The Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket has blasted the ECB in a landmark report which brands cricket institutionally racist, sexist and classist.
Commission Chair Cindy Butts told the media, in a damning inversion of the ECB’s own promotional slogan:
“The stark reality is cricket is not a game for everyone.”
Specifically on women’s cricket, the report concludes:
“Women are marginalised and routinely experience sexism and misogyny. The women’s game is treated as subordinate to the men’s game, and women have little or no power, voice or influence within cricket’s decision-making structures.”
The ICEC’s report makes 44 recommendations which it believes can transform cricket within the next 5-7 years.
Amongst these recommendations are calls for salary and governance equity which (if implemented) would completely remodel the landscape of cricket in England and Wales.
This includes a call for the ECB to move towards fully equal pay at domestic level by 2029 and at international level by 2030, with England women being paid (on average) the same renumeration, including match fees, central retainers and commercial payments, to the men’s white-ball team.
It also recommends that women’s salaries in the Hundred should be equalised with the men by 2025; whilst for domestic players in regional cricket, average pay and prize money should be equal by 2029.
The detail of the report allows the ECB little-to-no wriggle-room in terms of how “equality” should be calculated, and makes it very clear that just equalising match fees (for example) will be far from sufficient to meet their criteria.
The ECB are under no obligation to implement any of these recommendations, and doing so will be a huge challenge. Pay in domestic men’s cricket is largely dictated by the market, and funding the regions sufficiently such that Stars skipper Bryony Smith is paid the same as Surrey men’s captain Chris Jordan will cost the ECB an extraordinary amount of money. Equalising salaries in The Hundred alone would cost the ECB almost £6m per season. Equity will not come cheap.
On governance, the report recommends that the women’s game should have equal representation to the men’s game, including direct representation “in the same way as FCCs [the men’s First Class Counties]”.
It should be emphasised that this recommendation is explicitly for the men’s and women’s games to be represented equally, and is separate from the call for men and women to be equally present on the game’s boards and committees. To achieve this, the ECB will need to give governance representation to the women’s regions, giving them a vote in key decisions, such as the future of The Hundred – so the men’s First Class Counties will be unable to just abolish The Hundred without considering the impact on the women’s game.
Again, this won’t be straightforward. The men’s counties are big independent businesses, and there are 18 of them; whilst the women’s regions are essentially owned by the ECB, dependent on their “mother” counties for resources, and are only 8 in number. So does each region get 2¼ votes? And how do we ensure the men’s counties don’t put pressure on “their” region’s representatives to vote a particular way? (Especially given that many of the individuals working in women’s regional cricket will be hoping one day to apply for (much better paid) jobs in the men’s game?)
The ECB have promised to reflect carefully on the Commissions recommendations over the next few months. But reflecting is free and easy, and won’t change anything. The hard part is very much to come.
- Cultural change across a sport founded on misogyny is far from straightforward – by Raf Nicholson for the Guardian