Damned if they do

Moral objections don't interest the ICC © Getty Images

With one hand the ECB battles the British government, with the other the ICC. They are two ultimately fruitless tussles which will leave the ECB condemned whatever it decides to do.

It has little chance of success with a government which has consistently refused to offer anything other than an assessment of the political and security situation in Zimbabwe. Most people are only too aware of the tragedy unravelling in Zimbabwe, without the need for the government to tell them. On Wednesday a spokesman reiterated that the Foreign Office had "always made it clear that the tour is a matter for the cricket authorities". The ECB are not seeking to be banned from travelling - that would be unacceptable in a democracy - but for more than the hands-off abdication of responsibility emanating from Westminster.

The ICC is a different beast. Unsurprisingly for an organisation seemingly obsessed by money, it continues to be one of the few remaining bodies that steadfastly shelters behind the old "sport and politics don't mix" argument. On Wednesday, Ehsan Mani, the ICC president, met with ECB officials and reminded them that political considerations could not be used as a reason for withdrawing from tours.

The ICC is worried that its Test Championship, derided by some but seen as massively important internally, will be threatened if England don't go to Zimbabwe. The Championship needs everyone to play each other, home and away, every week or so if it is to retain any semblance of credibility. Allow England to pull out, and the fear is that it could open the floodgates for other boycotts and abstentions.

It is also concerned that a tit-for-tat boycott by Zimbabwe - and possibly other nations more sympathetic to its cause - at next September's Champions Trophy would lead to financial losses, and, to its intransigent and money-orientated leadership, that is beyond the pale.

We should all be thankful that the current ICC was not running world cricket in the early 1970s. If it had been, then several countries' ruling bodies might have been bankrupted by swingeing fines resulting from their refusal to tour South Africa. By the ICC's own standards, visiting South Africa did not pose a security threat, and so, however abhorrent apartheid was, it was a political issue and thus not considered relevant by the ICC. It's a simplistic argument - there were many other factors involved, especially as the regime entered its last decade or so - but the principle is the same.

Sport and politics don't mix? They do, and they always have ... but not to the cloistered accountants of the ICC, it seems.