by Jonathan Liew’s insightful article concludes that a unilateral boycott of the Champions Trophy would be a limited gesture in response to the Taliban’s oppressive gender apartheid regime (The dignity and humanity of Afghan women must be worth more than a part cricket, January 7).
Two additional points come to mind. First, England acted alone in 1968 by canceling their tour of South Africa after the prime minister, John Vorster, banned the team because it included the “mixed race” player Basil D’Oliveira. England’s decision put pressure on the International Cricket Council, which introduced a moratorium on all international tours in 1970, resulting in South Africa’s exclusion from international cricket until that Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1990.
Second, as Liew suggests, India is the key player, holding both the cricket and economic cards that represent major obstacles to effective action: the former is a consequence of individualization and privatization of cricket through the Indian Premier League, weakening players’ national ties. , and the second because of India’s personal economic interests in Afghanistan.
The only hope would be that the ICC has the moral and political courage to carry out a multilateral boycott, as it did in 1970, and that member states are prepared to support it. But that seems unlikely as the England and Wales Cricket Board and other participants refuse to take part in a boycott of an international competition. Gender apartheid will not be challenged by cricket in 2025.
Mike Stein
Pudsey, West Yorkshire
• Do you have an opinion on anything you read in the Guardian today? Please e-mail us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our mail section.
