Immigration laws are affecting cricket's ability to build bridges

Immigration has become such a defining issue of our times that perhaps it was inevitable that eventually cricket would be caught up in the melee.

The revelation that three English county cricketers had been prevented from entering Australia and told to catch the next flight home because they had the incorrect visa would have once been cause for astonishment. Now the incident barely registers in a febrile atmosphere where borders are no longer as porous and debates rage about the lack of compassion for refugees in Calais camps, or about the threats of lifetime bans for boat people caught trying to enter Australia illegally, or over the reasons why a liberal attitude to freedom of movement no longer prevails.

The value of cultural exchange through sport remains as significant as ever, its benefits real and long-lasting, but we live in inflexible times. Whereas once Australia's immigration authorities would have been condemned for heavy-handedness, they are now just as likely to be applauded for sending a tough message. Want to come to Australia? Well, bad luck, you should have chosen the right visa option. So get back to where you came from and leave the cricket to our own guys.

It is perfectly possible to imagine the same situation happening to an Australian visiting England: Mitchell Starc, for one, knows that only too well.

So where does this leave cricketers of all levels with an urge to play overseas? Behind the scenes, cricket's governing bodies in England and Australia, as well as agents and players' associations, are trying to ascertain exactly what the visa position in Australia is. One view is that Australian immigration officers have deliberately turned a few people away to get the message through to clubs that they are serious about imposing regulations more fiercely. There are less dogmatic ways to do it - like encouraging efficient dissemination of information by sporting governing bodies, for example - but immigration departments are hardly renowned for a light touch, and many governing bodies are more naturally committed to concealment so that effectively publicising what people need to know is not always their forte.

But we don't have to worry overly much about the proven, high-quality professionals. They are already coming to realise that the long-ingrained habit for many of traipsing into Australia on a tourist visa will no longer be tolerated. From now on, it is the Temporary Work (Long Stay Activity) visa (subclass 401) for them, with the expectation of tax on earnings. Professionals now understand that if they arrive on a tourist visa carrying a big cricket bag or if they take the risk of misleading an immigration official about the true purpose of their visit, they are now playing an increasingly dangerous game. If you have England ambitions, and are selected for an Ashes tour, it is not a great career move to have to inform the selectors that you are banned from Australia.

No, the issue lies with cricketers lower down the scale. Under current regulations there is a terrible grey area that leaves young, unproven county professionals, semi-professionals or simply amateur cricketers out for a summer of sport and social utterly bewildered. Thousands of young cricketers take the chance every year to mix travel with a spot of cricket, and those essentially informal agreements do not fit comfortably with the visa regulations as they stand across the world.

Australia's temporary work visa refers to "high-level sports competition". The player needs an "approved sponsor" and the player "must have the skills and experience relevant to the nominated activity". The visa aims to "improve the quality of sport in Australia". That clearly indicates it is aimed specifically at players of high ability. Even for these players, there is a time limit. The visa is multiple entry for a maximum of two years. The possibility is that once that term is up, that's your lot. The tax authorities will expect their share of the proceeds here, too, although attempts to hike up rates are currently being debated.

An unsuccessful application for a temporary work visa can count against a cricketer who then reapplies for a tourist visa. Set the skills level too high for the temporary work visa and it is hard to see an alternative for a run-of-the-mill cricketer than applying for a simple tourist visa (a short-stay tourist visa, issued for three months or a long-stay visa for a year). But the rules are clear: you must not work, other than possibly some voluntary work. And if the immigration department believes you are in error in your choice of visa, then it is to be hoped you have bought some elastic stockings to guard against deep-vein thrombosis because evidence suggests you will flying back across the world again before you know it.

A Working Holidaymaker visa, only available on a reciprocal basis to some countries, might seem another potential solution for UK travellers - but work must only be taken to subsidise travel, and here too the Australian authorities would have to accept that social cricket at a low level would not disqualify the claim that the principal objective of the trip was tourism. And, after your year is up, you can't reapply.

There is another problem too. Logically, the time to sort out a visa to play cricket in Australia is three months from the end of the English season. But many opportunities come up at the last minute. A preferred player may withdraw, or a young professional may burst into a county 1st XI in September and suddenly become a more valuable commodity, or a disorganised club might just decide in the bar at the last minute that it sounds like a good idea. Long visa delays, which were once three or four weeks but recently have taken twice as long, often with the result unknown, undermine the entire process.

