Elite cricketers reported high skin cancer rates. The survey's authors flag their own bias
Fifty-five per cent of surveyed cricketers over 70 reported a basal cell carcinoma. A 29% response rate and self-reported diagnoses mean the number cannot be read as a rate — which is the finding.
Australia is preparing a roadmap to better assess high-risk groups for consideration of more targeted skin screening [s1]. Deciding who counts as high risk is the hard part, and a survey of elite Australian cricketers published in the Australasian Journal of Dermatology is an attempt to nominate one group — and an unusually candid illustration of why survey evidence struggles to settle that question.
What was asked, and of whom
The membership of the Australian Cricketers Association, both current and retired players, was invited to complete a questionnaire on self-reported rates of skin cancer and associated risk factors [s1]. Of 1,530 invited, 451 responded — a response rate of 29% — and 39% of respondents were female [s1].
The reported figures rise steeply with age. Self-reported melanoma was 1% among those under 30, 8% among 51–60 year olds and 20% among those over 70 [s1]. Basal cell carcinoma ran at 1% under 30, 33% at 51–60 and 55% over 70 [s1]. Squamous cell carcinoma was 0% under 30, 23% at 51–60 and 38% over 70 [s1].
Within the sample, very fair- or fair-skinned players, compared with medium- or dark-skinned players, and those who lived at lower latitudes — sunnier regions — as adults, experienced higher rates of all skin cancers [s1]. Females were less likely to have reported basal cell carcinomas than males [s1]. Slightly over half of all cases occurred in the head, face and neck region [s1].
Why those numbers are not rates
The authors do not oversell any of it. Their own conclusion is that the rates are likely to represent a combination of true increase, from a mixture of sporting and leisure-time exposure, and bias due to methodological limitations [s1].
The limitations are structural rather than incidental. A 29% response rate to a voluntary survey about skin cancer, sent to a membership list [s1], selects for people with a reason to answer. Someone who has had three lesions cut out has a stronger prompt to complete the questionnaire than someone who has never seen a dermatologist. Nothing in the design corrects for that, and the direction of the bias is predictable.
Diagnoses are self-reported [s1]. Basal cell carcinoma in particular is common, often treated in general practice, and easily confused in recall with other excised lesions — which is one reason the BCC figures are the highest and least reliable in the set.
There is also no comparison group. The survey reports percentages within age bands of respondents, not incidence relative to matched non-cricketers. Skin cancer rates are high in Australians generally, in outdoor workers and in physically active people [s1], so the interesting question — whether cricket adds risk beyond being an outdoors-inclined Australian — is one the design cannot answer. The internal comparisons that survive best are the ones made within the sample, between fair and darker skin and between latitudes [s1], because those share the same selection process.
The conclusion the authors draw is correspondingly bounded: fair-skinned cricketers can reasonably be considered a high-risk population in Australia who should exercise lifetime vigilance [s1]. That is a statement about a known risk factor observed in a sporting population, not a claim that cricket caused it.
The wider athlete evidence has the same shape
The pattern is not unique to cricket. A narrative review of 62 articles on sun exposure during outdoor sports found various practices linked to increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma or UV-induced skin damage, with water sports and mountaineering associated with BCC, surfing and swimming with SCC, and melanoma more common in swimmers, surfers and marathon runners [s3]. It also notes conditions specific to sport: sunscreen washed off by water, UV reflected by water and snow, sweating-increased skin photosensitivity and activity-induced immunosuppression [s3].
Its behavioural finding is the one that survives the methodological caveats. Athletes' knowledge about the risk of malignant lesions was satisfactory, but outdoor sports participants seem not to protect themselves from the sun adequately [s3].
Why "who is high risk" is currently unanswerable
The screening question these surveys feed into has been mapped in detail. A narrative review in the Medical Journal of Australia assessed whether Australia is ready to use integrated risk scores — combining polygenic risk scores with non-genetic risk factors — for population-based melanoma risk stratification, and concluded that significant evidence and infrastructure gaps must be addressed before programme implementation [s2].
Among the research needs it lists is precisely the one a cricketer survey is trying to serve: defining who should be offered integrated risk scores [s2]. The others include understanding the progression rate of melanoma in situ to invasive disease, addressing performance issues across ancestries, developing clearly defined risk thresholds with corresponding clinical advice, and investigating the clinical utility and impact of receiving a score [s2].
A voluntary survey with a 29% response rate and self-reported diagnoses [s1] cannot supply a risk threshold. What it can do is establish that a defined occupational-sporting group is worth studying with a design that could — a cohort with registry-linked diagnoses and a matched comparison population.
The honest summary
The cricketer survey documents high self-reported skin cancer among an ageing, heavily sun-exposed, disproportionately fair-skinned Australian cohort, in a study that its authors say mixes real signal with methodological bias [s1]. Read as a rate, the numbers are unreliable. Read as a case for putting a specific group into a properly designed study while Australia decides how to target screening [s2], they are doing the work available to them.
Sources
- Rates of Self-Reported Skin Cancer in Current and Retired Elite Australian Cricketers, Australasian Journal of Dermatology, published online 29 January 2026
- Population-Based Melanoma Screening Using Integrated Risk Scores in Australia: A Narrative Review to Determine Readiness, Medical Journal of Australia, published online 2 February 2026
- Skin Cancer Risk, Sun-Protection Knowledge and Behavior in Athletes — A Narrative Review, Cancers, 22 June 2023
Sources
- Rates of Self-Reported Skin Cancer in Current and Retired Elite Australian Cricketers — Australasian Journal of Dermatology , January 29, 2026
- Population-Based Melanoma Screening Using Integrated Risk Scores in Australia: A Narrative Review to Determine Readiness — Medical Journal of Australia , February 2, 2026
- Skin Cancer Risk, Sun-Protection Knowledge and Behavior in Athletes — A Narrative Review — Cancers , June 22, 2023
More on
Australia is deciding whether to screen for melanoma by genotype. It is not ready yet
Integrated risk scores combine polygenic data with conventional risk factors. A readiness review lists what would have to exist first — and separately, 36% of older Australians had no skin check at all last year.
Sunscreen does prevent skin cancer. One Australian trial carries most of the evidence
SPF measures how much ultraviolet exposure it takes to burn, not how long you can stay outside. The randomised cancer-prevention evidence rests largely on 1,621 adults followed for more than a decade.
An mRNA cancer vaccine just won a late-stage trial. Here is what that actually means.
Moderna and Merck's personalized vaccine slowed melanoma's return when added to Keytruda. It is the first mRNA cancer vaccine to succeed at scale — and the first real test of a decade-old idea.
Children with Down syndrome had eight times the cancer risk. In adults it vanished.
A linked-registry cohort of New South Wales residents from 2001 to 2018 finds cancer risk in people with intellectual disability inverts with age — higher when young, lower after 50.