WestminsterResearchhttp://www.westminster.ac.uk/westminsterresearch

Beyond Kolpak: EU Law’s unforeseen contribution to the

movement of African Cricketers

Greenfield, S., Osborn, G. and Rossouw, J.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in

International Journal of the History of Sport, DOI:10.1080/09523367.2017.1320987.

The final definitive version is available online:

https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2017.1320987

© 2017 Taylor & Francis

The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster aims to make the

research output of the University available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain

with the authors and/or copyright owners.

Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden, you may freely

distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch: ((http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/).

In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail repository@westminster.ac.uk

1

Beyond Kolpak: EU Law’s unforeseen contribution to the movement ofAfricanCricketersIntroductionCricket historically consisted at an international level of ‘TestMatches’ playedbetween selected Commonwealth Countries. The first recognised Test Match,between sides fromAustralia andEngland, tookplace in 1877 though there isrecordofamatchbetweentheUSAandCanadain1844.TestMatchesarenowspreadover5dayswitheachsidehavingtwoinningswiththreeresultspossible,awin foreithersideoradraw.Therecanbebetween1and7matches inone‘TestSeries’betweenthesamecountries.Matcheswerenotalwaystimelimitedand the last ‘timeless Test’ took place between South Africa and England inDurban in 1939. After 10 days play the match was abandoned as a draw toenabletheEnglishplayerstocatchtheboathome.Therearenowmuchshorterforms of the game, from one-daymatches of usually 50 overs per side, to themore recent Twenty/20 format that consists of only 20 overs per side lastingaround 3 hours in total.1Cricket has been firmly tied to concepts of Englishidentity, beyond sport, and the relationship to the colonies. Paradoxically anddue to the spread of the game through the empire birthplace was originallydeemed irrelevant to qualification to represent England. As Wagg notes;‘Arguably, nationality did not enter the discourse of English cricket in anysignificant way until the 1990s’.2Whilst this can be seen at a national levelwithin the professional game, English County cricket, the participation of‘overseasplayers’notqualifiedforEnglandhasbeentightlycontrolled.Thelinksto Africa, particularly South Africa, has been significant for both the Englishnational side and the County game. The relationship has caused politicalcontroversy atGovernmental level demonstrating that cricket’s historic link tointernational relations isongoing.TheKolpakdecisionwasbornoutofamorecontemporary set of political allegiances, membership of the European Union,butitsimpactwasfirmlyconnectedbacktoAfricanplayers.

TheemergenceanddevelopmentofcricketinAfricaisinextricablylinkedtotheexpansion of the British Empire, and is pointedly not limited to South Africa.3ThebroaderAfricaninfluenceisillustratedbythecombinedsideofEastAfrica,comprising representatives from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, whichwasAfrica’srepresentativeattheinauguralone-dayWorldCupheldatLordsin1975.4 The fourteenman East African Squadwasmade up of seven Kenyans,three Zambians, two Tanzanians and two Ugandans.5This coincided with theperiodwhenSouthAfrica,themostprominentoftheAfricansides,wasexcludedfrom international competition due to the political system of apartheid andconsequent boycott. The development of cricket through the British EmpireproducedageographicalvariationintheplayingseasonsbetweentheSouthernandNorthernhemispheres.Thiswasreflected in the firstsetofMinutesof thenewly founded Imperial Cricket Conference (ICC) in 1909. The ICC originallycomprisedofEngland,SouthAfricaandAustraliaandwasexpandedin1926toincludetheWestIndies,NewZealandandIndiawithPakistanaddedin1952.In

2

1965 the name was formally changed to the International Cricket ConferenceandAssociateMembershipintroduced.In1989thethirdname;theInternationalCricket Council was adopted.6Despite name changes the initials, ICC, haveremained thesame.Originally the ICC instigatedasetof international tours intwocycles1909-1913and1913-1917. EitherAustraliaorSouthAfricawouldtourEnglandinMaytoAugustwithEnglandreciprocatingtooneoftheothersinNovember to March.7This seasonal difference was later reflected, on anindividual level,withAfrican,Australian,WestIndianandNewZealandplayersable toplay inboth theirowndomesticcricketandalso theEnglishseason,aspaidprofessionals.Englishplayerswerealsoabletotraveltheotherway.Playermovement was dependent on a range of political and legal considerationsimposedby thehost country.During theperiodof SouthAfrica’s internationalisolationnumerousindividualcricketersplayedprofessionallyinEnglishCountyCricket;thustheglobalmovementofAfricancricketershasbeendrivenbybothpoliticalandeconomicfactors.Thedevelopmentontheinternationalone-daytournamentfrom1975permittedthe Associate Member countries that qualified through the ICC Trophy tocompeteagainsttheTestplayingnations.8FivedaylongTestMatchesinevitablyfavourthecountrieswithastrongerplayingbaseandinfrastructuretohonethenecessaryskills.One-daymatchescanbemoreeasilyinfluencedbyoutstandingindividualperformances,andsotheincreasedsignificanceofshorterversionsofthegamehasallowedthesporttobroadenitsbaseAviabletournamentandthedesiretoattractanincreasedtelevisionaudiencerequiredmoresidessoaroutewas openedup, from the 1979 competition onwards, for qualification throughthe ICC Champions Trophy. The history of the World Cup illustrates thedevelopmentofnationssuchasZimbabweandKenyawhohavemanagedtopulloff shock results. 9 Contemporaneously political power within cricket’sinternational administration has shifted from the Marylebone Cricket Club(MCC) at Lord’s to Asia, lessening the English influence. The MCC, a privatemembersclub,wasoriginallythecontrollingbodyofnotjustEnglishcricketbuttheinternationalgame.10NowthenationalGoverningBodyofcricketinEnglandistheEnglandandWalesCricketBoard(ECB)andGlamorgan,aWelshCounty,plays in the County Championship as First Class County. The ECB wasoperational from Jan 1st 1997 replacing the Test and County Cricket Board(TCCB) that existed from 1968 -1996. Scotland and Ireland have their ownnational sides and Governing Bodies. The forums of two important legaldecisions that have shaped the contemporary international game, and furtherenabledplayermovement,aptlydemonstratethelossofpower.Thefirst,GreigvInsole, tookplace in theRoyalCourtsof Justice inLondon in1978, inaperiodwhen Lord’s was still the centre of cricket administration.11The case directlyinvolved cricket and here the legal forum and cricket authority weregeographically congruent. The second case, Kolpak,12involved handball ratherthan cricket, and was determined by the European Court of Justice, based inLuxemburg. The eventual impact however was that professional cricketemployment in England was no longer just a ‘national’ matter and sport,includingCountyCricket,couldbeinfluencedbysameEuropeanlegalprinciplesthathadalreadyimpacted,sofundamentally,onprofessionalfootballacrossallthemajorEuropeanleagues.13FearoftheramificationsofKolpakcausedacrisis

3

ofnational identity inEnglishcricket.ThedoomsdayscenariowasofunlimitednumbersofoverseasplayersplayingintheCountygamedisruptingapreviouslytight quota system. As County cricket is the professional base fromwhich thenational side is drawn there was concern that the national side would beweakened throughamore limitedselectionpool .Theessenceof this fearwasthatEnglishcricketwouldnolongerbepopulatedbyEnglishplayers.This piece begins by outlining the colonial connection, and the influence ofEnglishsocietyuponAfricancricket.Itexploresissuesofplayermovementandthe rise of international one-day cricket from 1975 through the upheaval ofWorld Series Cricket (WSC) in the late 1970s. The key point is the analysis ofKolpak, a case that for a period appeared indirectly to drastically open up themarkettoplayersfromtheAfrican,CaribbeanandPacific (ACP)countriesthathad signed an Association Agreementwith the EuropeanUnion. The casewasdeterminedatatimewhencricketinbothSouthAfricaandZimbabwewasfacingpoliticalturmoilandthiscombinationoffactorsledtoasignificantmigrationofcricketersfromAfricatoEngland.Thisinturnledtoexpressionofconcerns,bythe cricket’s governing bodies in both England and South Africa, about thepotential impactofthisplayerrelocationonthenationalteams.Zimbabwewasin the internal throes of both a political and cricket crisis. In Englandpoliticaleffortswereinstitutedtorestorecontroloverplayermobilitythusamelioratingthe ‘crisis’. An obvious question iswhy this very specific issue and these legaldecisionsareof interesttosportshistorians.Maguire in1995sketchedoutthecommongroundbetweensportshistory,sportssociologyandsportsgeographyciting his ownwork,with John Bale, on sports labourmigration.14As lawyers,operating from a socio-legal perspective,wewould argue that the history andsociologyof specific eventsor the sport itself are important tounderstand thelegal decisions and the broader influence of law. From the other direction anappreciationoftheroleoflawinshapingsportandconstructingsportingvaluescontributestothecommongroundreferredtobyMaguire.Disregardingthelawthis short periodof playermigration is part of thehistorical lineageof cricketfromitsveryoriginsthatcanbeofinteresttohistoriansofbothcricketandsportmoregenerally.

