Frinton On Sea Cricket Club have lost a tribunal appeal after they were penalised for fielding an overseas player deemed to be ineligible in a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for young cricketers hoping to mix travel by playing sport in different countries.
While Frinton's case against the Two Counties League might not, at first glance, appear significant outside the cricketing environment of Essex and Suffolk (it resulted in a points reduction for Frinton and the banning of a young, Australian cricketer), it could set a precedent that will change the organisation of recreational cricket across the UK, writes George Dobell, ESPNCricinfo .
The decision could have immediate repercussions for around 110 cricketers currently playing in leagues across the UK Indeed, it is understood an investigation into another Australian player in the same league has already been opened.
The crux of the Frinton case found that Melville cricketer Blake Reed, a 22-year-old Australian, should be considered a professional player as he had represented Western Australia at U19 level.
While the Western Australia Cricket Association provided evidence that he was no longer part of their system and Frinton provided evidence that he was not employed as a sportsman - he works as a labourer both in the UK and in Australia - the appeals tribunal concluded that he should be viewed as "an aspiring" player or coach and must therefore be viewed as a professional. As such, his Youth Mobility Visa, which specifically prohibits employment as a sportsperson, was viewed as insufficient to allow him to play or coach.
The Appeals Tribunal were swayed, in part, by the fact that Reed described himself as "an aspiring" player on the website cricketmentoring.com (a website offering 'a holistic approach' to coaching) and in part by the Home Office immigration rules.
These guidelines define "professional" in sporting terms as anyone who "is providing services as a sportsperson, playing or coaching in any capacity, at a professional or semi-professional level of sport; or being a person who currently derives, who has in the past derived or seeks in the future to derive, a living from playing or coaching, is providing services as a sportsperson or coach at any level of sport, unless they are doing so as an Amateur."
Most strikingly, the tribunal also quoted Home Office guidance which states: "A person may also be considered as "seeking to derive a living" if they have played as part of a player pathway. A player may be considered to be on a "Pathway" and therefore classified as a "Professional Sportsperson", if that person has played cricket above U17 at state/province/territory level (paid or unpaid) in any country."
That definition could potentially mean that a large body of young cricketers who have tried but failed to make the grade will be denied the opportunity to follow the long tradition of mixing social cricket with travel.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that any player with "aspirations" will be excluded from playing league cricket. While some will be eligible for a Tier 2 visa, they will have to have played a certain amount of international cricket to do so. A six-month holiday visa might also allow overseas cricketers to play in England, but they would be prohibited from being paid either for their cricket or any other form of work during their stay.
When Frinton were originally notified of action against them, they sought to take out an injunction on the TCL to compel them to allow Reed to play. But, after the Two Counties League management board - all of whom are volunteers - called a vote of confidence from the league over the matter, threatening to resign on block if they were defeated and expel Frinton if they were backed, the club and league agreed to the appeal process as a compromise. Both parties accepted its conclusions as final and binding.
As a result, it is not thought likely that Frinton will seek further legal action.
It is understood by ESPNcricinfo, however, that Reed is pursuing action against both the TCL and the Home Office. He claims the league breached their contract by first registering him - and thereby convincing him it was worth booking a flight to England - and then deeming him ineligible, while he maintains the Home Office have discriminated against him (and other non-UK players) by defining 'professional' in terms that he alleges differ depending on whether the individual is a UK citizen or not. Reed played in Somerset in 2016 without difficulty.
There may be some sympathy for both Reed and the management of the TCL. While Reed's plans for the season are clearly ruined, officials from the league have been dragged into a complex legal situation far beyond the remit of the day-to-day running of a cricket league.
Throughout the ruling their frustration at the Home Office's lack of clarity or leadership can be felt. At one stage they refer to the "weasel words" of the Home Office spokesman and point out that, although they have "failed to give the Appeal Tribunal any real assistance" they also issued "thinly-veiled threat to Mr Reed and Frinton" over the possibility of "enforcement action".
