Equity in Cricket report: 'Lord's embodies English cricket and can drive much-needed change'
- Published
Racism, sexism, classism and elitism widespread in cricket - report chair Cindy Butts
Of all the times for cricket to be taking a look in the mirror, perhaps this week gives the clearest reflection.
Either by accident or design, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket's (ICEC) damning report into the "widespread" discrimination in the game crash-landed on the eve of a Lord's Ashes Test - findings of racism, sexism, classism and elitism laid bare just in time for the showpiece event of the marquee Test series at the self-styled 'Home of Cricket'.
As the report says, Lord's and the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) have a "powerful and unique" role in the game. Across the 317 pages, Lord's is mentioned 56 times and the MCC 125. As a comparison to the other four men's Ashes venues this summer, The Oval crops up four times, Edgbaston, Headingley and Old Trafford not at all.
From the 44 ICEC recommendations, Lord's or the MCC is directly mentioned in three of them. Recommendation 18, involving the removal of historic fixtures between Eton and Harrow, and Oxford and Cambridge, has gained most traction.
"Those who argue for the continuation of the historic fixtures do not seem to understand the damage they are doing to the reputation of MCC and Lord's in the public imagination - compounding a view, whether fair or not, that MCC members are out of touch, elitist and unrepresentative of both the wider population and those who play cricket," says the report.
"As the game strives to become more inclusive, as it clearly must, decisions such as these at 'the Home of Cricket' do more harm than some people appear to realise."
To those who have read or heard of the report, perceptions of its findings will be influenced by individual experiences of the game. It is human nature to have our opinions shaped by the things that have happened to us.
If anyone has spent any time around cricket and not been the subject of, witnessed, or heard of some form of discrimination, they can count themselves to be extremely fortunate, simply because the problems in the sport reflect what happens in society.
To be personal for a moment, I come from Stoke-on-Trent, was state educated and have played club cricket since I was nine or 10 years old. I'm now closer to 40 than I'd like to be and, to my knowledge, have never been discriminated against on the basis of race, gender or class. My dad once complained to the coach of Staffordshire Under-12s because he thought I wasn't playing enough, but the truth is my leg-spin wasn't very good - I started keeping wicket soon after.
I mention this because my own impression of Lord's is shaped by what I know (or think I know) cricket to be.
And, clearly, Lord's is different to every other cricket ground in the country. The Veuve Clicquot stand provides ammunition for the champagne corks fired on to the outfield, more shirts and ties are here than at the other four Ashes Tests combined, and I'm not 100% sure I'm allowed to go into the pavilion (I've never tried on a matchday, but have everywhere else).
Not that any of this is "wrong" per se, or strictly limited to cricket. People get dressed up to go to Ascot or Wimbledon; it can be fun to have an experience that is different from the way you might normally watch sport.
Still, if somewhere makes you feel different, like you may have to alter your behaviour, is it welcoming? And if that somewhere declares itself to be the "Home of Cricket", should it make everyone feel welcome?
Lord's is inextricably linked with an MCC membership that controls the ground and, therefore, holds considerable sway over the game.
According to the MCC's own website, applications for membership cannot be made until a candidate is at least 16 years old. A candidate must be proposed by a current full member, then interviewed by two "endorsers". The waiting list is approximately 29 years, which means the youngest age a new member could be is 45, if they're lucky. Women were not admitted until as recently as 1999.
In a survey of its membership carried out in November 2021, the MCC found that 95-96% of its membership is white. There were not enough members who identified as black, black British, Caribbean or African to register a result. Of the 27% of the membership who responded, 48% felt the MCC should do more in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion.
These numbers add context to the row raging within the MCC over the historic fixtures, highlighted in such damning fashion by the ICEC report, along with the fact that England's women have never played a Test at Lord's.
But to focus solely on the remaining presence of the Eton-Harrow and Oxford-Cambridge fixtures would be to ignore other truths relating to Lord's and the MCC.
England's women have played 16 one-day internationals here, more than any other ground in this country. The MCC Foundation supports more than 3,200 state-educated players, operating 77 hubs across the UK. Lord's claims to have welcomed the most diverse audience for matches in The Hundred, when compared to the other seven venues.
Perhaps one of the issues is the image cricket fans and the wider public have of Lord's. Perception can be reality. The perception is that Lord's is male, old, white and privileged. The reality of the England men's team playing at Lord's on Wednesday is that it is all-white and nine of the XI went to private school for at least some part of their education.
Naturally, the majority of the changes required in the game will have to be driven by the England and Wales Cricket Board, but Lord's, as the most recognisable symbol of the game in this country, has a part to play.
"Just as some within the game try to move it forward, others seek to rely on its history to hold it back," says the ICEC report.
Lord's is the living embodiment of cricket's history. Now it can help shape its future.