The Spirit and the Corruption of Cricket Peter Alldridge Queen Mary, University of London, UK

This is part of an enquiry prompted by recent high-profijile cases of fijixing specifijic events in cricket matches to cheat gambling markets. In many ways the issues are as for fijinancial conduct, regulation of the press, or many other issues. Should there be statutory or self-regulation, single agencies for single vices or each sport to itself? At what point is the criminal law to be involved? The answer to this last question seems to be, in the UK at the moment, that cheating to win an event, even when it carries prize money or the opportunity to earn more money later by advertising and endorse- ments, is principally a regulatory matter for the sport involved, but that the criminal law is legitimately involved when sportspeople underperform deliberately as part of a gambling fraud. That is, that the person who is trying to win the game by cheating is in a diffferent position from the person who is trying to fijix the game so as to win money by gambling, even though both fall within scope of the criminal prohibition, because at least s/he is trying to ‘play the game’. One simple answer to corruption in cricket is to adopt whatever is regarded as best practice in other games that are relatively successful in dealing with corruption. Over and over again, however, the cricket literature embodies the idea that cricket is unique, diffferent and nobler, because it has a ‘spirit’. In many ways, these claims are like the arguments that the City of London was diffferent and more honourable and needed to be protected from the vulgarity of explicit rules and intrusive regulators. This essay will suggest that the ‘spirit’ is an impediment to proper regulation.

The ‘Spirit’ of the Game and the Idea of ‘Not Cricket’ Cricket was established in many areas of the British empire (Kaufman and Patterson, 2005). It was used to contribute to the civilising myth of empire (Malcolm, 2002; Stokvis, 2005; Holden, 2008). The last 50 years have seen enormous change in its ad- ministration from the cosy ‘amateurs’ of the MCC (Riordan, 2006) to the global gov- ernment of a sport whose administrative centre is now in Dubai but whose fijinancial centre is in India (Speed, 2011; Bose, 2006; Wadhwaney, 2005; Guha, 2002; Astill, 2013). The same era has seen huge changes in the regulation and organisation of gambling,

A. Diduck, N. Peleg, H. Reece (eds.), Law in Society: Refl ections on Children, Family, Culture and Philosophy Copyright 2015 Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in The Netherlands. ISBN 978-90-04-26148-8. pp. 331-346. 332 III Law and the Coercive State | Peter Alldridge

driven by some of the features of globalisation, notably the advent of online betting, giving the possibility of a bet being made at internet speed in a jurisdiction of choice. The introduction of one-day formats, and in particular the T20 format, in many re- spects designed to make cricket more like baseball, so that spectators can watch a match in an evening, with every ball ‘counting’, enhances the possibilities for cor- ruption. During the 1932-33 ‘Bodyline’ series (Fraser, 2005: 357 et seq.), England used ‘leg theory’ – fast, short-pitched bowling towards the batter’s body, with a leg-side fijield – to counter the threat posed by the Australian, Bradman, who had carried all before him in England in 1930. The Australian captain, Woodfull, famously asserted that only one side (his) was playing cricket. Diplomatic telegrams were exchanged. The ex- pression ‘not cricket’ (Rae, 2001) is, used in this context, a most interesting metaphor. What it seems to mean is doing something which may be within the formal rules governing whatever activity is in point, but which is strongly though informally con- demned. There was no question but that Jardine’s strategy was within the then laws of cricket. There have subsequently been two legislative strategies to outlaw it. The fijirst is the rule limiting to two the number of fijielders permitted to be behind square on the leg side, so the chances of the batsman being out caught in the leg trap are reduced. The second is rules dealing with intimidatory bowling, whether by a general proscrip- tion or by a limit per over on short-pitched bowling. Protective equipment has also reduced the physical danger. Woodfull was not appealing to rules but to a ‘spirit’ of cricket. Cricket does indeed pride itself (i) on having a ‘spirit’ evident in a set of norms distinct from its rules; and (ii) in being unique amongst games. Neither of these claims bears much examination, but what they imply about the game is important. From the time of its appropriation by English public schools in the 19th century (Sandiford, 1983), the spirit was linked to a cult of masculinity, emphasising – at least until relatively recently – the physical risk and decrying the use of protective gear (Birley, 2000). It was also invoked to rein- force class boundaries. Over the history of cricket, all kinds of things have been pre- sented as being part of its spirit (Rae, 2001; Birley, 2000). Pelham Warner asserted that it would be contrary to the spirit of the game for a professional to captain England (Smith and Porter, 2000; Wagg, 2000) and cricket maintained the amateur/profes- sional distinction until 1962. Attire always had to be white, as, in the West Indies, until Frank Worrall, and notwithstanding the pre-eminence of Learie Constantine and then of George Headley, did the captain (James, 1963). One of the respects in which cricket is diffferent from most major sports is that the element of luck is greater. Home ground and initiative are dealt with in all games by playing home and away. In cricket the toss confers a signifijicant advantage. The rules of cricket operate to give unearned credit by leg byes, edges, misses and meteoro- logical vicissitudes (‘saved by rain’). The governing assumption seems to be that these matters even themselves out over the course of a cricket career, and that enduring a little misfortune is character-forming. The ‘spirit’ is partly to do with putting up with the hardship imposed by worn or wet wickets, worn or wet balls, losing the toss,