MRRCC hardball team captain, Andi Page, reflects on the ECB's recent change to its transgender participation policy.
Mersey Rose's mixed-gender softball team fielding v Whitefield
This week the ECB updated its transgender participation policy.
In a move that was as disappointing as it was predictable, the ECB board “decided that from 2025 it will adopt the same approach as the ICC for women’s professional domestic cricket”, which was adopted in November 2023. This means that in “Tiers 1 and 2 of the new women’s domestic structure, as well as The Hundred Women’s competition”, eligibility will be determined “by whether an individual has undergone male puberty”.
In its statement, the ECB stressed it had “considered the interaction between fairness, safety and inclusion, all of which are considered important.” It also explained that “transgender participation is a complex area, with many strongly held views, and it is impossible to balance all the considerations. We want everyone to feel included and welcome in our sport, and believe the position reached strikes an appropriate balance by ensuring fairness in the elite game while ensuring inclusivity at a recreational level.” The latter point has been picked up on as a suggestion that either inclusivity does not matter at elite level, or that fairness is of no concern at recreational level.
The ECB's statement succeeds in satisfying no-one. Did it need to do this? Despite the existing ICC approach probably not; Cricket Australia has managed to find a way to allow trans women to participate in elite domestic cricket and is "develop[ing] strategies and commit[ting] to actions to ensure all individuals can engage with cricket authentically... in accordance with their Gender Identity." The ICC's remit does not extend to creating rules for national domestic competition. It has no jurisdiction within member countries' domestic cricket and neither does it have any power in making or altering the laws of the game, so it is factually incorrect to say that the ECB was obligated to adjust its domestic policy in line with the ICC's stance for international cricket. ICC regulations no more dictate ECB policy than ECB regulations dictate Mersey Rose's approach. Some of us would argue it is for each sporting body to make their own decisions, whether we agree with them or not, and that the ECB has unnecessarily opted to meekly adhere to the policy of an organisation it is under no obligation to follow.
That said, it is not a statement entirely without merit. The penultimate paragraph reads: “The ECB is striving to become the most inclusive team sport, and recreational cricket and Tier 3 of the domestic structure – which comprises National Counties – will continue to use the existing social model, where individuals are accepted in the gender they identify as. A Disparity Policy is already in place to ensure safety whereby clubs and leagues across the country are able to address the disparity between players participating in a match well above or below their ability where there is a concern that a serious injury could occur, irrespective of their gender.”
I will consider the issue of fairness and disparity policies in more detail, but first I want to give a voice to some of the other inclusive clubs – who have already issued their own joint statement in response. Birmingham Unicorns, Graces, Leeds Kites, Western Force and Out4Cricket said: “We are disappointed with the ECB’s decision to ban transgender women from women’s professional cricket in 2025. At a time when the ECB aims 'to become the most inclusive team sport', this decision risks marginalising transgender players, sets a concerning precedent for inclusion and restricts opportunities for transgender players to compete and be respected across all levels of cricket.
“[We] remain committed to providing a safe and welcoming space for the trans community to play and enjoy cricket without fear of exclusion or discrimination. We believe that cricket should be a sport for all, and we will continue to champion opportunities for transgender players to participate and thrive at every level of the game.”
I am not sure why Mersey Rose was not invited to be a signatory to this statement, but that is a minor concern. These clubs and Out4 Cricket are right to emphasise their support for the trans community and also right to point out the inconsistency of different approaches at different levels of the game.
In fairness, we saw this development coming. When our club was founded last year, the probability that the ECB would make a decision like this loomed heavily in our thinking. It is one of the reasons why, at the very outset, we were determined to promote mixed-gender cricket where no questions would be asked about gender identity and everyone would be welcomed and included. Rather than make distinctions between players on the basis of sex or gender, we would have distinct teams based on ability and experience, underpinned by a robust disparity policy.
Disparity policies
There are potential issues around fairness and it would be remiss not to acknowledge that. This is another reason why our club exists: when some of us were at another club we found that there was no suitable or appropriate format for entry-level male disabled players. Softball teams were aimed at either under 9s or women. Disabled males were obligated to play standard open-age (men’s) cricket which, even allowing for adjustments to be made if the opposition teams permitted them, was often unsuitable and frankly unsafe. Mersey Rose aimed to create opportunities for everyone to play at a level that is right for them, irrespective of age, gender or disability.
That is why disparity policies are so important. Those who oppose the inclusion of transgender women in women’s cricket often fail to appreciate the importance – or even the existence – of the disparity policy. Essentially, these prevent the hypothetical situations often cited e.g. where an experienced and highly capable trans woman is bowling 80mph bouncers against an inexperienced or less capable female player. They also prevent situations in which disabled players are being unevenly matched against superior opponents, or in which anyone with limited ability is pitched unfairly against vastly more skilful opposition. Genuinely “level playing fields” are difficult to achieve, but a disparity policy can go a long way to ensuring the safety of participants, and means that consideration around selection is made on an individual (and often game-by-game) basis.
