South African player Quinton de Kock has become the subject of controversy after being pulled out of the side before the second match of the Twenty20 World Cup tournament for refusing to take a knee.
Cricket South Africa (CSA) released a statement ahead of the match against the West Indies in Dubai on Tuesday, saying de Kock was refusing to take a knee due to “personal reasons”.
It came as CSA issued a directive to the national team that they must all take a knee as a gesture against racism.
The gesture was made mandatory by CSA after South African players were perceived as divided on the first match of the tournament against Australia on Saturday.
Some took a knee and others opted for raising their fists, while the rest, including de Kock, refused to participate at all.
This was in contrast to the Australian team, who all took a knee simultaneously.
Players of South Africa showed different public stances against racism ahead of the T20 World Cup match against Australia. Source: Getty Images
“After considering all relevant issues, including the freedom of choice of players, the Board had made it clear it was imperative for the team to be seen taking a stand against racism, especially given SA’s history,” the statement released by CSA said.
De Kock is yet to make any public response regarding his decision.
Taking a knee has become a universal anti-racism symbol, particularly in sport, since US footballer Colin Kaepernick famously adopted the position in a 2016 silent protest against racism.
The move - now closely aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement and general anti-racism sentiment - has been adopted by teams around the world as a symbol of allegiance.
As the Proteas’ star batsman and wicketkeeper’s decision is noticed on the world stage, it has renewed more discussions around sport’s relationship with racism.
University of Johannesburg lecturer and author of Empire, War & Cricket in South Africa, Dr Dean Allen told SBS News de Kock isn’t the first player, nor will he be the last, to refuse to take the knee.
Dr Allen said it has become “a newsworthy topic” because de Kock represents a country that will never be able to detach itself from its unique history of apartheid, unlike other nations where racial controversies are less amplified.
“Because of the legacy of apartheid and the policies of the past, South Africa will naturally be regarded as a special case when it comes to dealing with sport and race, despite other countries, such as Australia and the UK, also facing their own struggles to eradicate the scourge of racism," he said.
"Let's not forget that informal apartheid was also operating elsewhere throughout the historical development of the sport. And you could argue, still operates today in terms of inequality and opportunity."
Dr Allen said what is more concerning than de Kock’s move is the cricket body’s mandatory directive, signifying both a naivety from both CSA and the cricket star in question.
“The directive has come at a poorly timed moment. It could have been dealt with effectively prior to the tournament. And any arguments or debates should have been ironed out and agreed upon within the team's set-up before the world's media began looking at South Africa,” he said.
As for de Kock’s future in cricket, his fate is yet to be written by CSA or any other franchises he is associated with, including the prestigious Indian Premier League.
“It may have ramifications for [de Kock] going forward ... his various cricket employers will be wary of someone who does not recognise the ramifications this has beyond the dressing room and beyond the cricket pitch because, clearly, it does,” Dr Allen said.
