Fawad Ahmed, Australia’s latest 32-year-old leg spin bowling sensation, has requested, and received consent to, not have the logo of a purveyor of alcohol on his cricket shirt when he represents Australia. For those how don’t know, Carlton & United Brewery’s sponsor the Australian cricket team and often have their logo emblazoned on the Australian cricket team’s attire. Ahmed, as a man of Muslim faith, is uncomfortable with the advertisement of alcohol.

Doug Walters has been quoted in the press this morning thusly:

“I think if he doesn’t want to wear the team gear, he should not be part of the team,” Walters said. “Maybe if he doesn’t want to be paid that’s OK.”

Geoff Lawson has also waded in with:

“If you don’t agree with the terms you have a choice as to whether you work somewhere else,” he said.

“Players should be able to object on a number of moral grounds – example: against cigarette advertising or perhaps you refuse to play in a country with a military dictatorship or poor human rights record – as long as they don’t accept the payments the sponsor provides.”

It once was the case that whenever there was an issue going on within Australian cricket that the newspapers would roll out comments from Neil Harvey. Now it seems that Lawson, certainly, and Walters, often, are the go to men for a comment. Walters, of course, is famous for drinking 44 beers on a flight to England on tour and for, seemingly, playing the game better when hungover than when sober. Of course the Daily Telegraph were going to get a provocative comment out of him about a player who does not drink and does not wish to advertise alcohol due to his religious beliefs.

In all of the comment in replied that has followed, a point that has been missed is the second part of the quote from Walters and Lawson’s principal point which is that if a player, any player, does not wish to wear the attire of a sponsor they should not be entitled to receive funds from that sponsor. Surprisingly, given the source of the comments, I have to say I agree. It is ridiculous to say that a player ought not be able to play cricket for his country because he refuses to where a sponsors logo but it makes sense that said player should not also reap the benefit of the funds that sponsor provides to the coffers of the team for which he plays.

Has anyone enquired as to whether Ahmed has declined to accept the funds that come from the sponsor whose label he declines to wear? I would certainly expect that to be the case but I am not sure anyone knows the answer to that question other than those who pay the cheques at Cricket Australia Towers.

Is this really the biggest issue facing Australian cricket at the moment? I have no real cavil with players of the past commenting on the form of the team or the state of the game in this country, particularly when the game could be considered to be in crisis. I, for one, would prefer players such as Walters and Lawson to offer their assistance as mentors to our young team or to provide constructive comments with respect to the state of the game rather than being “rent a comment” on a nothing issue frankly.

A final word: this pains me more than most things I have had to say on this blog but I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by Ian Chappell on the topic of Fawad Ahmed’s place in the team. I too continue to be bothered by the fast tracking of Ahmed’s citizenship when others are forced to wait their turn just because they do not bowl a leg spinner.