The ECB declined to confirm or deny whether they paid for the TCL's legal costs, but the league did utilise the ECB's retained lawyers, Onside Law.
The ECB told ESPNcricinfo: "We are aware of clubs and leagues' concerns regarding this issue and will be seeking further clarification and guidance from the Home Office."
ESPNcricinfo also understands that the Immigration Department of the Australian government has requested a copy of the judgement and is currently studying it. If they respond in a tit-for-tat manner there could be repercussions for dozens - if not hundreds - of 'aspiring' young cricketers who travel to play Grade cricket each English winter.
It was reported at the end of last year how Australian authorities had clamped down on visa requirements.
Ironically, while the justification for the Home Office (and perhaps the ECB) crackdown might be presented as a worthy intention to provide further opportunities to 'homegrown' young players, the result may well be to stifle long-available opportunities for many.
Former England captain and now Times Cricket Correspondent Michael Atherton writes -
They’ll be dancing in the streets of Haverhill, Suffolk, tonight. Imagine the scenes in the Royal Exchange pub on the High Street, now that the local cricket club has moved out of the relegation zone of the Two Counties League, thanks to a 36-point deduction imposed on their rivals Frinton-on–Sea. Good for them. Bad for good young cricketers with a desire to travel.
On Tuesday, Frinton lost their appeal against the league’s penalty, imposed because Frinton played an ineligible overseas cricketer in a division one match against Malden five weeks ago. If it sounds like nothing more than a little local difficulty, think again: club cricket has long flourished because of the opportunities for good young players to travel, play and socialise, that are becoming more widely challenged.
The matter, first brought to light by ESPN Cricinfo, concerns a 22-year-old cricketer from Western Australia called Blake Reed, who was registered to play for Frinton on a youth mobility visa, granted in 2016, which enabled him to play as an amateur only in England for two years. The league queried his amateur status and in June instructed Frinton not to play him. Frinton did so, were duly punished, took the matter to a tribunal and lost the appeal on Tuesday.
Beyond the parochial, there are a number of issues at stake here. The most important of which is: what defines an amateur and a professional? There has long been a blurred line between the two, best articulated perhaps by the porn star Randy Spears who famously said that he could only work up any lust for one in three of the women he bedded and for the rest he was “just being professional”. For love or money?
You would think that the definition of a professional cricketer is that he gets paid for playing, but for immigration purposes the Home Office’s definition is far broader than that. It includes young players from county/state/provincial pathways, from under-17 upwards, who aspire to play professionally, as well as retired professionals no longer being paid to play. What counted against Reed was that he had played six matches for Western Australia’s under-19 team four years ago and that he described himself as “an aspiring young cricketer”.
Reed had never been paid by WA, is no longer part of their pathway, and he was not being paid directly by Frinton, either. An amateur then? Not according to the rules. As part of its submission to the tribunal, the ECB wrote: “The Home Office sports policy unit has confirmed to us on several occasions that it would consider any person who has played in the Australian under-19 championships, paid or unpaid, no matter how long ago those matches were, to meet the Home Office definition of a professional for immigration purposes.”
Paid or unpaid? No matter how long ago? The Home Office is spreading the net too far and too wide.
When asked for comment, the Home Office rejected the idea that it was “blocking foreign players coming to play cricket” and said that the rules and guidance on visas for cricketers had been consistent since 2008. But a spokesman added: “In 2015 we simply provided further clarification on what defines a professional. The system is designed to protect opportunities for sportspeople resident in the UK who are hoping to make a current or future living in the sport.”
Young English players are not starved of opportunity in league cricket, though. The ECB encourages its affiliated leagues to comply with government legislation, but should lobby the Home Office to relax its definition of professionalism, which is restricting opportunities to travel and play, and flies in the face of the historic benefits to clubs, communities and individuals.
