Saturday, 21 June 2014

WICL: The Case Against - Keeping Women In Their Place

As we all know by now, the ECB don't want their cricketers playing in the WICL. But why? What is the case against? It seems to come down to this:
  1. It's a private company.
  2. Er...
  3. That's it!
Pretty-much the only case anyone has been able to make against the WICL is that it is a private company.

And much as I applaud multi-millionaire Giles Clarke's sudden conversion to radical communism and the abolition of private property, I'm having a hard time believing it!

Lizzy Ammon has gone slightly further here (in an otherwise supportive piece) by suggesting that a private company might threaten the "reputation of the game" and hinting that a private company might carry more risk of corruption; but if Clarke is really worried about malfeasance, he'd be better off doing more to tackle actual, proven corruption in the men's game, rather than railing about possible corruption in a women's tournament that hasn't actually happened yet!

So, what's the real truth? I guess like most things in life, it's about power. Power to control the women's game, and ensure that it doesn't become financially competitive with men's cricket. It's about keeping women 'in their place' on the sidelines, earning pocket-money salaries that Clarke himself wouldn't get out of bed for. That's why Clarke really opposes the WICL. And oddly enough... that's why I support it!


  1. Merely to add substance to the debate .....
    The ECB may feel that, having ploughed loads of money into a loss-making women's cricket infrastructure, it is a bit rich (pardon the pun) for a private organisation to exploit the fruits of the ECB's work for financial gain. Put another way is it fair for a private organisation to take the cream without investing in the grass roots ?
    As I say, just to add to the debate. I'm not taking sides.

  2. Interesting point, though it can be countered to some extent by the fact that the WICL have said from the start that they will reinvest some of their profits in the development of the women's game around the world - including in England.

  3. Interesting.
    Again, second guessing what, say the ECB might ask; (i) how much is 'some of their profits' and (ii) via what re-investment method. The WICL handing over a wodge of cash to the ECB to invest might be seen with more favour by the ECB than the WICL unilaterally managing that investment themselves.
    Obviously until (a) the ECB actually state their reasons for objecting, one is left to 2nd guess them and (b) until the WICL publicise precisely what the business proposition is its difficult to evaluate the arguments for and against.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.