Louisa Wall: Sport must have a social responsibility

Sport is a business. Therefore, it can go wherever there is a willing and able purchaser.

Sport can venture into domains where there is conflict, where there is corruption, where there is injustice and oppression.

But does sport and do sportspeople have a social responsibility, because their product is not just about profits but about pride, honesty, excellence and values such as fair play and teamwork, and above all else, representing something greater than yourself?

I say yes and as such it is not just about profit and certainly not before people.

An example of the sportspeople being held accountable is the United States House Government Reform Committee looking into the use of steroids in sport. Jonathon David Morris wrote last month that performance-enhancing drugs were a problem, with steroids being linked to some rather unappealing side-effects, including sterility, liver damage, strokes and heart attacks.

He said sport was a business and Congress had no business messing with it. Sport should be left to govern sport.

Sport and Recreation New Zealand has a philosophy of sport running sport so this principle is not foreign here.

And sportspeople in New Zealand have been used to communicate political messages, for example, Carlos Spencer backing the meningococcal vaccination campaign.

Former Prime Minister Rob Muldoon, a subscriber to the philosophy that sport and politics do not mix, said in 1981 that nothing, not even death, would stop the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand. I am not sure whose death he was talking about but the public participation in this debate certainly refuted his stance that sport and politics were like oil and water and were not somehow linked.

Graham Mourie, then-captain of the All Blacks, did not play against the Springboks because he thought that would be wrong. He said: "It's also an issue of being in a position of leadership. Leadership doesn't necessarily imply being popular. Leadership in my mind is making the right decisions."

So to the question of the Black Caps' tour to Zimbabwe this year.

At issue is the oppressive Mugabe Government and whether playing sport in that country by default supports such a regime?

I thought the world had already answered that question.

Zimbabwe became a full member of the International Cricket Council in 1992. It is worth noting that South Africa ceased to be a member of the ICC in 1961 upon leaving the Commonwealth, and was reinstated in 1991, returning to the Commonwealth in 1994.

Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth in 2002. This suspension was extended in 2003, resulting in Zimbabwe withdrawing its membership of the Commonwealth.

In Auckland in March last year, the ICC members signed an agreement relating to the future tours programme.

The agreement outlines the commitment, compliance and consequences for ICC members.

Non-compliance can mean a host who cancels a tour must pay the visitors compensation of up US$2 million ($2.7 million), and vice versa for a visitor cancelling.

Acceptable non-compliance is only stated as being caused by circumstances in which compliance is rendered impossible, illegal, likely to give rise to a serious risk of death or personal injury to the players and/or officials.

If parties cannot agree that such circumstances exist, a disputes committee will determine whether the tour will proceed.

But of interest is a termination clause saying the agreement will cease to apply if a resolution is passed by at least 75 per cent of the full members of the ICC.

Therefore, eight of the 10 full members would be required to pass a resolution terminating Zimbabwe's participation in the agreement, and by default ending their status as a full ICC member, if other members were unwilling to tour there.

If this is the case, why has this not been done?

ICC president Ehsan Mani, commenting last year on the investigation of racism within Zimbabwe cricket, labelled the events there as "disappointing", highlighted by the dispute between the Zimbabwe Cricket Union and some players.

But rather than treat the primary issue - the political context and the need to revoke Zimbabwe's membership of the ICC until they return to the Commonwealth (as a signal that their oppressive regime has changed) - the ICC continues to renege on its global leadership responsibilities and passes the buck to its associate and affiliate members and the players.

Who is the ICC there to serve? Their key interest groups - the players and the public.

Some say the ICC board resembles something from the ugly 1980s era of greed and wealth.

So what can we do? Watch or not is an option. Lobby New Zealand Cricket to begin the process to pass a termination resolution.

* Louisa Wall is a former New Zealand netball and rugby representative.