For young people with cricketing ability, going abroad before or just after university is the modern equivalent of the Grand Tour, using skills to broaden the mind and engage with different cultures, returning more mature and worldly-wise. Historically, English club cricket has welcomed many young players who have started off brilliant careers in this way, while clubs, in return, have benefited from their coaching abilities.
The knock-on effect may be to limit the opportunities to travel and play abroad for young English players, too, given the tightening of visa requirements elsewhere. Last winter, this newspaper reported on the case of two county cricketers turned away from Australia and subsequently banned from entering the country for three years. Ben Cox, of Worcestershire, and Chris Rushworth, of Durham, had both turned up to play cricket with the wrong visas. As professionals, more fool them, you might say, but the issue more generally is with good young cricketers slightly lower down the scale: too good to be considered amateurs, not good enough to be professionals.
There are many good young players, previously on county pathways, who have travelled on a whim, hoping to socialise and play cricket in the winter sun. But many will be caught in no man’s land: they cannot work (get paid to play) on a tourist visa and must be of a certain standard, and be sponsored by a club representative, to get a temporary work visa. So it is for players coming here: be like Reed and you can’t play on a youth mobility visa, but in order to get a Tier 5 (five first-class matches minimum) or Tier 2 (even higher stipulation) work visa, you might not be good enough. The impression is of a tightening of opportunities.
This is a shame. Freedom of movement, cultural exchange, spur-of-the-moment decisions to roam for decent but not necessarily first-class players have long been the oxygen upon which club cricket in England and Australia has flourished. Tourists have turned up to Australia with a bit of gear in their bag just in case; cricketers from over there have come here, hoping to find a bit of cricket and work. The mutual benefits have been enormous.
Immigration is the issue of the moment, and attitudes to freedom of movement are clearly changing, and it is inevitable, perhaps, that sport should be affected.
As David Hopps of Cricinfo wrote last December: “Amid the cry for ever stiffer immigration regulations, and the need for overseas sportsmen and women to raise standards, the simple ability of cricket — amateur and professional alike — to spread breadth of vision and contentment should be defended with passion.” Indeed.
While Frinton's case against the Two Counties League might not, at first glance, appear significant outside the cricketing environment of Essex and Suffolk (it resulted in a points reduction for Frinton and the banning of a young, Australian cricketer), it could set a precedent that will change the organisation of recreational cricket across the UK, writes George Dobell, ESPNCricinfo .
The decision could have immediate repercussions for around 110 cricketers currently playing in leagues across the UK Indeed, it is understood an investigation into another Australian player in the same league has already been opened.
The crux of the Frinton case found that Melville cricketer Blake Reed, a 22-year-old Australian, should be considered a professional player as he had represented Western Australia at U19 level.
While the Western Australia Cricket Association provided evidence that he was no longer part of their system and Frinton provided evidence that he was not employed as a sportsman - he works as a labourer both in the UK and in Australia - the appeals tribunal concluded that he should be viewed as "an aspiring" player or coach and must therefore be viewed as a professional. As such, his Youth Mobility Visa, which specifically prohibits employment as a sportsperson, was viewed as insufficient to allow him to play or coach.
The Appeals Tribunal were swayed, in part, by the fact that Reed described himself as "an aspiring" player on the website cricketmentoring.com (a website offering 'a holistic approach' to coaching) and in part by the Home Office immigration rules.
These guidelines define "professional" in sporting terms as anyone who "is providing services as a sportsperson, playing or coaching in any capacity, at a professional or semi-professional level of sport; or being a person who currently derives, who has in the past derived or seeks in the future to derive, a living from playing or coaching, is providing services as a sportsperson or coach at any level of sport, unless they are doing so as an Amateur."
Most strikingly, the tribunal also quoted Home Office guidance which states: "A person may also be considered as "seeking to derive a living" if they have played as part of a player pathway. A player may be considered to be on a "Pathway" and therefore classified as a "Professional Sportsperson", if that person has played cricket above U17 at state/province/territory level (paid or unpaid) in any country."