TheEmpire,CricketandAfrica:EnglishCountyCricketasescaperouteThe relationship between cricket and the British Empire has been welldocumentedbuttheconnectionisfarmorecomplexthanasimpletransferenceof a sporting culture. As Allen notes, cricket was part of a broader culturaldomination that was rooted in a sense of racial superiority and a desire tocivilise Africa.15 In this analysis cricket was intimately tied to the politics,economics,class,law,religion,moralityandthecultureoftheerainadditiontotheindividualpersonalitieswhoshapedthesport. Itwasfarmorethanagameimportedandplayedbycolonists.Allendoesnotethepragmatismthatled,intheWest Indies, to a more relaxed approach to participation in terms of racialbackground.16Tours from England were used to promote not just cricket but

4

widervaluesandreinforcethetiestotheBritishEmpire.17AccordingtoBirleyLord Harris observed ‘that cricket had “donemore to consolidate the Empirethananyotherinfluence’”.18CricketwasviewedanimportantpartoftheprocessofAnglicisingSouthAfrica:

‘ForHarrisand fellow imperialists, thegamewassignificant throughouttheempireinprovidingaculturalandsportingbondthatnotonlycouldtransmittheimportantscripturesofBritishcivilitybutalso,inhiswords,hadbecome“astrandintheelasticcordwhichunitestheColoniesandtheMothercountry”’.19

Desai andVahedmake the pointmore bluntly, arguing that in Victorian timescricketwasseenasausefulwayofdiscipliningcolonialsandfosteringmuscularChristianity;‘[i]nSouthAfrica,cricketcametorepresentBritishclassideologyinrelation to Afrikaners and racist exclusion in relation to blacks’.20Allen notesthat theEnglishculturalvalues,so intimatelyembodiedwithincricket, led toaweakeningofAfrikanerinterestduringtheBoerwarperiod.21BirleyarguesthatSouth Africa’s key asset – gold – might explain why the Springboks wereadmitted towhat he called themagic circle of Test cricket.22The strong SouthAfricansupport forthefoundationoftheICCdemonstratestheclosecricketingtiesbetweenthetwocountriesandPelhamWarnersawtheICCastheobviouslink between the MCC and the overseas cricketing countries.23The naturallocation of the ICC at Lord’s represented its close physical ties to theMCC. IntermsofSouthAfricancricket,DesaiandVahednotethatitsstory,likethedefeatofapartheid itself, isoftentold inoverlysimplistic terms.24Cricket,and indeedsportgenerally,isentwinedwithSouthAfricanhistoryandafundamentalpartofthe national psyche. Relations between sport and politics are undoubtedlycomplexandrequiredetailedanalysis.ThecritiqueofDesaiandVahedexploresthis complexity; ‘Mandela met De Klerk. Graeme Pollock met Basil D’Oliveira.Apartheidhadbeenstumped.Pastandpresentmerged.Thecoverswerepulledoff to reveal a level playing field. Another “small’ miracle. Critical voices ofdissentweredrownedoutbytheover-archinglanguageofnation-building’.25

The crucial period for South African cricket, and indeed South African

sportingeneral,revolvesaroundtheBasilD’Oliveraaffairin1968.26Thefurorearoundhis original non-selection, and later reversal, for anMCC tour of SouthAfricaprecipitatedaseriesofeventsthatledtotheeventualexclusionofSouthAfrica from international sport. These events included the series of protestsaround the Springbok rugby tour of England in 1969-70 that led to thecancellation of the 1970 South African cricket tour to England. 27 TheInternationalOlympicCommittee(IOC)dulyexpelledSouthAfricathatwaslaterfollowedbytheunanimousapprovaloftheGleneaglesAgreement in1977.TheCommonwealthofNationsagreedtoformallydiscouragebothcontactwithandcompetitionagainstSouthAfricanteamsorindividuals.ThebansandexclusionswerecrucialtotheeventualremovalofthesystemofapartheidinSouthAfrica.AsPeterHainnoted, ‘Sportwas intrinsic to thevery fabricofapartheidand itsmaintenance on a racist basis was therefore important to the continuation ofapartheid’.28TheexclusionofSouthAfricafrominternationalsportundoubtedlyaccelerated political change. The IOC lifted its ban in 1991, therefore allowing

5

participationat theBarcelonaOlympics in1992, followingtheofficialabolitionof apartheid.29Arguably full abolitionof apartheidonlyoccurred following thegeneral elections of 1994. Participation at the 1995RugbyWorldCup and the1996 CricketWorld Cup demonstrated that SouthAfricawas now returned tothe fold of international sport. During the period of isolation numerous high-classSouthAfricancricketershadsoughttopracticetheirtradeasprofessionalplayersinEngland.

PermittinganinfluxofoverseasprofessionalplayersintoEnglishCountyCricket had required a change in the qualification rules that in the 1960srequiredresidencywithintheCountyboundariesfortwoyears.Thepressureforchange came from the Counties themselves who saw the allure of overseasplayersasameanstorevitalisetheirailingfinances.Theregulationsalteredinaslow, piecemeal, fashion before immediate registration without a residentialqualification,waspermitted fromthe1968seasonbutwitha limitationofoneplayerfor3years.30Itwashopedthatthe‘stars’oftheinternationalgamewouldattractthespectatorswhohaddesertedCountyCricket,especiallywithanew40over League competition sponsored by John Player. This development alsoopenedupanewrevenuestreamviaopportunitiesprovidedby live television.FromthispointonwardstopSouthAfricanplayerstookadvantageoftheshiftinregulations.SomesuchasBarryRichards,EddieBarlow,andMikeProcterhadalreadyplayedinternationalcricketbeforetheban.Asecondgroup,whohadn’tpreviously played for South Africa, saw an opportunity to play internationalcricket by representing England through parental qualification. Playing in theCountygamewasimportanttoshowcasetheirtalentstotheselectors.ThislattergroupincludedTonyGreig,IanGreig,ChrisSmith,RobinSmithandAllanLamb.OtherplayerssuchasPeterKirsten,GarthLeRoux, JimmyCookandCliveRiceplayedprofessionally inEnglandandreturnedtoplay internationally forSouthAfricaoncethebanwasrescinded.31GraemeHick,whowasborninZimbabwe,playedCountyCricket andqualified for thenational side througha seven-yearresidency qualification. At an international level Williams has noted thathistorically Englishness in terms of national eligibility could be acquired orconferred.32Waggnotestheapplicationofan‘…evermoremalleabledefinitionof English nationality’ to describe how the cricket authorities in Englandresponded to the changed player environment.33Outside of these nationalityand qualification related debates, a separate more commercially orienteddevelopment was talking place in international cricket that would also effectplayermovement.WorldSeriesCricket(WSC)andIndividualPlayerMovementPermitting overseas players to play English cricket was part of an attempt torevitalise the domestic game. One-day cricket had been introduced asattendancesatthethreedayfirstclassgamehadfallenleavingtheCountiesevenmoredependentontherevenuederivedfromthenationalside.The1975CricketWorldCupdemonstratedthenewfinancialpossibilities,andillustratedthattherights to broadcast gameswould become sought after and valuable. CorporatesponsorsbecamekeyplayersandGilletteandJohnPlayerwereattheforefront