Women in grassroots cricket
Many of those who would argue that the ECB hasn’t gone far enough and should ban transgender women from all levels women’s cricket fail to appreciate the nature of “the women’s game” at the vast majority of grassroots clubs in England and Wales. Essentially, there are three levels. The first is women’s softball, aimed at entry-level players, and is usually played in a pairs format. The next is women’s hardball, for more experienced players, and is of a slightly higher standard. Both of these are generally played in short formats of 20 overs or less; hardball may be either Super 8s pairs (the same format as softball) or T20.
Most clubs don't actually offer either of these. Our local league, the Liverpool and District Cricket Competition (LDCC), has 36 full member clubs and 4 associate member clubs. Of these 40 clubs, only 17 have a women's softball team. Most of these clubs - 16 of them - also offer some form of hardball, but only 9 provide opportunities to play T20. Basically, 67.5% of our league-affiliated clubs do not provide any women's cricket at all and only nine offer cricket in a format that men would play. The picture is actually far worse elsewhere - nationally, the percentage of clubs with a women's section is around 10%. While I've already identified problems with standards within, and the availability of, women-only cricket, another issue is the number of games teams play. In the majority of LDCC women's leagues - both hardball and softball - teams play no more than 8 games per season. If no game falls victim to the weather, they may be fortunate to play 20 hours of cricket a year. Compare this to men's cricket in which a team may realistically rack up over 150 hours of play in a full season with league and cup games. Is this equitable? No, and put simply women playing only in those competitions are at a distinct disadvantage unless they can "step up" to another level.
Women can progress beyond the limited options within "women's cricket", of course – which brings us to the third option: open age (men’s) cricket. Female players who have the ability and inclination to play longer forms of the game, would like to play at a higher standard or simply want more playing time have to play alongside men. They are actively encouraged to do this by both their clubs and the ECB. No-one seems to be bleating about “fairness” here even though clearly there will be women moving into adult open-age league cricket with no previous experience and facing male players of a more than reasonable standard. Is this acceptable? Absolutely, especially when clubs have disparity policies in place.
Indeed, it is becoming far more common to see women playing in 3rd teams and in our own local league there have been a few women playing 2nd and even 1st XI cricket. This is surely a good thing. They are playing at the level that is right for them – in the absence of an equal standard in women’s recreational cricket – and becoming better players as a result. It is good for their own development. It is also good for their clubs and has resulted in a lot of positive change around inclusion and diversity.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that unlike football there are no women-only clubs
Club cricket is very different to, say, club football. Until the structures and culture of club cricket change dramatically, without mixed-gender cricket there simply wouldn’t be an opportunity for women to fulfil their potential and play at a level appropriate for their ability. There is not one elite female cricketer who hasn't played competitively with and against men - they simply wouldn't have been able to play the kind of competitive, high-standard cricket necessary for their development otherwise.
Mersey Rose’s approach
As our club plays only friendly matches (and quite intentionally, too – we have no desire to be part of a league structure that may not be inclusive in the ways we would like) we do not take part in ECB competition. However, that does not prevent us from having views on ECB policy especially when it has a potential impact on transgender participation in the wider game.
Our own view is that a disparity policy should be enough to ensure fairness. We believe that mixed-gender teams based on ability and experience are preferable to making distinctions on the basis of sex.
We have two teams at present – a hardball team and a softball team. The hardball team is for players with experience or sufficient ability to play the longer format of the game against more able teams. The softball team is aimed at entry-level players, often (but not exclusively) women and disabled players, who play against teams of a similar standard. Where more experienced players are drafted in to make up numbers, limitations are in place (e.g. no fast bowling) for the sake of fairness and to give priority to regular softball players. It isn’t hard to make sure on-field contests are reasonably even.
Like Birmingham Unicorns, Leeds Kites, Graces and Western Force, Mersey Rose will always welcome transgender players. We fully support our trans members and recognise the struggles they have in being accepted at some other clubs. We believe that approaches focusing on who to exclude, rather than finding ways to actively include, are inevitably bad for the game.
We feel that a good disparity policy with a clear culture of facilitating fairness in our approach to the game, and making assessments on an individual basis, is the right way forward. We also feel it is good for men and women to play together and are pleased to see more women than ever playing open-age league cricket. One of our own female players, Anna, is the club’s second-top wicket taker this season. Mixed-gender teams may not be where elite cricket is heading, but in the recreational game they are surely the future.
Yes, I accept that in the women's softball and hardball competitions run at grassroots level that there are safety issues. But I'm not convinced that gender or sex is the only, or even main, concern. The fact that many women-only softball teams are happy to play against (and often beat) our own mixed-gender softball team confirms this.
There are all kinds of practical considerations around trans inclusion and mixed gender cricket – not least dressing rooms. However, more and more clubs are putting out mixed-gender teams and as each season passes we're seeing this happening at higher levels. It is tried, it's tested and it works. It's also demonstrably safe if clubs adopt, and adhere to, sensible disparity policies. At Mersey Rose, we don't need a transgender participation policy precisely because gender identity is largely irrelevant to how we approach the game. Perhaps in a few years we'll wonder what all the fuss was ever about.
As the ECB statement points out, fairness, safety and inclusion are all important. Where we differ in our approach is that we don't feel it is necessary to compromise any one of these for the sake of another.
Comments