Faisal Hasnain on the 2027 World Cup format change: three teams enter a preliminary round, two go home after two matches, and the ICC calls it consequence.
In 2021 or thereabouts, the ICC told the cricket world that the 2027 World Cup would expand to 14 teams. Countries planned around that. Players planned around that. Qualification structures were built around it, and the associates invested money on the strength of it. Then, recently, the whole thing was changed.
Technically, there are still 14 teams, because that is how the ICC describes it. But three teams now enter a preliminary super series, and two of them are eliminated after just two matches, never reaching the 12-team main group. I have my own views on this, and I'm not buying what the ICC says. Not at all.
My position is clear. I strongly support the concerns raised by the World Cricketers Association, by Scotland and the Netherlands, and by the players. I believe this sad episode is another failure of cricket governance, added to a long list of them.
This isn't just about whether six teams or seven should be in a group, or whether we need a super six, a super seven, a super series or a super duper series. With the ICC, everything is super this and super that. The real issue is much bigger: what sort of global sport does cricket want to become?
If I sell you a box marked 14 apples, and when you open it two are bad, so only 12 make it to the main table, have I really given you what you thought you were buying? Technically, perhaps. Spiritually, ethically and morally, certainly not.
The ICC increasingly leans on a particular kind of language. The new format, we are told, creates greater context, greater competitiveness, greater consequence, meaningful competition, enhanced competitive intensity. Very impressive. You could put all of that into a PowerPoint presentation and charge a consulting fee.
Take away the consultant's pretty language and look at what happens. Three qualified teams enter a preliminary round. Two disappear after two matches each. They don't play the main event.
When the language says global growth but the outcome reduces opportunities for emerging countries, look at the outcome.
So when the words say growth and the result is fewer opportunities for emerging countries, which should we believe, the language or the outcome? You and I have to look at the outcome.
The WCA says players were not meaningfully consulted. Scotland and the Netherlands say members affected by these changes should have been properly engaged before decisions about their future were made. The players themselves have asked for meaningful consultation.
Consultation doesn't mean handing everybody a vote or a veto. It means saying: here's what we are thinking and here's why. How will this affect you? What haven't we considered? Now let's make the decision. Mr. ICC, that isn't a weakness. That is good governance.
The ICC has a responsibility to generate revenue for its members, and the broadcasters paying that money want attractive matches that draw advertisers. There has been media speculation that the new structure creates commercially valuable repeat fixtures between major teams, including India and Pakistan.
When I look at who gets the greatest certainty of attractive matches and who gains financially, I find it a reasonable personal conclusion that commercial and broadcasting considerations played a role. If so, the balance is wrong. Commercial objectives should support cricketing objectives. Cricketing objectives should not become secondary to commercial ones. There is a huge difference between the two.
The men in suits on the ICC board should ask themselves a simple question: what does growing cricket actually mean to you? It does not mean just distributing money. Growth means providing opportunity: to play better teams, to appear on the biggest stage, to attract sponsors, to inspire children, to create heroes and role models.
The Netherlands beating South Africa. Ireland beating Pakistan. USA beating Pakistan. Those moments didn't happen because someone produced a slide about global growth. They happened because those teams were on the field.
You don't learn to swim by standing next to the swimming pool and watching.
If emerging countries only play emerging countries, how are they supposed to close the gap? The commercial return from a full member playing an associate may not be great. But governing a global sport means looking beyond tomorrow's TV ratings. It means asking what will make cricket stronger in 20 years. Before every major decision, every board member should ask: does this help grow cricket and protect its future? That is the real test, and I'd like the ICC to apply it honestly to this World Cup decision.
I'm not saying associate nations deserve charity. They don't. I'm not saying they should automatically qualify. They should not. Make them qualify. Make them earn it. Make it tough.
But once they have qualified, let them play. Give them the opportunity to face the best, to improve, to surprise all of us. That is what a proper governing body does.
My governance lesson is simple. Authority gives you the power to make a decision, but that does not make it a good one. Good governance requires transparency, consultation, consistency, long-term thinking, and sometimes the courage to give up short-term commercial gains for the long-term health of the game.
The ICC says it wants cricket to become a genuinely global sport. Growth is not a phrase in a high-sounding press release. It has to be demonstrated in the decisions you make, and on this one the ICC has fallen well short.
Authority gives you the power to make a decision, but that does not automatically make that a good decision.
Let me know whether you agree or disagree.