6

of theemergenceof theone-daygame.AsWaggnotes thecreationof the JohnPlayerLeagueamountedtotheMCCreassertingitshegemonyandcontroloverthe game.34The battle between an entrepreneur and the cricketing authoritieswas not long in coming and perhaps inevitable given the new broadcastinglandscapeandthepotentialrewards.AsSladeJobservedintheGreigcase:

‘The very size of the profitswhich can bemade out of cricketmatchesinvolvingstarplayers,however,mustforsomeyearshavecarriedwithittherisk thataprivatepromoterwouldappearon thesceneandseek tomake money by promoting cricket matches involving world-classcricketers’.35

The dispute originated in Australia and concerned the underlying issue of theaward of Australian test match Broadcasting pitching the Australian CricketBoard against media tycoon Kerry Packer. It was the direct refusal to grantPacker’s Channel 9 the rights that led to the creation of an alternativecompetition, World Series Cricket. WSC offered a direct challenge to thecricketing establishment, both nationally in Australia and internationally. Theriseofa rival competitionmeant the lossof controlover theplayerswhonowhad alternative employment options not controlled by their relevant nationalboard.WSCcontracted34playersthatcomprised18Australians;andfoureachfromEngland, SouthAfrica, theWest Indies and Pakistan. The duration of thecontracts was between one and three years, with one lasting for five years.Whilst for many of the players the fundamental attraction was money, theevidencerelatingtoMikeProcterdemonstratedthetwinincentivesforaSouthAfricanbannedfrominternationalcricket:

“The contract offered not surprisingly appealed to him, because it gavehimtheopportunityofplayingcricketatthehigherlevelofwhichhewasotherwise deprived and also offered some financial security for himselfandhisfamily.36

Procterdulysignedathree-yearcontractwithWSChavingdiscussedthetermswith other players, but signed itwithout taking formal legal advice. This clearchallenge to ownership and control of Test cricket and cricketers (the WSCplayerswere contracted to play ‘test’matches) required a response. After therevelations in May 1977 the English Test and County Cricket Board (TCCB)decided to ban players from participating at County level subject to aninternationalbanbeingadoptedby the ICC. TheTCCBbanwas tobe formallyapprovedaftertheICCdecisionhadbeenmadebuteffectivelytheoutcomehadalready been decided. The ICC took two steps to restrain the World SeriesCricketers.FirstitalteredtherulesforplayereligibilityforTestmatches;

‘..no playerwho after October 1, 1977, has played or hasmade himselfavailabletoplayinamatchpreviouslydisapprovedbytheconference(our emphasis) shall thereafter be eligible to play in any Test Matchwithout the express consent of the conference to be given only on theapplicationofthegoverningbodyforcricketofthecountryforwhich,butforthissubrule,theplayerwouldbeeligibletoplay.’37

7

Thusparticipationina‘disapprovedmatch’automaticallyremovedeligibilitytoplay Test Cricket unless the national GoverningBody e.g. the Test and CountyCricketBoard(TCCB)ortheAustralianCricketBoard(ACB)madeanapplicationtotheICC.Theanswertothequestionofwhatconstituteda‘disapprovedmatch’wasswiftlyclarifiedatthesamemeeting:

‘It is hereby resolved for thepurposesofAppendix I (f) that anymatcharrangedortobearrangedbyJ.P.Sports(Pty.)Ltd.,Mr.KerryPacker,Mr.Richie Benaud or associated companies or persons to take place inAustraliaorelsewherebetweenOctober1,1977,andMarch31,1979,isdisapproved.’38

TheICCfurthersoughttopersuadethemembercountriestoissuesimilarbansthat in England had already been agreed on an ‘in principle’ basis. Playersparticipating inWorld Series Cricket facedboth an international anddomesticban fromplayingcricket.Theproblem facing theCountyClubs inEnglandwasthe loss of their very valuable crowd generating overseas players. The biggestloss would have been the West Indian contingent that included Clive Lloyd,Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, Viv Richards, Andy Roberts, Joel Garner,MichaelHolding etal. All five of the eventual participating South Africans hadCountycontracts;GarthLeRouxatSussex;CliveRiceatNottinghamshire;BarryRichardsatHampshireandEddieBarlowwithDerbyshire.MikeProcteroneoftheplaintiffsintheactionagainstthecricketauthoritieswasavaluableasset:

‘HehasplayedfortheGloucestershireCountyClubsince1968,andisnowits captain. He is an all-round cricketer of great ability. Under hisleadership,Gloucestershirein1977completedoneofthemostsuccessfulseasons in its history. For that season he earned in all about £7,500, asubstantial part of which represented expenses and bonuses accruingfromhiscounty'svariousvictories.’39

Player movement and a greater degree of contractual freedom and earningpower were at the root of this new venture, whilst the cricketing authoritiessought to retain control through draconian measures. This approach hadpreviously been used in the original battle over the English one-day gamebetweentheTCCB,MCCCouncilandtheRothman’sCavaliersthathadincludedaban on registered players from participating in the Cavalier’s matches. Theinevitable crisis brought about by the introduction of WSC was effectivelyresolveddue to a numberof pressures. First theEnglishHighCourt inGreigvInsoleruledthatthebansimposedwereunlawfulasanunreasonablerestraintoftrade.SecondatbothinternationalanddomesticlevelinEnglandtherewasnotclear unity and Packer cleverly exploited the international divisions.40FinallyPacker, as part of the settlement, obtainedwhat he had originally sought; thetelevision rights to Australian Cricket. The result was an end toWSC after 2seasons althoughmanyof the innovations such as coloured clothing andnightmatcheshave remainedandbeendeveloped. Forplayers thepostWSC cricketenvironmentwasachangedlandscape.WhattheGreigdecisiondiddemonstratewas that the cricketing authorities could not act with impunity as if run by a

8

privatemembers’club.Dueregardhadtobegiventocontractualrelationshipsanditwasaclearexposurethattheeraofabsolutepower,exercisedbyasmallgroupincommitteeroomsinLondon,waswellandtrulyover.Greigwasnotsomuchadecisionaboutmobility,thoughthiswasaconsequence,butratheraboutthecharacteroftheadministrativecontrolofcricket.IronicallytheTestplayershad been facing the type of international ban that the South Africans werealready subject to. Contemporaneously the South Africans were able toparticipateinhigh-levelinternationalcompetitionasmembersoftheRestoftheWorld side. However after the settlement the situation for the SouthAfricansreverted to the statusquo with the evenmore tantalising development of theinternational50overgamestilloutofreach.Bosman,CotonouandKolpakThe European Union and its organs had historically not concerned itself withsport.41SzyszakreviewedmuchofthecaselawthathasevolvedintheareabutalsonotedthattheEUdoesnothaveaspecific,definedpolicyonsport;‘Fromtherecommendations of the Adonnino Report sport had been used as a tool ofintegration but there was no Treaty amendment or special policy created forsport.InsteadtheCourtofJusticetriggeredanawarenessofthespecialnatureofsporting rules and their relationship with Community law’.42This view issupported by den Bogaert and Vermeerschwho argue that whilst there is nodirect and express Treaty competence, Community Institutions havenevertheless been able to create a form of direct sports policy by utilisingpoliciesinotherfieldssuchascompetition,cultureoreducation,intandemwiththe ECJ cases outlined below.43Various cases includingWalrave,Meca-Medinaandothershaveappeared,butitisundoubtedlytheBosmandecsionthatstandsout because of the consequent effects on professional football throughoutEurope.Bosmanaddressedboththeissueoffreedomofmovementaswellasthelegitimacyofnationalquotas.TheeffectoncricketwaslikelytobeminimalgiventhelimitedpenetrationofcricketthroughoutEurope.TherehavehoweverbeenasmallnumberofexamplessuchasRyantenDoeschatewhosignedforEssexin2003. As an EU National, through his Dutch citizenship even though born inSouthAfrica,hehaseligibilitytoworkundertheBosmanprinciple.OthernotableexamplesofEuropeancricketersincludeAmjadKhanandEoinMorgan.KhanisDanishbornbutqualifiedtoplayforEnglandwhilstMorganwasborninDublinandhadrepresentedIrelandbeforeplayingforEngland.44Thesearethemoderndayequivalentsof theSouthAfricanswho soughtEnglandqualificationduringtheperiodoftheinternationalban.Themotivation,toplaycricketatthehighestlevel,isthesame.Thecause,however,isdifferent.IntheexamplesofKhanandMorgantheircountriesofbirthwereunlikelytodeveloptheirstandardofcricketto the requisite level during their career. The primary issue here is thequalificationrulesfornationalrepresentationratherthanfreedomofmovementthough there are examples of European players who have just sought to playCountycricketasaprofession.45