That definition could potentially mean that a large body of young cricketers who have tried but failed to make the grade will be denied the opportunity to follow the long tradition of mixing social cricket with travel.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that any player with "aspirations" will be excluded from playing league cricket. While some will be eligible for a Tier 2 visa, they will have to have played a certain amount of international cricket to do so. A six-month holiday visa might also allow overseas cricketers to play in England, but they would be prohibited from being paid either for their cricket or any other form of work during their stay.
When Frinton were originally notified of action against them, they sought to take out an injunction on the TCL to compel them to allow Reed to play. But, after the Two Counties League management board - all of whom are volunteers - called a vote of confidence from the league over the matter, threatening to resign on block if they were defeated and expel Frinton if they were backed, the club and league agreed to the appeal process as a compromise. Both parties accepted its conclusions as final and binding.
As a result, it is not thought likely that Frinton will seek further legal action.
It is understood by ESPNcricinfo, however, that Reed is pursuing action against both the TCL and the Home Office. He claims the league breached their contract by first registering him - and thereby convincing him it was worth booking a flight to England - and then deeming him ineligible, while he maintains the Home Office have discriminated against him (and other non-UK players) by defining 'professional' in terms that he alleges differ depending on whether the individual is a UK citizen or not. Reed played in Somerset in 2016 without difficulty.
There may be some sympathy for both Reed and the management of the TCL. While Reed's plans for the season are clearly ruined, officials from the league have been dragged into a complex legal situation far beyond the remit of the day-to-day running of a cricket league.
Throughout the ruling their frustration at the Home Office's lack of clarity or leadership can be felt. At one stage they refer to the "weasel words" of the Home Office spokesman and point out that, although they have "failed to give the Appeal Tribunal any real assistance" they also issued "thinly-veiled threat to Mr Reed and Frinton" over the possibility of "enforcement action".
The ECB declined to confirm or deny whether they paid for the TCL's legal costs, but the league did utilise the ECB's retained lawyers, Onside Law.
The ECB told ESPNcricinfo: "We are aware of clubs and leagues' concerns regarding this issue and will be seeking further clarification and guidance from the Home Office."
ESPNcricinfo also understands that the Immigration Department of the Australian government has requested a copy of the judgement and is currently studying it. If they respond in a tit-for-tat manner there could be repercussions for dozens - if not hundreds - of 'aspiring' young cricketers who travel to play Grade cricket each English winter.
It was reported at the end of last year how Australian authorities had clamped down on visa requirements.
Ironically, while the justification for the Home Office (and perhaps the ECB) crackdown might be presented as a worthy intention to provide further opportunities to 'homegrown' young players, the result may well be to stifle long-available opportunities for many.
Former England captain and now Times Cricket Correspondent Michael Atherton writes -
They’ll be dancing in the streets of Haverhill, Suffolk, tonight. Imagine the scenes in the Royal Exchange pub on the High Street, now that the local cricket club has moved out of the relegation zone of the Two Counties League, thanks to a 36-point deduction imposed on their rivals Frinton-on–Sea. Good for them. Bad for good young cricketers with a desire to travel.
On Tuesday, Frinton lost their appeal against the league’s penalty, imposed because Frinton played an ineligible overseas cricketer in a division one match against Malden five weeks ago. If it sounds like nothing more than a little local difficulty, think again: club cricket has long flourished because of the opportunities for good young players to travel, play and socialise, that are becoming more widely challenged.
The matter, first brought to light by ESPN Cricinfo, concerns a 22-year-old cricketer from Western Australia called Blake Reed, who was registered to play for Frinton on a youth mobility visa, granted in 2016, which enabled him to play as an amateur only in England for two years. The league queried his amateur status and in June instructed Frinton not to play him. Frinton did so, were duly punished, took the matter to a tribunal and lost the appeal on Tuesday.
