Cricket Scotland and the Netherlands issued a joint statement calling the ICC's attitude "disappointing and disrespectful" over late changes to the 2027 ODI World Cup format.
Two ICC members have gone on record with language that is, by the standards of international cricket governance, remarkably blunt. Cricket Scotland and Cricket Netherlands issued a joint statement describing the ICC's handling of the 2027 ODI World Cup format changes as disappointing, disrespectful, and a potential threat to the credibility of international cricket. These are not journalists. These are not outside critics. These are members of the ICC's own family, at least on paper.
The statement centres on two core complaints: the changes were made too late, and the affected members were not properly consulted. Both of those complaints, on their own, would be significant. Together, they amount to a governance indictment.
Scotland and the Netherlands point out that the format changes were announced with less than 18 months to go before the tournament. These are countries that had spent years working toward a qualification process that had already been agreed. They planned their cricket around it. They invested money, developed players, built budgets, and spoke to potential sponsors. All of that planning was premised on a World Cup structure the ICC had already locked in.
"If the ICC board establishes the rules of the tournament, then countries have every right to expect that those rules won't change halfway through the process."
The expectation that rules won't shift mid-game is not a high bar. It is a basic one. And for associate members, that certainty matters even more than it does for full members, precisely because their financial resources are so much smaller. When the ground moves beneath them, they have far less capacity to absorb the shock.
The second complaint is about process, and it is the one with the most significant governance implications. Scotland and the Netherlands argue that members directly affected by major decisions should be properly consulted before those decisions are made.
Consultation is a word that gets misunderstood in these conversations. It does not mean every member gets a veto. It does not mean the ICC must do whatever the associates want. It means: come down from your clouds, meet us in the lobby, tell us what you're thinking, listen to how it might affect us, give us sufficient notice, and then make your decision.
Consultation doesn't weaken leadership. It makes decisions stronger.
That framing matters. The ICC's authority to make decisions is not what is being questioned. What is being questioned is how that authority is being exercised.
After the changes were announced, Scotland and the Netherlands met with the ICC twice. They asked for written clarification on the changes and on the process. They sought improvements in future decision-making and greater opportunities for bilateral planning with full members. More than two weeks after their second meeting, there had been no response. That silence is what produced the words "disappointing and disrespectful" in a public statement about their own governing body.
To be fair, there may have been further communication since that statement was published. And I hope there has been. But just meeting someone is neither here nor there. It is what happens at the meeting and after that matters.
Scotland and the Netherlands make a third argument that goes beyond their own situation, and it is the most important one for cricket's long-term health.
For an emerging nation, a World Cup is not just a series of matches. It can attract sponsors. It can encourage government investment. It can inspire children to take up cricket. It generates media coverage and can dramatically raise the sport's profile within a country that might otherwise never pay attention.
Cricket's future is strongest when every member has a genuine and fair opportunity to compete, develop and succeed.
The history backs this up. Ireland beating England in 2011. The Netherlands beating England in 2009, South Africa in 2022, and then South Africa and Bangladesh in 2023. The USA beating Pakistan in 2024. These results happened because smaller nations were given the stage. They were not anomalies to be managed. They were exactly the kind of moments that make the sport grow.
"If cricket wants to become truly global, why would you reduce meaningful opportunities for emerging nations in the very tournament that can help them to grow?"
It is a simple question, and no one has yet offered a clear answer.
Good governance is not just about having the authority to make a decision. It is also about how that authority is exercised. Was sufficient notice given? Were the impacted parties heard? Was the process transparent? Was there meaningful consultation? Can the final decision be clearly and publicly explained?
The ICC can tick the first box: it has the authority. The Scotland and Netherlands statement suggests the rest of those boxes remain empty. And "changing structures at short notice creates significant uncertainty, disrupts planning, and places additional operational and financial pressure on organizations that are already operating with limited resources" is not a vague concern. It is a precise description of what happens to associate members when the rules shift beneath them.
The question worth sitting with is the one Scotland and the Netherlands leave open at the end of their statement. When ICC members may be directly affected by a major change, should there be meaningful consultation before a decision is made? Or should the ICC board continue to make changes without consultation, whenever it decides a different format might be better, regardless of the impact on the countries that have built everything around the existing one?
That question is waiting for an answer from the ICC. So far, there is only silence.