Astheoverwhelmingpenetrationofcricketwasgeographicallylinkedtothe British Empire there has been limited signs of the influence of the EU

9

decision in Bosman.46The EU does however sign numerous agreements withothercountries topromotebothtradeandbroadercooperation,and itwasviaoneofthesethatapotentialeffectforcricketdeveloped.TheCotonouAgreementwas signed in June 2000 following negotiations that had commenced in 1998.The parties were the EU on one side, and the 79 countries from Africa, theCaribbean and the Pacific (ACP) on the other. Members of the ACP groupincludedthecricketplayingnationsofSouthAfricaandZimbabweinadditiontoanumberofCaribbeanislands.TheAgreementnoted;

‘The Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the ACPStates, of the other part, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parties’ herebyconcludethisAgreementinordertopromoteandexpeditetheeconomic,cultural and social development of the ACP States, with a view tocontributing to peace and security and to promoting a stable anddemocraticpoliticalenvironment.’47

Itwasnot,however, theCotonouAgreement that led to theapparentlygroundbreaking case of Kolpak. In this instance the interpretation was of an earlier1994EuropeAgreement, signedbetween theEuropeanCommunitiesand theirMember States and the Slovak Republic.48The issue was Article 38(1) of theAgreementthatcoveredmovementofworkers;

‘SubjecttotheconditionsandmodalitiesapplicableineachMemberState:— treatment accorded toworkersof SlovakRepublicnationality legallyemployed in the territory of a Member State shall be free from anydiscrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions,remunerationordismissal,ascomparedtoitsownnationals.’49

In Kolpak a Slovakian player was employed as a professional by a Germanhandball team,butasamemberofa (then)nonEEAstatewasnot consideredeligibletoqualify forthebenefitsofBosmanasregardsnationalityrestrictions.TheCourtdecidedthatanAssociationAgreementbetweenSlovakiaandtheEUentitledhim toequal treatmentonce in lawful employment. Thedecisionwasnot as wide as Bosman as it didn’t confer the right to free movement butprotectedworkers fromdiscriminationonce theyhadentered the countryandbeenemployed.Itwasn’timmediatelyapparentquitehowaSlovakianhandballplayer’s claim might seriously impact upon English, South African andZimbabweancricket.HowevertheCotonouAgreement, thatcontainedsomanycricketplayingcountriesassignatories,containedanalmostidenticallywordedprovision.

‘Article13(3).ThetreatmentaccordedbyeachMemberStatetoworkersofACPcountries legallyemployedin itsterritory,shallbefreefromanydiscrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions,remunerationanddismissal,relativetoitsownnationals.Furtherinthisregard, each ACP State shall accord comparable non discriminatorytreatmenttoworkerswhoarenationalsofaMemberState.’50

10

Applying the principle ofKolpak to this agreement the outcomewas that anylawfully employed cricketer fromanACP countryhad the legal rightnot tobediscriminated against with respect toworking conditions. InKolpak the claimhadrelatedtothetypeoflicencegranted,andtheclaimthatthisdiscriminatedagainsthim.TheGermanHandballAssociationoperateda licensing system forplayers that differentiated between national and ‘non national’ players. Itwasthe application of this licensing system that the Court held to be thediscriminatoryasKolpakwasentitled,byvirtueofArticle38(1),tobetreatedasif he was a national player. It was not initially clear what impact the Kolpakdecisionwouldhaveintermsofincomingcricketers.Whilstthiswasadecisionaffecting the whole of the EU, and potentially all sports, within Europe onlyEnglandcontainedaprofessionalcricket league.The linkback to thespreadofcricket through the British Empire could suddenly be reawakened via a legalcaseasanyplayerfromanACPcountryonceinlawfulemploymentwasentitledtobetreatedwithoutdiscrimination,andwas,therefore,effectivelytreatedasa‘national’player.

Oneoftheproblemsfacingcricketwasthedifferent‘categories’ofplayerswho played professional cricket. For the English national side, qualification toplay has been affected by a mixture of residency, birthplace and ancestry inadditiontoanyeligibilityrulesimposedbytheInternationalCricketCouncil.Theneed to look beyond place of birth and include nationality harks back to theempirewiththespreadofpersonnelmanyofwhowouldhavebeeninvolvedinthediffusionofcricket.AprominentexampleisColinCowdreywhoplayedwithdistinction for England between 1954 -1975. He was born in India where hisfather was running a tea plantation.51Nationality is dependent upon theeligibility rules set by Governments that can include birthplace and parentalnationality andmay change over time. The first ‘Kolpak’ player to arrivewasClaudeHenderson,aSouthAfrican,whosigned forLeicestershire for the2004season.52In order to qualify as a ‘non overseas’ player he had to give up anyinternational ambitions by signing a ‘statutory declaration’ that he would notseektoplayforhisnationalside.RayPrice,theZimbabweaninternational,whosigned forWorcestershire, joinedhim.Price still retainedadesire toplayTestcricket but with England rather than Zimbabwe with whom he wasdisenchanted.53Two‘Kolpaks’inthefirstseasonsuggestedthiswasn’tgoingtobe sucha serious issue.54Itwashowever reported inDecember2004,prior tothe 2005 season, that a Sports Agency was circulating a list of some 80professionalswhowouldbeeligibleand interested tosignasKolpakplayers.55The list was said to contain some 20 South Africans whowere drawn by thesalaries on offer that compared favourably to the sums paid by the Provincialteamsathome.56ThenewsofthelistproducedalarmatboththeECBandwithinthe Professional Cricketers Association though in other quarters the viewwasthat the situationwasbeingoverblownand that suchan influxwasunlikely.57Therewasanotableincreasein2005ofbothSouthAfricansandZimbabweansthelatterincludingboththeFlowerbrotherswhojoinedEssexandaddedtotheoverall Zimbabwe contingent.58Whist the Kolpak case provided the legalopportunity to move this was only one factor. The other parts of the legalframeworkweretherequirementstoobtainaworkpermitandanemploymentcontract. Without either of these the right to equal treatment under theAgreement hadno effect. It also requiredplayers from theACP countrieswho

11

weregoodenoughtoobtainboththenecessarylegaldocumentsandensuretheyweresufficientlymotivatedtotaketheopportunity.EveniftherewasagroupofeligibleplayersitalsorequiredtheCountiestowanttosignthem.Thepoliticaldimensions to both South African and Zimbabwean cricket created a situationwherea significantgroupofplayerswerehappy to forgo international cricket.Zimbabwe in particular was undergoing its own democratic crisis that alsoplayeditselfoutthroughthegameofcricket.

