00158-25 The England and Wales Cricket Board v The Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Girls ‘quitting cricket over risks of having to face trans players’”, published on 12 January 2025.

2. The article reported that “girls are quitting cricket and being put at risk by the governing body’s refusal to ban transgender women from amateur female leagues, the mother of a young player has claimed.” It then stated that a “concerned mother, who wants to remain anonymous, has implored [the ECB] to extend the ban to amateur cricket”.

3. The article then reported that, in a letter to the ECB, the mother “described girls being reduced to tears, demoralised and dropping out of matches after being forced to play against boys identifying as female”. It said that in the same letter the mother “detailed how her ten-year old daughter played at an under 13 event last summer where two boys who identified as female were in the opposing team.” It also reported “one 12-year-old ‘cried in the trees’ because the two other players ‘scared her, intimidated her and made her feel uncomfortable and worthless’. This same girl has said she does not want to play if she has to compete against biological males, with others considering following suit, the parent alleged.”

4. The article finished by reporting: “the ECB said: ‘We are not aware of any other complaints raised by parents on the days in question and we have not been presented with evidence of any safety, disparity or safeguarding issues.’”

5. The article also appeared online in substantively the same form, under the headline: “Girls 'quitting cricket and being put at risk by governing body's refusal to ban transgender women from amateur leagues'”.

6. Prior the article’s publication, on 9 January, the newspaper approached the ECB for comment via email. In its email, it said a mother had written a letter warning that the ECB was putting girls’ safety at risk by not banning trans players from girls’ cricket matches. The email went on to list claims from the mother about incidents she said she had witnessed at an under-13s cricket tournament, held the previous summer. It then detailed the mother’s views on the ECB’s inclusion of trans players. The email finished with a request that the complainant provide a response to the claims by the end of the day.

7. The complainant responded to the publication’s email requesting further clarification on the claims made in the letter, including which competition the events allegedly took place at. It said the lack of detail on the events described in the publication’s email made it “difficult for us to look into”.

8. The publication responded by stating it was willing to pass on copies of the letter it was reporting on, and that it would be reporting the allegations made in the letter as “claims” rather than fact. It reiterated its request for comment.

9. There was some further correspondence between the parties. In this, the complainant said it was working on the assumption that the claim related to a specific competition. It said it had received no complaints on the day of the event and that it believed the claim that a transgender girl was taking part in the competition was based on one person’s assessment based on one child’s appearance. It also said it had been “presented with no evidence of any safety or disparity issue” arising from the individual playing in the match.

10. In a later email, the ECB provided the following comment, which it requested be published in full in any article on the matter:

“We have not seen any evidence to substantiate the claims being made in this article. We are not aware of any other complaints raised by parents on the days in question and we have not been presented with evidence of any safety, disparity, or safeguarding issues.”

11. After the article’s publication, the complainant contacted the newspaper to express concern its statement had not been published in full. It also alleged the article presented the mother’s claims as fact.

12. The newspaper responded by stating the press is free to report on allegations, and stating its position that the allegations were presented as claims rather than established fact. It also said there was a public interest in reporting the allegations. It also said that, while it was not obliged to include the complainant’s comment in full – or indeed at all - it had added the full comment to the online article as a gesture of goodwill.

13. The organisation then complained to IPSO. It said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it failed to reflect its full position, as it excluded the first sentence of its comment: “We have not seen any evidence to substantiate the claims being made in this article.” It said readers should have been informed that the ECB had been provided with no evidence to substantiate the claims being made by the mother.

14. The complainant also said it disputed the accuracy of the claims within the letter, which it said were presented as fact. It said it had not been provided with any evidence of the reporter having investigated the mother’s claims, and it did not believe the reporter had attempted to substantiate the claims by speaking with others present at the events in question. It said it did not hear of any attempt from the report to contact its stakeholders to corroborate the story, including the organisers of the competitions in question. It said it considered the reference to the mother having “detailed how her ten-year-old daughter played at an under 13 event last summer where two boys who identified as female were in the opposing team,”, in particular, was presented as fact, rather than a claim.

15. The publication did not accept it had reported on the complainant’s statement in a manner which was inaccurate or misleading. It said it was not obliged to include the full statement, and the question under the Code was whether any omission created a significant inaccuracy. It said the first line of the statement was likely omitted for space reasons, and because the statement was repetitive in setting out that the complainant had not been provided with any evidence of concerns. It also said that the complainant did not dispute that it had received the letter from the mother, nor that the letter had been accurately reported by the newspaper. It added that no reader would be left in doubt that the ECB considered the complaint baseless.

16. The said the article made clear that it was reporting the account of a concerned mother and was careful to use quotation marks to indicate it was reporting on claims rather than established fact. It said it was not in dispute that the mother raised these concerns and had made complaints to that effect. It said the claims were serious and apparently undermining the complainant’s commitment to single sex sport. It said there was a public interest in reporting on the claims, and simply doing so was not a breach of the Code.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

17. The Code does not prevent the reporting of allegations, and the publication was entitled to report on the claims made by the mother. The Committee’s role was not to reach a finding as to the events at the cricket match, but rather to establish whether the publication had reported the allegations made in a manner which was in line with its obligations under the Code.

18. The newspaper did not dispute that it was not certain that the events in the letter had transpired as they were described. This did not, in and of itself, mean the newspaper was not entitled to publish details of the letter; its obligation under Clause 1 was to take care over the presentation of the claims it reported, and to make sure they were distinguished as allegations rather than claims of fact. The Committee was satisfied this had been done throughout the article. At the outset, when introducing the allegations, the article stated, “the mother has claimed”, and said the allegations appeared in “an impassioned letter”. Another allegation regarding a 12-year-old having been intimidated was also introduced with “she claims”.

19. The complainant had also alleged that the line “she detailed how her ten-year old daughter played at an under 13 event last summer where two boys who identified as female were in the opposing team,” in particular, had not been distinguished as comment. However, considering this line in its context within the article – immediately before and after two uses of the word “claims” - as well as the fact it attributed the comment to the mother with the phrase “she detailed”, the Committee was satisfied it was also presented as a claim. There was no breach of the Code on this point.

20. In the Committee’s view, the version of the statement which was published made clear the complainant did not accept the depiction of the match which had been set out in the mother’s letter, and it had no evidence of issues arising from the match. The Committee considered the part of the statement which was omitted was redundant, where it essentially made the same point: that the organisation did not accept there was evidence for the claims in the article. While the Committee welcomed the addition of the extra part of the statement to the online article, it did not consider the removal of one part of the statement rendered the statement as a whole inaccurate, misleading or distorted. There was no breach Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

21. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

22. N/A

Date complaint received: 14/01/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/06/2025