Why Steven Davies could be the tipping point for gay sportsmen

The England wicketkeeper’s decision could help break down the last taboo in sport.

It shouldn't be news. In 2011, the headline "Sportsman reveals himself to be homosexual" should not provoke oceans of coverage. But it has. The reason for that is simple. Steven Davies, the England wicketkeeper, is only the third professional British sportsman to come out of the closet in the past two decades.

Prior to Davies, the Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas was the only openly gay top-flight sportsman in the UK. The footballer Justin Fashanu came out in 1990 and suffered nearly a decade of abuse before killing himself in 1998. Since then, no professional footballer has dared to reveal himself to be homosexual. It is the last taboo in sport.

Some might dismiss Davies's decision as easy, due to the genteel nature of the sport he plays. They are wrong. Yes, it is difficult to imagine crowds at the Oval erupting in homophobic chants, but sledging in cricket knows few limits. If someone's marital problems or mental issues are fair game, then it's likely their sexuality is, too.

Going on tour in South Africa and the Indian subcontinent – hardly bastions of tolerance for homosexuality – could also prove challenging. His career would no doubt be easier without the stigma of being the only gay man in the sport, which makes his decision incredibly brave.

But his bravery is not what makes his decision important. Davies's decision could well prove the tipping point for male homosexuality in top-class sport.

The critical thing about his coming out is the fact that he is a young, talented – but not great – player. When Thomas came out he had established himself as one of the best players Wales had ever produced, with 100 caps. (Plus, he was a 6ft 3in, 16-stone lump of muscle and could have happily beaten any homophobe into a hateful pulp.)

Davies, however, is 24 and has yet to establish himself as an England regular. Prior to his announcement, he had, in fact, just been dropped. He was not riding a wave of goodwill from a superb Ashes performance. Nor does he have a century of caps or a sackload of winner's medals to point to in a knee-jerk response to bigots.

Davies is simply a young, promising player with his career ahead of him – yet he felt confident enough to become England's only gay cricketer. If he can do it, then so can any other gay sportsman. He could well have dealt a fatal blow to the last taboo in sport.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Amber Rudd's report on the benefits of EU immigration is better late than never

The study will strengthen the case for a liberal post-Brexit immigration system. 

More than a year after vowing to restrict EU immigration, the government has belatedly decided to investigate whether that's a good idea. Home Secretary Amber Rudd has asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the costs and benefits of free movement to the British economy.

The study won't conclude until September 2018 - just six months before the current Brexit deadline and after the publication of the government's immigration white paper. But in this instance, late is better than never. If the report reflects previous studies it will show that EU migration has been an unambiguous economic benefit. Immigrants pay far more in tax than they claim in benefits and sectors such as agriculture, retail and social care depend on a steady flow of newcomers. 

Amber Rudd has today promised businesses and EU nationals that there will be no "cliff edge" when the UK leaves the EU, while immigration minister Brandon Lewis has seemingly contradicted her by baldly stating: "freedom of movement ends in the spring of 2019". The difference, it appears, is explained by whether one is referring to "Free Movement" (the official right Britain enjoys as an EU member) or merely "free movement" (allowing EU migrants to enter the newly sovereign UK). 

More important than such semantics is whether Britain's future immigration system is liberal or protectionist. In recent months, cabinet ministers have been forced to acknowledge an inconvenient truth: Britain needs immigrants. Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. Brexit Secretary David Davis, for instance, recently conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall after the UK leaves the EU. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants." 

In this regard, it's striking that Brandon Lewis could not promise that the "tens of thousands" net migration target would be met by the end of this parliament (2022) and that Rudd's FT article didn't even reference it. As George Osborne helpfully observed earlier this year, no senior cabinet minister (including Rudd) supports the policy. When May departs, whether this year or in 2019, she will likely take the net migration target with her. 

In the meantime, even before the end of free movement, net migration has already fallen to its lowest level since 2014 (248,000), while EU citizens are emigrating at the fastest rate for six years (117,000 left in 2016). The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are among the main deterrents. If the report does its job, it will show why the UK can't afford for that trend to continue. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.