CricketinZimbabwehadbeeninverypubliccrisisduringthe2003WorldCup.ThehostingofthetournamentwassharedbetweenSouthAfrica,ZimbabweandKenyaalthoughithadoriginallybeenawardedsolelytoSouthAfrica.59Theaim was to create an African World Cup. One major issue was Zimbabwe’songoing political crisis that had led to the country being expelled from theCommonwealthinMarch2002:

‘Zimbabwe,whichhadbeenamembersinceindependenceinApril1980,issuspendedfromCommonwealthcouncilsinMarch2002,followingthepresidential election, which was marred by a high level of politicallymotivated violence andduringwhich the conditions did not adequatelyallowforafreeexpressionofwillbytheelectors.’60

The problem for Zimbabwe was that England, South Africa and England allwanted a sporting boycott to be applied. The vexed question as to whetherEngland would fulfil their upcoming fixture in Zimbabwe became clouded bypoliticalpressuresanddescendedintoindecision.61EventuallytheECBdecidednottofulfilthefixtureandZimbabwewasawardedawalkover,tookthepoints,andadvancedtothenextstage,ironicallyattheexpenseofEngland.62ThiswasinfactallratherovershadowedbywhathappenedatZimbabwe’sopeninggameagainst Namibia. Here both Henry Olonga and Andy Flower wore blackarmbands to protest at the ‘Death of Democracy’ in Zimbabwe.63 This hadserious consequences with both players dismissed after the tournament andeventually forced to leave the country. The protest split the cricketworld andreopenedthethornyissueoftherelationshipofthegametopoliticalissues.Theproblems in Zimbabwean cricket continued, in 2004 Heath Streak wasdismissed/resigned as captain and14players followed.This turmoil created agroup of talented cricketers who saw little immediate future in ZimbabweancricketandtheofferofastableCountyCricketcontractwasenticing.

InSouthAfrica thepoliticalupheaval in cricketwas caused through the

impositionofracialquotaswithinsportsteamsinthepostapartheidera.Sportwas specifically mentioned in the 1994 Reconstruction and DevelopmentProgramme:

‘3.5.3 Sport and recreation are an integral part of reconstructing and

developingahealthiersociety.Sportandrecreationshouldcutacrossall developmental programmes, and be accessible and affordable for all SouthAfricans, includingthoseinruralareas,theyoungandtheelderly. TheRDPmustfacilitatethemobilisingofresourcesinboththepublicand privatesectorstoredressinequalitiesandenhancethisvitalaspectofour society.’64

12

TheburningquestionwashowthenationalsidesincricketandrugbywouldbetransformedtobetterrepresentthenewSouthAfrica.HoweverasFarlandandJenningsnotethenotionofrepresentivityisdependentonanumberofdifferentfactorsand itrequiresmore justificationthatacaseofprofilingthenationandthe team.65During the late 1990’s there were a number of controversialselectionsand the introductionof aMonitoringCommittee reviewing selectiondecisionsandathreatofformalquotas.66Eventuallyracialquotasandtargetsfor2003were introducedby theUCB.67Thesewerehoweverscrapped in2002bytheUCBforthenationalandseniorprovincialsides.KevinPietersenclaimedtheoperation of the quotas was a central reason for his decision to leave SouthAfricaandseekaninternationalcareerwithEngland.Disagreementsoverracial’targets’ and ‘guidelines’ have continued to emerge when controversies overselections have appeared. InMarch 2008Charl Langeveldtwithdrew from thetourtoIndiaafterthecontroversysurroundinghisselectionaheadofAndreNel;

‘The controversy centred on the fact that South African coach MickeyArthur had insisted on Nel being in the squad, but it is alleged thatLangeveldtwaspickedtoliftthenumberofblackplayerstocomplywiththe“target”ofsevenblackplayersina14-mansquad’.68

Langeveldt issuedastatement to theeffect thathedidnotwant tobeselectedsolely on grounds of his colour. The impact was that both players, Nel andLangeveldt,were losttoSouthAfricancricketwhentheysignedforSurreyandDerbyshire respectively under the Kolpak principle.69Arthur himself laterresigned citing differences with Cricket South Africa over their vision for thenationalside.70TheEnglishCountiesofferedanescaperouteforthosecricketerswhoforwhateverreasonweredissatisfied.ThisexodusledtoKenBorlandintheNatalWitness referring to Kolpak, somewhatmelodramatically, as ‘the rape ofSouth African cricket’,71and there was great concern about the loss of youngtalent:

‘The flood of players leaving for England, even if they would not haverepresented south Africa, has weakened the domestic game in SouthAfrica.CSA’sfirstreactionwastobansuchplayersfromdomesticcricketin South Africa. But they quickly realised that this would affect thestandard of the domestic game, and sinceMay 2008 they have allowedeachfranchisetofieldthreeKolpakplayers’.72

The obvious influx ofKolpakplayers in Englandbecame apparent at a Countygamein2008betweenLeicestershirevNorthamptonshireatGraceRdwith13overseasplayers,ofwhomanumberwereKolpaksignings,participating.73ThenumberofplayersnotqualifiedtoplayforEngland,whetheridentifiedasKolpakornot,wasbecomingamajoranxiety for theECB.However theCountiesweremore concernedwith their own domestic affairs and Kolpak, and other non -qualified players, offered a potentially quick route to ‘success’. One potentialroute for the ECB was to incentivise the Counties to not sign non-qualifiedplayers.Attheendofthe2004seasontheECBannouncedanewsetoffinancialinducements.ThekeyelementwasthatpartofthefeepaidfromtheECBtoeach

13

Countywouldhaveaperformancedimension.Themostimportantofthecriteriarelated to qualification to play for England both in terms of internationalsproduced(includingEnglandAandagegroups)andthecontractedplayerswhowereEnglandqualifiedwithextraemphasisonthoseunder23.74Thisapproach,ofinvestinginEnglishqualifiedplayersatdomesticlevelwasfurtheroutlinedinthe2005-2009StrategicPlan.

‘CountieswillberewardedforthedevelopmentofEnglandcricketersandprovided with resources to monitor the performance of all EnglandQualified cricketers in each First Class match by 2006. Those financialincentiveswillrisetotheequivalentoftenpercentofincomeby2009.‘75

TheimportanceofasuccessfulEnglishnationalsidewasstressedinthestrategicplan that sought to further embed rewards for the counties development ofEnglishplayers:

‘The goal is to have a minimum of 50 Under 26 England qualifiedcricketersplaying first class cricketby2011andby201350%of thoseplayers to be in the top half of either the bowling or batting first classaverages.’76

TheEnglishapproach,usingincome,toincentiviseCountiesnottocontractnonEnglandqualifiedplayerswasadoptedinSouthAfricabutinaslightlydifferentformat.Thefundamentalquestion,belowtheupperechelonsofthegame,wastoproduce more black cricketers whilst at the higher levels it was to keep theyoungtalentawayfromthepredatoryEnglishCounties.InitsAnnualReportof2006/7, the Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Majola specifically referred to theKolpakissue.Henotedthat;‘CSAnowregardsthematteras(a)seriousdrainonits elite player pool.’77 Majola also sought to make it clear that it wasn’t thetransformationpolicy thatwascausing theproblembut rather the ‘strengthofsterling against the rand’. Part of the proposed solution to retain the players’loyalty was to set out a new agreement (a Memorandum of Understanding)betweenCSAandtheplayersunion,SACA.SACA’sproposalscontainedaspecificreferencetoKolpak:

7.1TheMOUseeks toprotect the interestsof SouthAfrican cricket andretain, as far as possible Playerswithin the game in SouthAfrica. Thisincludes provision for “carve-outs” in all county contracts, playerclearanceprocessesandKolpakplayerregulation.78

This suggested a joint approach that if the rewards were sufficient playermovement toEnglandwoulddiminish.Thiswould clearlybenefit thosedrivenbyfinancialconsiderationsbutnotthosewhohadissueswiththetransformationpolicies.WhatwasbeingevidencedwastheenactingofincentivesinbothSouthAfricaandEngland.

