England, the Taliban and how sport can influence politics

According to Robert Kennedy, “the world of sports knows no religious, racial or political differences”, but amidst political fallout surrounding England’s upcoming cricket game against Afghanistan, do sportspeople have a role to play in politics?

England’s men’s one-day cricket team have become unlikely central actors in a political dispute over the treatment of women in Afghanistan. A cross-party letter, signed by dozens of MPs, has united politicians including Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn on calling for England to boycott the February game over the treatment of women in the Taliban-run state, has caused the game to be plunged into dispute.

Since Kabul returned to Taliban rule in 2021, Afghanistan has become a gender apartheid state, with the UN claiming that women have been stripped of fundamental rights. There have been calls for the international community to respond more strongly, leading some to question whether sport can play a role, as it did with racial apartheid in South Africa.

In relation to cricket specifically, the Taliban’s prohibitions on women’s sport have forced female international players into exile for fear of their lives. The governing body for cricket, the International Cricket Council (ICC), requires all full member nations to have a Women’s team, a rule which Afghanistan has flaunted. Australia has recently boycotted games against Afghanistan for this reason, helping build pressure on England.

England cricket has precedent when it comes to boycotting games for political reasons. During the 2003 Cricket World Cup, England ultimately boycotted a game against Zimbabwe in protest against the rule of Robert Mugabe, following pressure from the Blair government, a move which captain, Nasser Hussain, later described as being ‘very proud’ of. However, there was some criticism of this move. In the same world cup, Zimbabwean players Andy Flower and Henry Olonga wore black armbands to mourn the ‘death of democracy’ in their homeland, a decision which Hussein has stated his admiration for, stating his wish for a stand based on ‘moral grounds’.

Cricket as a game is rooted in imperialist origins, with the sport being used to spread the values of the Empire, and some see a possible boycott as another example of western virtue-signalling, indicating the hypocrisy of western-allied Saudi Arabia escaping sanctions for similar gender-based rules. One Afghanistani women’s player, currently living in exile in Canada, has urged England to play, in order to continue to bring attention to the plight of women in Afghanistan.

The idea of the game being used to positively impact the situation in Afghanistan has been reflected by the England Cricket Board (ECB) who have highlighted how cricket is 'a source of hope and positivity’ in a region decimated by war. British charities have used cricket in Afghanistan to improve social mobility, showing how sport can be used for good. The argument against a boycott has been supported by Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, who has suggested the game should go ahead and England white-ball captain Jos Buttler, who has pushed back against calls for a boycott.

In contrast, states such as Russia and Qatar have used sporting events in an attempt to rehabilitate their public image, particularly in an attempt to cover-up poor conditions for migrant workers and deflect criticism over the persecution of LGBTQ individuals. By participating in sporting events in nations engaging in human rights abuses, England and other western nations risk engaging in ‘sportswashing’. Given some high-ranking lawyers have argued that the international community have an ‘obligation’ to end the gender segregation in Afghanistan, perhaps a boycott is the morally correct route to take.

Personally, I believe that England should travel to Afghanistan, but only given certain conditions being met. Firstly, England’s players must be allowed, should they wish, to make some form of protest during the game. An armband or other kit choice to bring attention to the plight of women and LGBTQ individuals would bring the attention to the top of international newsfeeds, while still allowing the game to go ahead. By following in the footsteps of Olonga and Flower, an armband would allow Jos Buttler to avoid the regrets of Nasser Hussein, while similar schemes, such as the Rainbow Laces campaign in the Premier League, have been seen as a ‘huge success’.

Secondly, any sporting engagement with Afghanistan must be conditional on steps being taken to reinstate women’s sport in the country. England have a golden opportunity to leverage the economic benefits of their visit to bring Afghanistani authorities to the negotiating table. The ICC has been toothless in enforcing its own rules surrounding women’s sport to Afghanistan, and England must bring attention to this issue. Therefore, England and other cricketing nations should reduce Afghanistan to a pariah status until there is, at minimum, a concrete plan to restore women’s cricket and end the exile of players.

Overall, the decision of whether to boycott is not one that can be taken lightly. Given the colonial origins of cricket, and the role of England and the rest of the West in allowing the Taliban to come to power in Afghanistan, careful consideration must be taken to ensure that any action taken will improve conditions in Afghanistan, rather than being empty preachings. However, England cricket and the Labour government have a golden opportunity to influence change in a positive manner, and should see this game as a chance to do good, rather than allow it to descend into vitriolic debate.