The cricket season got going last weekend with the annual T20 tournament at St David’s and, with the Gauteng schools selection tournament taking place early next month (what used to be called the Beckwith Week), it was inevitable that the question of racial quotas came up in discussion with people around the fields.
It’s a subject as thorny as it is perennial and, with the concept of ever-increasing compulsory black representation now entrenched, you won’t be surprised to hear that the parents of good white players were talking about opportunities abroad for their sons.
By way of a refresher: Cricket South Africa president Chris Nenzani confirmed last week that all our national sides must, from now on, field a minimum average of six players of colour, of which at least two must be black African.
Currently, all franchise and provincial teams must field six players of colour, of which at least three must be black African.
And at the Khaya Majola Week this year, each 13-man squad must have seven players of colour, of which three must be black African and one of those has to be a top-order batsman.
Let’s be clear. All-white cricket teams are not acceptable. The days of justifying non-selection of players of colour because there are simply not enough who merit selection, are gone.
The problem, of course, is that there are suddenly not enough of those players available. The response to that is: “So what? Select them anyway, or we will take our ball away and you can’t play anymore.”
At the risk of lecturing, it comes down to the principles of affirmative action. No-one can argue about the need for affirmative action - in this country, and in cricket, more than anywhere else - but is the imposition of quotas really affirmative action, and will they work?
The difference is as follows: Affirmative action is about potential. It’s about identifying promising individuals who, because of factors beyond their control, are unlikely to progress, and helping them develop, by taking action that is affirmative.
Quotas are about selection. You force people to select players - in this case black ones - and you end up with teams that look as though you were implementing affirmative action effectively. Which, of course, you haven’t been doing. It will make the politicians happy, but it does nothing for the sport.
There are racist selectors, I concede, and sometimes undeserving white players are selected. Worse, some coaches refuse to play players of colour, or give them limited exposure when they are chosen. Quotas could be useful in those instances.
But to be happy with demographically correct representative teams, selected by decree, is to fool yourself.
The answer, naturally, has to lie in developing players from a young age, which means schools cricket.
I googled cricket quotas and came across a blog by a Stellenbosch University professor who addresses that question far more eloquently than I can.
“Cricket is expensive, in terms of time and resources,” he writes. “It is incredibly difficult for a young kid from an impoverished background to have access to good coaching, facilities and family support that will allow him to compete on a level playing field against richer kids. In South Africa, the poorest 80 percent of the population is almost entirely black. And because cricket skills are developed from a young age, black kids in poor schools simply cannot compete against their wealthier white compatriots. It is also why, if you really want to change the system, you have to start in school.”
As for the effectiveness of quotas, he says: “Let me phrase this in terms of economics. Racial quotas shift the demand curve for black players, but do nothing about the supply side. The only way you shift the supply side, as any first year Economics student should know, is by improving technology and thus productivity. So the standard response to how do we get more black kids in sport’ is not force teams to play them’ but build better facilities in schools’.”
You can read the blogpost
Independent Media