can one cricket match, or even the six due to be played in Zimbabwe, imply tacit support for Mugabe's regime. As British Olympian turned politician, Seb Coe, pointed out, Britain doesn't divorce itself from Zimbabwe in the political or economic arenas, which is surely more influential than sport. So why should English cricket be asked to do what its government doesn't?

Unfortunately, while the ECB's decision means England will play in Zimbabwe, I doubt that's the end of the issue. The match has now acquired far more significance than it really warrants, none of it sporting. It's also become a world stage on which President Mugabe's opponents have threatened to publicize their cause. And, whether the match passes without incident or blows up in the faces or the organizers, we'll no doubt have to listen to gray suits from one side or the other making political capital from the outcome.

That said, there was a principle at stake -- that of sporting autonomy. Which, at least on this occasion, the ECB had the courage to maintain.

 

Related information

Stories

Terry Baddoo Archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video