Returning to the Hundred auction

As the dust has settled in the weeks since The Hundred’s 2026 auction in March,  further allegations have emerged regarding possible discriminatory behaviour against Pakistani players. The main defences against these allegations are examined below.

Claim 1: “Abrar Ahmed signing proves no discrimination took place” 

One of the headline stories of The Hundred auction was the signing of Pakistani player, Abrar Ahmed, by Sunrisers Leeds. Considerable scrutiny from journalists, fans and commentators had placed the English Cricket Board (ECB) under pressure in the weeks leading up to the auction, prompting a series of defensive public statements. Against that backdrop, the question of whether Pakistani players were being excluded was followed closely.  

The signing of Abrar Ahmed in particular – but also of Usman Tariq by the US-owned Birmingham Phoenix – was welcome. However, it is wrong to suggest that these two selections automatically mean no discrimination across the whole player auction occurred. 

First, the overall numbers remain stark. 67 Pakistani cricketers put themselves forward for selection in The Hundred auction, with only two cricketers being bid on by any team at all. 14 of the 67 did not receive a bid in the auction proper, and the remaining 51 were not selected as a ‘player of interest’ at all. The fact that an Indian‑owned team selected one Pakistani player does not erase the possibility that discrimination influenced decisions made by other teams. 

Second, each franchise acts independently. Three of the Indian-owned teams did not bid on a single Pakistani player. Because the ECB has not disclosed which teams identified which cricketers as a player of interest, it is impossible to know whether those teams ever considered Pakistani players in the first place. 

Finally, even the two selected players – Ahmed and Tariq - may still have been disadvantaged. If certain teams ruled themselves out of bidding for Pakistani players, then the absence of a competitive bidding environment may have reduced the final contract value available to those players. A discriminatory process could therefore still cause harm, even when a player is ultimately selected. 

Claim 2: “Discrimination is very hard to prove” 

A recurring theme in commentary has been the assertion that discrimination is almost impossible to establish. The main justification for this appears to be that an employer can simply point to alternative reasons for their decision – genuine or otherwise – and thereby defeat any claim. In relation to The Hundred discrimination, this would potentially manifest as teams pointing to typical sporting reasons for the non-selection.  

But this is not how the Equality Act 2010 works. 

Race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of nationality, ethnicity or national origins. Crucially, a claimant does not need to show that discrimination was the sole, main or dominant reason for the treatment they received. The legal test is whether the protected characteristic had a material influence on the decision. 

In practice, this means that if race played any meaningful causal role – even alongside other legitimate factors – the treatment may still be unlawful. The law recognises that discrimination is often subtle, multi‑layered and rarely expressed openly. It is therefore incorrect to assume that a claim would fail simply because a team could point to other considerations. 

Claim 3: “Everything is fine now”  

Some have suggested that the selection of two Pakistani players demonstrates that the ECB successfully stopped any discrimination, and that any concerns were overstated.  

But not only is this not borne out by the actual evidence from the auction, the events immediately following the draft also tell a different story.  

Within hours of announcing Abrar Ahmed’s signing, Sunrisers Leeds temporarily suspended their Twitter/X account after receiving waves of anti‑Pakistani abuse.  

As well as this, across the global “Sunrisers” network thousands of comments called for boycotts and expressed overtly anti‑Pakistani sentiment. 

These reactions underline that the issues raised are not isolated or resolved. They form part of a wider pattern of hostility that cannot be dismissed simply because two players were selected. 

What next? 

Whilst the signing of Abrar Ahmed was rightly welcomed, the possibility that discrimination took place has not gone away and structural issues seem to remain unaddressed.  

It remains the case that a Pakistani cricketer could bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal if they believe they have been subjected to unlawful discrimination.