14

Kolpak‘Reform’In addition to this less than wholly successful attempt to regulate

internally, an alternative strategywas also adopted to seek clarification of theCotonouagreementasithadbeen‘understood’postKolpak.ContemporaneouslytheEuropeanCommissionwasforginganewapproachtoSportthroughaWhitePaperthatrecognisedthe‘specificityofsport’.79 InitsevidencetotheHouseofCommons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (on the Sport WhitePaper), the ECB noted that around 80% of income was generated byinternationalcricket.TheECBalsoexpressedconcernsaboutthefreemovementofplayers, noting that80nonEnglishqualified cricketershadappeared in theCounty game the previous season. However thiswas not just an issue for theECB:

‘There have been significant problems caused in South Africa and theWestIndiesandthereareconcernsforthefuturebeingexpressedinbothAustraliaandNewZealand.Furthermore,theabsenceofanymeaningfullegitimate means of limiting unqualified cricketers is strainingrelationshipswiththeSouthAfricanandWestIndiescricketboardswhoview the use of the Kolpak principles as a serious threat to theirdevelopment of players. Such is the legitimate concern within SouthAfrica that the chairman of their board recently made a dedicatedpersonalvisittotheUKtosolicitthemaximumsupportpossiblefromECBtocorrectasituationwhichisdamagingtocricketinSouthAfrica’.80

WhatishowevermoreintriguingthatthisgeneralviewofthethreatofKolpak,bothhomeandabroad,wastheECB’sperceptionofthelimitstotheKolpakcase.InhisoralevidencetotheCommitteeGilesClarke,thethenChairmanoftheECB,inreplytoaquestion,commented:

‘I would be very delighted if the Committee were to focus in on thequestion of how we have a situation where English cricket cannot beallowed to manage its own affairs because, as you rightly state, aSlovakian handball player wished to play in the second division of theGermanhandballleague.ThatdecisionintheEuropeancourtfollowingatrade treaty known as the Cotonou Agreement, whose participants hadlittle understanding of what the consequences would be— that wasdrawnbyacertaingroupoflawyerstohaveadefiniteconclusionthatitprovidedtherightoffreemovementoflabourfromcitizensofacountrysigning the Cotonou Agreement—is where our Kolpak problem, whichyouhavecorrectlyanalysed,comesfrom.Wewouldwelcomeclarity.Wewantclaritytomanageoursportaboveall.Thereisnoclarityinthatareaandwedonotbelieveit isthepurposeofagoverningbodytospenditstime andmoney trying to establish legal test cases but, rather,with allduerespecttoyourselves,forthepoliticianstolegislateandustocomplywiththelaw.’81

Leavingasidetheissuethatitwasn’ttheCotonouagreementthatwasthesubjectof Kolpak, although as noted above the relevant clauses on discrimination inemploymentdon’tdiffer,theevidencesuggestsamisunderstandingoftheactual

15

decision.TheoutcomewasnotandneverwasfreedomofmovementfromACPcountriesakintoBosman.HoweverClarkeseemstobesuggestingthiswastheECB’s interpretation: ‘it provided the right of free movement of labour fromcitizensofacountrysigningtheCotonouAgreement.’Thisviewperhapsexplainswhymore restrictive barriers to initial entry and gaining lawful employment,thatthentriggeredtherightnotbediscriminated,againstweren’tenacted.ThisalsoclarifiestheapproachtotheCommissionbytwoBritishConservativeMEPs.RobertSturdyandSirRobertAtkins,submittedsimilarwrittenquestionstotheEuropean Commission, the former inMay 2008 and the latter in June 2008.82RobertSturdyasked:

‘Sports governing bodies are greatly confused by the lack of clarity orspecific guidance from the Commission in respect of the impact of theCotonou Agreement on the freedom of movement of professionalsportsmenfromcountriessuchasSouthAfricaandCaribbeancountries.

Sports governing bodies have provided evidence to the Commission onthe potential damage that this agreement could cause to internationalsporting relationships and their own national sporting structures.Commissionofficialshaverecentlysuggestedtosportsgoverningbodiesthat, in theiropinion, theCotonouAgreementdoesnotprovide freedomofmovementrights.

Could theCommissionpleasemake anunequivocal statement clarifyingwhetherornot theCotonouAgreementprovides freedomofmovementforprofessionalsportsmentoplaywithintheEuropeanCommunity?’83

AmonthlaterSirRobertAtkinsfurtherenquired;

‘Can the Commission confirm what its advice is to sports governingbodies on the application of the CotonouAgreement on the freedom ofmovement andworker rightsofprofessional sportsmenandwomen? Isthe Commission aware of the considerable confusion surrounding theapplicationoftheCotonouAgreementtosport,andhowdoesitintendtoprovide greater clarity so that sports governing bodies can act withconfidenceandcertainty?’84

The response on behalf of the Commission, by Mr Spidla, provided somereassurancefortheECB;

‘TheCommissionwouldlike,however,toclarifythataccessoftheabovethird‑countrynationalstothelabourmarketofMemberStatesisamatterfor domestic law. Decisions whether to allow access to employment insports clubs in Member States are, therefore, the responsibility of thecompetentnationalauthorities.(July2008)85

16

This‘clarification’madeclearthelimitstothedecisionthatlegalcommentatorshad suggested all along. It enabled the ECB to tighten the requirements forparticipationby creatingmorehurdles for prospective players.More stringentqualifications to participate and gain lawful employment at the outset wereintroduced thus sidestepping Kolpak. This was a brief period of extremeuncertainty for theEnglish cricket authorities causedby a restructuringof thenationalities of professional cricketers. Control over terms and conditionswasattackedby theGreigdecisionbutKolpak threatened to alter theplayingbodyitselfmuchasBosmanhadeffected football.At theheartof this issuewere thedifferent interestsoftheCountyClubswhowerefinanciallyprecariousandtherequirementsof thenationalside thatneededastrongEnglishqualifiedplayerpool. Whilst nationality had been used flexibly, by the national selectors toencompass talented South African players with parental qualification, otheroverseas immigration had been tightly restricted.Kolpakoffered the potentialforalmostunlimitedoverseasplayer involvementunless theCountiescouldbedissuaded. The development of English qualified talent became part of thesolution, as did the retention of South African players within South Africa.Control has been exerted through central contracts and the outcome a clearermoreunifiedviewonthewayaheadtoproduceasuccessfulnationalside.ThisfoundationhasthenallowedCountiestobringinthebest internationalplayersonshorttermcontractsnot fortheCountymatchesbuttheshorterversionsofthegamenotablyTwenty/20.ConclusionAnalysis of the effects of the Kolpakcase and the subsequent reaction to theinfluxofplayersprovidesaportraitofthehistoricaldevelopmentofcricket.Thespread of cricket into the Southern hemisphere through the Empire is a keyelement. If cricket had not been linked to the Empire but been developedthroughoutEuropethedecisionwouldn’thavemadeanydifferencethoughtheearlier Bosman case would have had more impact. The natural links back toEnglish cricket from SouthAfrica and Zimbabwehighlighted the opportunitiesgreaterfreedomofmovementprovided.Theabilitytolimitthepotentialarrivalofplayerswasmiredinaninevitablymuddieddefinitionofwhowasorcouldbean‘English’cricketer.CoupledwithpoliticalproblemswithinAfricancricketthetiming ofKolpakworkedwell for thoseplayerswho saw little future at home.Thecapacitytosignhighqualityalreadydevelopedplayersalsoopeneduptheapparentdivisionbetween theshort term interestsof theCountyClubs,as theemployers, and the national governing body. The dispute was reminiscent insomewaysoftheaftermathofWSCwhenagaintheCountiesdidn’twanttolosethose players who deliveredmuch needed commercial success. Aside for thepolitical dimension a County contract offered an economic opportunity and agreaterdegreeofsecuritythanmightotherwisebeavailable.OneofthedrivingfactorsfortherecruitmentofplayersintoWSCwastheperceivedunderpaymentofplayersandthiswasalsoclearlypresentatthistime.TheGreigcasehadalso

17

indicatedhowtheCourtswouldviewanyattempttoplaceunduerestrictionsonplayersandthiswouldhavebeenamplifiedpostKolpakgiventhiswasadecisionof the European Court of Justice. Cricket has become even more of a globaltelevised game and the authorities have realised that the prevention of playermovement through bans is impossible to maintain even if lawful. As thecommercialdevelopmentofcrickethasexpandedatgreatpaceaccommodationshave been made to permit players to exploit their ability. At the same timegoverning bodies have sought tomaintain their national sides through centralcontracts and increased financial incentives for the players. Whilst not asinfluentialastheGreigdecisionKolpakhasinitsownwaypushedcricketalongthe same path to greater player freedom and caused a rethinking of nationalidentityforEnglishcricket.

