Cricket Boycott of Zimbabwe: Will it help?

by jordan | July 4, 2008 at 06:05 am | 191 views | add comment

The Mail & Guardian speaks to two high-profile cricketers about the efficacy of isolating Zimbabwe from the rest of the cricketing world. Ultimately there are two issues: the real-world effect that such a boycott would have, and the responsibility (if any) of sports figures to get involved in the politics that affect their sport.

Anti: Suspending Zimbabwe will have little impact
John Traicos: Former South Africa and Zimbabwe Test cricketer

Suspending Zimbabwe from international cricket will have little or no political impact because there are greater issues at stake -- Robert Mugabe may like cricket but power and position probably matter most.

It is unrealistic to expect sanctions to effect political change by putting pressure on those in power if a sporting body is controlled by politicians and has to adhere to the laws of the country, regardless of whether or not it agrees with them. In any case, anyone upset by a sporting boycott can do nothing about it since the right to vote has no relevance in Zimbabwe.

Pro: South Africa is proof that sports boycotts have an effect
Goolam Rajah: General manager of the South Africa cricket team

Frankly, I think it is crazy for anyone to say there is no place for sporting boycotts, or that they are ineffectual. South Africa is living, breathing proof that they can have a profound and dramatic effect for the better.

Sportsmen who claim their "innocence" from the real world are deluding themselves. When cricketers came to South Africa on the Mike Gatting-led rebel tour in 1990, they claimed they were here just to play cricket and knew nothing of politics. Sorry -- their mere presence meant they were endorsing the apartheid regime and that was the view of 90% of the population.

One has to be able to look at the big picture and there is always a price to pay for attaining what is "right".

Previously: England cuts cricket ties with Zimbabwe