Beyond the parochial, there are a number of issues at stake here. The most important of which is: what defines an amateur and a professional? There has long been a blurred line between the two, best articulated perhaps by the porn star Randy Spears who famously said that he could only work up any lust for one in three of the women he bedded and for the rest he was “just being professional”. For love or money?
You would think that the definition of a professional cricketer is that he gets paid for playing, but for immigration purposes the Home Office’s definition is far broader than that. It includes young players from county/state/provincial pathways, from under-17 upwards, who aspire to play professionally, as well as retired professionals no longer being paid to play. What counted against Reed was that he had played six matches for Western Australia’s under-19 team four years ago and that he described himself as “an aspiring young cricketer”.
Reed had never been paid by WA, is no longer part of their pathway, and he was not being paid directly by Frinton, either. An amateur then? Not according to the rules. As part of its submission to the tribunal, the ECB wrote: “The Home Office sports policy unit has confirmed to us on several occasions that it would consider any person who has played in the Australian under-19 championships, paid or unpaid, no matter how long ago those matches were, to meet the Home Office definition of a professional for immigration purposes.”
Paid or unpaid? No matter how long ago? The Home Office is spreading the net too far and too wide.
When asked for comment, the Home Office rejected the idea that it was “blocking foreign players coming to play cricket” and said that the rules and guidance on visas for cricketers had been consistent since 2008. But a spokesman added: “In 2015 we simply provided further clarification on what defines a professional. The system is designed to protect opportunities for sportspeople resident in the UK who are hoping to make a current or future living in the sport.”
Young English players are not starved of opportunity in league cricket, though. The ECB encourages its affiliated leagues to comply with government legislation, but should lobby the Home Office to relax its definition of professionalism, which is restricting opportunities to travel and play, and flies in the face of the historic benefits to clubs, communities and individuals.
For young people with cricketing ability, going abroad before or just after university is the modern equivalent of the Grand Tour, using skills to broaden the mind and engage with different cultures, returning more mature and worldly-wise. Historically, English club cricket has welcomed many young players who have started off brilliant careers in this way, while clubs, in return, have benefited from their coaching abilities.
The knock-on effect may be to limit the opportunities to travel and play abroad for young English players, too, given the tightening of visa requirements elsewhere. Last winter, this newspaper reported on the case of two county cricketers turned away from Australia and subsequently banned from entering the country for three years. Ben Cox, of Worcestershire, and Chris Rushworth, of Durham, had both turned up to play cricket with the wrong visas. As professionals, more fool them, you might say, but the issue more generally is with good young cricketers slightly lower down the scale: too good to be considered amateurs, not good enough to be professionals.
There are many good young players, previously on county pathways, who have travelled on a whim, hoping to socialise and play cricket in the winter sun. But many will be caught in no man’s land: they cannot work (get paid to play) on a tourist visa and must be of a certain standard, and be sponsored by a club representative, to get a temporary work visa. So it is for players coming here: be like Reed and you can’t play on a youth mobility visa, but in order to get a Tier 5 (five first-class matches minimum) or Tier 2 (even higher stipulation) work visa, you might not be good enough. The impression is of a tightening of opportunities.
This is a shame. Freedom of movement, cultural exchange, spur-of-the-moment decisions to roam for decent but not necessarily first-class players have long been the oxygen upon which club cricket in England and Australia has flourished. Tourists have turned up to Australia with a bit of gear in their bag just in case; cricketers from over there have come here, hoping to find a bit of cricket and work. The mutual benefits have been enormous.
Immigration is the issue of the moment, and attitudes to freedom of movement are clearly changing, and it is inevitable, perhaps, that sport should be affected.
As David Hopps of Cricinfo wrote last December: “Amid the cry for ever stiffer immigration regulations, and the need for overseas sportsmen and women to raise standards, the simple ability of cricket — amateur and professional alike — to spread breadth of vision and contentment should be defended with passion.” Indeed.