18

ReferencesCasesGreigvInsoleReportsEnglish Cricket Board (2005) Building Partnerships: cricket’s Strategic Plan2005-2009:FromPlaygroundtotestarena.EnglishCricketBoard(2010)GroundstoPlay:ECBStrategicPlan2010-2013.1Whilstan‘over’isnowastandard6deliveriesithasvariedfrom4to8andthefirstOne-DayInternationalinMelbourneonJanuary5th1971consistedof40eightballovers.http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/64148.html(lastaccessed19thAugust2016)2StephenWagg ‘ToBeanEnglishman’:Nation,EthnicityandEnglishCricketintheGlobalAge,2007,SportinSociety,10:1,11-32.SeealsoMikeMarqusee,AnyoneButEngland:CricketandtheNationalMalaise,(1994,London,Verso)3ThecoverageandmaterialsonAfricancricketappearsonfirstsightratherlimited.TheMCClibrary,forexample,haslittlespecificmaterialthatcoverscountriesbeyondSouthAfricaandZimbabwe.SeethenotableexceptionofFrederikButler,CricketinNigeria(xxxx:,1946).SomeofButler’spapersareavailableviaCommonwealthandAfricanStudiessectionatBodleainLibrary,GB0162MSS.Afr.s.1831.ButleralsoplayedforNigeriauntil1947. 4TheothersevensideswerethesixTestPlayingnationscomprising(thehosts)England,Australia,India,NewZealand,PakistanandtheWestIndies.SriLankaparticipatedastheleadingAssociateMemberoftheICC.5Theteamlostallthreematches;by181runstoNewZealand,by10wicketstoIndiaandby196runstoEngland.TheKenyancricketerRameshSethi,whotopscoredagainstEnglandwith30runs,proceededtohaveaMinorCountiescareerwithShropshire.http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/1/1464/1464.htmlMorerecentlyacombinedAfricaXIplayedacombinedAsiaXIfortheAfro-AsiaCupandthematcheswereawardedOneDayInternational(ODI)status.Thefirstseriesofthreematchestookplacein2005andended1-1withthetrophyshared.TheAfricansquadcomprisedof14SouthAfricans,threeZimbabweansandthreeKenyans. The Second Afro-Asia cup took place in 2007 and the African squadcontained13SouthAfricans,threeZimbabweansandtwoKenyans.TherewasaseparateTwenty20SquadthathadfourSouthAfricans,fourKenyansandthreeZimbabweans.TheAsianteamwon3-0.6Seegenerallyhttp://www.icc-cricket.com/about/62/icc-organisation/history(lastaccessed14April2016).7SeeTheTimes27July1909,p19.TheMinutesalsodealtwiththecommercialdimensionsettingoutthepriceofadmissionof1sforTestMatcheswiththegrossgateproceedssharedequally.

19

8MembershipoftheICCisdividedinto3categories;Full,AssociateandAffiliated.AssociateMembershipwasintroducedin1965forthosecountrieswhocouldnotmeetthedemandsofplayingtestcricketwithFijiandUSAthefirsttojoin.9Theshockresultin1996wasprovidedbyKenyawhoeasilybeattheWestIndieswhilstinthe1999competitionZimbabwebeatbothIndiaandlatterlySouthAfricatoproceedandeliminateEngland.10SeeDerekBirley,ASocialHistoryofEnglishCricket,(1999,Arumpress,London).TheMCCdoeshaveastronghistoricpresenceaswellasthephysicalownershipofLord’sthatisundoubtedlyviewedasthehomeofcricket.TheMCCisstilltheowneroftheLawsoftheGamethoughmatchregulationsforparticulargamesmayvary.https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/(lastaccessed19thAugust2016)ForaninsidersviewofLord’ssee:SirPelhamWarner,Lord’s1787-1945,(Harrap,London,1946).11GreigandOthersvInsoleandOthers[1978]1WLR302.12DeutscherHandballbundvMarosKolpak(C-438/00ECR1-4135),hereafterKolpak13ThereisathirdsetofcasesintheDelhiHighCourtthatdemonstratesthattheinfluence and perhaps more importantly the commercial power has shiftedeastwards.ThisinvolvedtheownersoftheIndianCricketLeague(ICL)andtheattempts of the Indian Cricket Board (BCCI) to halt its growth through playerbansandothermeans.TheissuewaseventuallyovertakenbythecreationoftheIndian Premier League (IPL), by the BCCI, effectively outmanoeuvring theoriginalcompetition.14JosephMaguire,CommonGround?LinksBetweenSportsHistory,SportsGeographyandtheSociologyofSport,SportingTraditions,vol12no1Nov1995,3-25.JosephMaguireandJohnBale,TheGlobalSportsArena:AthleticTalentandMigrationinanInterdependentWorld,(London,Cass,1994)15DeanAllen,‘SouthAfricanCricket,ImperialCricketersandImperialExpansion,1850-1910’,TheInternationalJournaloftheHistoryofSport,25:4,443-471.Seealsohiscomprehensiveaccount;DeanAllen,Empire,War&Cricket(SouthAfricaZebraPress2015)16Allen,‘SouthAfricanCricket’.17OnthetwosignificanttourstoNewZealandin1902/3and1906/7seeOwenMann,TheCulturalBond?CricketandtheImperialMission,TheInternationalJournaloftheHistoryofSport,2010,27:13,2187-2211.Manndescribesthesetwotoursas‘richinimperialsymbolism’(2189),18DerekBirley,ASocialHistoryofEnglishCricket,(London:AurumPress,1999),164.19Allen,‘SouthAfricanCricket’,444.20AshwinDesaiandGollamVahed,‘Beyondthenation?ColourandclassinsouthAfricancricket’,2010,inDesai,ed,TheRacetoTransform.Sportinpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,CapeTown;HSRCPress.177.21Allen,‘SouthAfricanCricket’.22DerekBirley,TheWillowWand,(Australia:Simon&Schuster,1989).

20

23SirPelhamWarner,Lord’s1787–1945,(London:GeorgeG.Harrap&Co.Ltd,1946).24DesaiandVahed,‘Beyondthenation?’25DesaiandVahed,‘Beyondthenation?’,176.26SeeforexamplePeterOborne,BasilD’Olivera.CricketandControversy,theuntoldstory(London:LittleBrown,2004).SeealsothediscussioninHain,‘SingtheBelovedCountry’andSteveGreenfieldandGuyOsborn,‘EnoughisEnough.RaceandResistanceinEnglishCricket’,SociologicalFocus30,4,1997,373-383.27SeefurtherontheStoptheseventyTourcampaignGreenfieldandOsborn,‘EnoughisEnough’.28PeterHain,‘SingtheBelovedCountry,48.29 Youseff Ibrahim, ‘Olympics Committee Ends Its Ban On Participation by South Africa’, New York Times, 1991, July 9, available online via http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/10/sports/olympics-olympics-committee-ends-its-ban-on-participation-by-south-africa.html (last accessed 16 April 2016). 30AlistairMcLellanTheEnemyWithin,(Cassell:London,1994)31JimmyCookwasperhapsthemostunfortunatereturnee,hemadehisdebut,aged39,inthefirstmatchagainstIndiaafterSouthAfricawasreadmittedtointernationalcricket.Hewasdismissedbytheopeningballofthegamebecomingthefirsttestmatchdebutantetosufferthisfate.http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63586.html(lastaccessed14April2016).32JackWilliams,CricketandRace,(Oxford:Berg,2001).33StephenWagg,‘”ToBeanEnglishman”:Nation,EthnicityandEnglishCricketintheGlobalAge’,SportinSociety,,10,1,11-32,(2007),12.34Wagg,‘TobeanEnglishman’.35GreigvInsole,1978,310.36Ibid321-322.37Ibid33038Ibid33039Ibid32140JohnArlott,TheIssuesofCricket,inDavidAllen,ArlottonCricket(BCA:London,1985)41MorerecentdevelopmentsinEUpolicymakinghavehighlightedtheimportanceofsportwithintheCommunity.SeeStephenWeatherill,‘EUSportsLaw:TheEffectoftheLisbonTreaty’,OxfordLegalStudiesResearchPaperNo.3/2011availableonlineviahttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1747916(lastaccessed14April2016).42Erika,Szyszczak,‘CompetitionandSport’,EuropeanLawReview31,1200795-110,at96.43StefaanVandenBogaertandAnVermeersch,‘SportandtheECTreaty:ataleofuneasybedfellows?’,EuropeanLawReview,2006,31,6,821-840.44SirTimO’Brienwasa19thCenturyversioncaptainingbothEnglandandIreland.