Across Australia, it is inevitable that overseas cricketers in lower-grade clubs are flouting these regulations - perhaps knowingly, perhaps unwittingly. Many on tourist visas will still expect to pick up a bit of casual work in bars or on the cricket ground to help subsidise their trip, revenue well below the tax starting point. Many, if they do not stay with families, will be found free accommodation, a benefit in kind. It is the sort of relaxed arrangement that has been going on for half a century or more, but which a more zealous attitude from immigration departments now puts in doubt. For casual, read criminality.

Small clubs prefer a relaxed arrangement too. Seeking a sponsor for an overseas cricketer can be quite a task. People hedge bets. "See what happens when he comes… see if I like the look of him… we'll have a beer and see how it goes." But ask somebody to become an official sponsor and such talk of commitment causes many to flee.

These days, not just the immigration departments but the tax authorities - and not just in Australia - dislike such habits, mistakenly regarding amateur cricket clubs as potential revenue earners, when, in fact, the majority survive only because of the largesse of individual benefactors with thoughts of cricket - and the good it can do - in their hearts.

When I was heavily involved in a small club side in Yorkshire, we welcomed half a dozen overseas cricketers on a hotchpotch of arrangements: Australians, Sri Lankans, a New Zealander and an Indian. Happy memories flood back.

As a result of our first Sri Lankan cricketer coming over, several people who had never before left Europe joined us on a cricket tour to Sri Lanka, where insights were gathered by all and where ultimately we were enjoying it so much we all missed the flight home and were stranded in Colombo for several days: with the help of some useful publicity on the BBC, British Airways pulled off a rescue mission.

The Indian, the son of a press-box cricket scorer, ill-advisedly signed-up under the effects of alcohol in a Kolkata nightclub at 1am, caused chaos in his job as a night receptionist in a Leeds hotel by carrying out a painstakingly moral citizen's arrest of an escort who had stolen a Rolex watch from an unsuspecting client, and as a result was chased by the semi-naked businessman down the stairs. The case ended up in court to the fury of the businessman involved, who withdrew huge amounts of business from the hotel as a result. Nobody would present this as elite sport, but the story sure did wonders for existential angst.

Visa rules in the UK are also evolving. For the casual cricketer, the Youth Mobility Visa (a replacement for the old Working Holidaymaker Visa) is a potential option to people under 30 from Australia and New Zealand, South Africa having lost the right because too many applicants overstayed their visa, the subcontinent long viewed as too high risk. Get that and legally you can work - although technically you cannot be paid by a cricket club to play or coach - but you can only get it once. And, as in Australia, your reasons for going to the UK must have a strong travel bias.

Even if the visa is secured, working opportunities within cricket clubs are tighter. The hot breath of the Inland Revenue has caused many cricket clubs to turn themselves into community amateur sports clubs to reduce their tax bills, but there is a £10,000 ceiling on what they can pay per season for, say, ground staff or bar staff: not too many easy paydays here. Carry on illegally and a backdated tax bill for the club can follow.

The standard Visitor Visa is another appropriate choice, following the withdrawal of the Sports Visitor Visa in 2015, and this one is also open to those from the subcontinent. It is valid for up to six months and flights, accommodation and "legitimate expenses" can be paid. Most cricketers come into England on this route.

That leaves the professionals, who are more likely to enter on a Tier 5 Creative and Sporting Visa - for that they need to have played five first-class matches over the previous two years - or, for overseas players in county cricket, where proven quality must be higher still, a Tier 2 visa.

Steven Hirst, head of the agency CricX.com, which annually places around 300 cricketers in the UK, and up to 100 in Australia and New Zealand, is just one person who has been seeking clarification after the Australian standoff. He maintains an optimistic slant, saying: "I don't think the exchange of cricketers is under threat, but regulations are definitely tighter and I think it's a case of needing to understand them."

Australia's clarification is eagerly awaited. But there is no doubt that the commitment to sport for all is under threat. In the UK, for example, obesity is rife, yet sports centres are threatened by closure, playing fields continue to be sold off, and at a time of austerity, the emphasis is on funding elite athletes who can bring national glory and vicarious pleasure by winning medals in international competition such as the Olympic Games.

In today's climate, the benefits to the human spirit of sport-related travel, and the broadening of the mind and sheer fun that can result, can easily be lost. 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.