Two days after the Independent Commission for Equality in Cricket issued its report and recommendations, a friend of mine sat next to a member of the Marylebone Cricket Club at a non-cricket lunch.

You guessed he was a member of the MCC because his cap wore an ensemble of the club’s unmistakable red and yellow colours. They engaged in a conversation about cricket and my friend mentioned the ICEC report.

It thrived, who do these people think they are? What do they know? Undeterred, Siddiqui asked for his views on women’s cricket, particularly the committee’s recommendation for equal pay. She was greeted with one look and one word, “Never.”

She digressed with some facts about the inequality and rising levels of interest in women’s cricket. This was answered with the comment that she was very knowledgeable.

Readers will be aware that the Cricket Challenge Center governed cricket between 1787 and 1993, when those functions were transferred to the International Cricket Board and, at domestic level, to the Test and County Cricket Board. This was superseded in 1997 by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).

In 1999, the European Central Bank published a report on clean racism, which concluded that racism exists in cricket. Its chief executive said: “Complacency with racial equality is unacceptable. We must open our doors to everyone.”

Why then, according to the results of ICEC, the same issue of racism, to which sexism and classism have now been added, is still so widespread, almost a quarter of a century later?

In 1999, the England men’s test squad contained four players who were descendants of immigrants from South Asia and the Caribbean. On this week’s team, there is one.

He was the first black man to be selected for the England national team in 1980. He was born in Barbados and moved to England at the age of 14. A further 13 made their debuts for the men’s team until 1997, three of whom were born in England. Since then, 127 men have made their debuts, of which only six are black males and 15 are of South Asian descent. At the time, only two black female players appeared.

The commission highlighted that “it is well established that the concept of race has no biological basis and is rooted in historical justifications for imperialism, colonialism and enslavement.”

She added that race had become, “a way of organizing humans into biological categories and used to explain the perceived differences between them, particularly the assertion of the superiority of Europeans over ‘other’ blacks, browns and Asians.”

The social construction of race is controversial. General statistics in the UK are collected and reported by ethnicity, which is a self-defined form of group identification, based on national, tribal, linguistic, cultural and religious origins or backgrounds.

Since the late 1940s, the number of South Asian immigrants to the UK has increased. Based on the 2021 census, South Asians now account for nearly 7 per cent of the population of England and Wales.

However, according to ICEC research, this ethnic group accounts for nearly 30 percent of those who play adult recreational cricket. In first-class cricket, a disproportionate 5 per cent of players are from British South Asia in 2021.

The report is full of data analysis results. The committee’s research included a late 2021 online survey of Live Cricket Experiences, to which 4,156 people responded, one in two reporting discrimination. The interviews were conducted with a variety of cricketing bodies, along with preliminary research with male and female cricketers.

This has not stopped critics from accusing her of basing conclusions on a “rather shaky foundation of self-reported subjective experience”, which has “not been subjected to meaningful scrutiny or analysis”.

Apart from this accusation, other battle lines focused on predictable topics. One guaranteed to generate purple rage is the annual Eton v Harrow Public School match first played at Lord’s in 1805.

This fixation has become controversial, and has been seen by some as indicative of class. The MCC suggested removing the match from its schedule only for it to be overruled by its members. One of the ICEC’s recommendations was that after 2023, the match should not be played at Lord’s. And that is unlikely to happen.

Another ICEC recommendation that professional women cricketers should receive equal pay was met with the argument that no one wanted to watch or care. As indicated in last week’s column, that is no longer the case. The more matches are played, the more viewers, and then the more likely it is to attract additional income, sponsorship and media coverage.

ICEC critics assumed that there was a “strain of hostility” running through the report. Presumably, this is strongly felt by some members of the MCC and those who share their views, seeing it as a personal attack on their status, faith, and position in society.

Despite many initiatives to provide opportunities to ethnic groups through the counties, the MCC, and inner city institutions, the progression of South Asian and black cricketers into professional cricket appears to have slowed in the last twenty years. Various reasons are given—lack of facilities in state schools and public spaces, expensive equipment, not enough ethnic trainers, and a bias in favor of those who can afford additional training.

Another common reason is that soccer is becoming more popular, especially among ethnic minorities. It is played in public schools, the equipment is cheaper, and there are very sophisticated scouting systems.

In addition, men’s Test cricket has not been available for viewing on terrestrial television since 1999.

The prevailing impression from the ICEC report is that among cricket policy makers in England and Wales, nearly white and male, there was a belief that discrimination was not pervasive in the game in its territory. This may be echoed by many white players and supporters.

According to the commission, the reality is different. The current ECB administration has the unenviable task of changing perceptions, reversing inertia and implementing at least some of the ICEC’s recommendations, given the deeply held beliefs of its powerful constituents.