21

45OtherEuropeanshaveplayedatCountylevelsuchasOleMortensen(DenmarkandDerbyshire),RolandLefebvre(HollandandSomerset)andBazZuiderent(HollandandSussex).46IrishcrickethasdevelopedwithEuropeandthesidenotablybeatEnglandinthe2011WorldCupandhasprovidedatleasttwoplayersEdJoyceandEionMorganforEngland.47Article148TheagreementwasapprovedbyDecision94/909/ECSC,EEC,EuratomoftheCouncilandtheCommissionof19December1994(OJ1994L359,p.1).49Kolpak,5.50Article13(3)51ThebirthplacesoftheEnglandCricketCaptainsdemonstratetheissue.PostwaralmostaquarterwerebornabroadalthoughthelistincludesMikeDenness(Scotland)andToneLewis(Wales).InrecentyearstherehavebeenfourSouthAfricanborncaptains(TonyGreig,AllanLamb,KevinPietersenandAndrewStrauss)whilstNasserHussainwasborninIndia.52HestayedwiththeCountyforovertenyears,wasgrantedatestimonialin2011,andretiredin2013.53See‘PricesetssightonEngland’June15th2006,availableonlineviahttp://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/250497.html(lastaccessed14April2016).54Theproblemofidentifyinga‘Kolpak’playerratherthanaplayerwhohadqualifiedtoplaythroughanotherrouteisdemonstratedbythecaseofOtisGibsonwhohadplayedforGlamorganin1994asanoverseasplayer.HelaterjoinedLeicestershirein2004andonthefaceofitcouldhavebeeneligibleundertheKolpakrule.Howeveritseemshewasqualifiedthroughtheresidentialqualification.ThankstoRichardHoldridgeatLeicestershirefortheclarification.55LawrenceBooth,‘CricketfearsfloodofcheapSouthAfricans’,TheGuardianDecember10th2004,availableonlineviahttp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/dec/10/cricket.lawrencebooth(lastaccessed14April2016).56Ackermanalsocommented:"butit'snotjustaboutthemoney.InSouthAfricathereisatendencytostartthinkingofplayersasoverthehillwhentheyreach28butthatageisnormallythestartoftheirbestyears.”Ibid57LawrenceBooth,Wessels:Kolpakfearsblownoutofallproportion.10thJanuary2005,TheGuardian,availableonlineviahttp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/jan/10/cricket.northamptonshireccc58InadditiontoRayPricewhocontinuedatWorcestershireandtheFlowerbrothersatEssexMurrayGoodwinjoinedSussexandTravisFriendplayedforDerbyshireandGregLambandSeanErvinejoinedHampshire.HeathStreakwaslistedasanoverseasplayerforWarwickshire.TheSouthAfricancontingentwasevenmorenumerousandincludedJonathanTrott.59JustinVanDerMerweandJanisVanDerWesthuizen,‘The2003CricketWorldCupanditsImplicationsforIdentityFormationandDemocracyinZimbabwe’,Commonwealth&ComparativePolitics,45:3,(2007),345-366.60Availableonlinevia

22

http://thecommonwealth.org/history-of-the-commonwealth/zimbabwe-suspended-councils-commonwealth[lastaccessed14April2016].61TomFordyce,‘Aneverendingfarce’,BBCNews,10February(2003)availableonlineviahttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2740000/newsid_2744200/2744285.stm(lastaccessed14April2016).62NewZealandrefusedtotraveltoKenyacitingsecurityconcernswiththepointsawardedtoKenya.AgainthisprovedcostlywithNewZealandlosingasemifinalspotasaconsequence.63StatementofAndyFlowerandHenryOlonga.Availableonlineviahttp://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/126517.html64Availableathttps://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02039/04lv02103/05lv02120/06lv02126.htm65DouglasFarland&IanJennings,CricketandRepresentivity.TheCaseofRaceQuotasinTeamSelection,SportinSociety,10:5,818-839.66GoolamVahed,‘WhatDotheyKnowofcricketWhoOnlyCricketKnow?InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport,36/3(2001)319-336.’67Ibid68DesaiandVahed,‘Beyondthenation?’,197.69NelchoosesKolpakdealatSurrey25thMarch2009.ECBwebsiteavailableviahttp://www.ecb.co.uk/news/domestic/nel-calls-time-on-international-career,304670,EN.html70DavidHopps,SouthAfrica'squotadebatereopensafterMickeyArthur'sresignation,27thJanuary,2010.TheGuardian.Availableonlineviahttp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/jan/27/mickey-arthur-south-africa-quotas71KBorland,‘TherapeofSouthAfrica’sresources,2008,cricinfo,notedinDesaiandVahed,‘Beyondthenation?’,200.72DesaiandVahed,‘Beyondthenation?’,200-201.73TheLeicestershiresidecontainedthefollowing;5SouthAfricans;HDAckerman,BoetaDippenaar,JacquesduToit,ClaudeHendersonandDillonduPreez,oneAustralianJimAllenbyandtheWestIndianJermaineLawson.TheNorthamptonshireoverseasplayerswereNickyBoje,RikiWessels,LanceKlusener,AndrewHall,andJohanvanderWathallfromSouthAfrica.74See‘FCFruleonperformancepayments’,ECBwebsiteavailableviahttp://www.ecb.co.uk/archive/article/2026(lastaccessed14April2016).75English Cricket Board (2005) Building Partnerships: cricket’s Strategic Plan2005-2009:FromPlaygroundtotestarena:p17.Availableonlineviahttp://www.ecb.co.uk/sites/default/files/building-partnerships-crickets-strategic-plan-2005-2009-602.pdf76ECB(2010)GroundstoPlayPage30.Availableonlineviahttp://www.ecb.co.uk/sites/default/files/grounds-to-play-11040.pdf

23

77CricketSouthAfrica2006/7AnnualReport,p8.Availableonlineviahttp://ipublish.cc/wp/csa/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/12/2006-2007-CSA-Annual-Report-and-Financial-Statement.pdf

78ExecutiveSummaryOfSACA’sProposalsForTheMoU.79WhitePaperOnSportBrussels,11.7.2007COM(2007)391final.80HouseofCommonsCulture,MediaandSportSelectCommittee,EuropeanCommissionWhitePaperonSport,2008HC347.Ev2EnglishCricketBoard.InterestinglyCricketSouthAfricaalsogaveevidencetothesameCommittee.81HouseofCommonsCulture,MediaandSportSelectCommittee,EuropeanCommissionWhitePaperonSport,2008HC347.Ev6EnglishCricketBoard.82Itisnotclearwhytwosuchsimilarquestionswereaskedsoclosetoeachother.83 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2008-2771&language=EN84 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=P-2008-3333&language=EN85http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2008-3333&language=EN