Is there any good reason why a 50-over match that is played under MCC laws and ICC regulations between two international teams that are member of the ICC should not be considered a One Day International?
During the World Cup Qualifier - not only this one but the ones that have come before - some of the matches that are being played are ODIs, but any that involve the Netherlands or Nepal are not. So, for example, UAE vs PNG was considered a One Day International, but the West Indies vs the Netherlands will only be a List A match.
This look doubly silly because the Netherlands have already gained ODI status due to winning the World Cricket League Championship, and after the Qualifier all their matches against other teams with ODI status will be considered ODIs. But the matches in the Qualifier itself? Nope, they don't count.
Further exacerbating this ridiculousness is the situation Papua New Guinea find themselves in, whereby it is in their best interests to lose to the Netherlands in their upcoming match. Why? Because if they win, they will have virtually guaranteed that they will be one of only two Associate nations (excluding Nederland) to miss out on the super six stage...and the bottom two Associates miss out on ODI status.
The Netherlands' victory in the WCLC meant that they get to join the 2019-2021 ODI Championship, a thirteen team competition comprising of the twelve full member nations and the top Associate nation (Nederland). This guarantees many ODIs across the two year cycle for all the teams participating, and with it a great increase in funding and resources. Scotland, who are currently the top team in the WCQ and who were just pipped at the post for the WCLC, will also have ODI status during that time, but currently have no guaranteed fixtures and far less available funding. Both nations, along with all their fellow Associates, also receive far less than the full member nations, as is aptly shown by this chart which I am spamming everywhere in the hopes people will see how stupidly unfair it is:
Prior to the big three takeover, the ICC distribution of funds was quite fair. Associates got funding to improve, the full members were on a level playing field and, crucially, there was a development budget set aside that couldn't be touched by anyone else, to be used as the ICC staff saw fit. (This could've, for example, been used to show the World Cup Qualifiers by setting up a streaming service which people could pay a small fee to watch.)
The B3 model went in the opposite direction. India, being the main source of income for global televised cricket, was used by the BCCI to argue that they 'deserved' to have the greatest share of the pot, because it was 'theirs' to begin with. The ECB (ie. Giles Clarke) put forward the ten team World Cup to back them up, because this would guarantee that India would play at least nine matches. CA, knowing how to look out for itself, backed them up. This took away the development budget, thereby leaving the ICC running on a shoestring budget with regards to their stated purpose of growing the game worldwide.
Furthermore, the Associate budget was cut so harshly that most of the funding has to go to the teams with ODI status, while the remaining nations get the leftovers. At the time, that meant that six out of thirty-eight teams would get the majority of funds distributed over four years. That is a long time to go without much funding.
When the B3 model was overturned last year, the initial proposal was better, but still a long way from the pre-B3 one. There was still no development budget, the BCCI alone would receive more than all the Associates, and all the full member nations would have a greater income than they used to. Furthermore, the ICC chose to do away with Affiliates, and made all non-full members into Associates, thereby increasing their potential funding. This meant there were now 94 Associates, of which only six would have ODI status and get the majority of funding.
After the BCCI complained about their funding, this was again changed in July so that they would receive three time what every other full member got, apart from the newly crowned Afghanistan and Ireland. Having left the Associate nest, they agreed to this plan that would give them far more funding (and permanent Test and ODI 'status') than ever before. The remaining 92 Associates, on the other hand, had less funds than ever before to distribute between themselves, and the ICC chose not to expand the number of teams with ODI status. Instead, the removed the position of ODI status as the decider of funding, instead tying it to performance in global events reached - which basically makes it tied to status anyway, just in a roundabout way and with the potential for a team with ODI status to a) play matches against full members (which full members never pursue if they don't have to) and b) go further up the pecking order at global events, thereby increasing their funding (proportional to the total Associate pool, which is still tiny).
The BCCI does not need this much money from the ICC. In fact, they barely need any. In the 2015-16 financial year they ran at a profit of $186 million, most of which was independent of distributed revenue from the ICC. The point of global tournaments that the ICC gets their income from should be to expand the game, both by having more teams there, and by using the revenue they receive at the tournaments as they see fit, rather than how the member boards see fit.
As it stands, the limits of ODI status stand in the way of multiple nations with great potential. Nepal could desperately use more funds to complete their new stadium. PNG could do with funding to expand the game beyond the village of Hanuabada. Namibia need funds to keep their best players from disappearing into careers, as do many other leading Associates.
So, again, is there any good reason why a 50-over match that is played under MCC laws and ICC regulations between two international teams that are member of the ICC should not be considered a One Day International? All members of the ICC should be considered worthy of funding, in order to expand the game and ensure that the international matches they play are of an ever increasing standard.
During the World Cup Qualifier - not only this one but the ones that have come before - some of the matches that are being played are ODIs, but any that involve the Netherlands or Nepal are not. So, for example, UAE vs PNG was considered a One Day International, but the West Indies vs the Netherlands will only be a List A match.
This look doubly silly because the Netherlands have already gained ODI status due to winning the World Cricket League Championship, and after the Qualifier all their matches against other teams with ODI status will be considered ODIs. But the matches in the Qualifier itself? Nope, they don't count.
Further exacerbating this ridiculousness is the situation Papua New Guinea find themselves in, whereby it is in their best interests to lose to the Netherlands in their upcoming match. Why? Because if they win, they will have virtually guaranteed that they will be one of only two Associate nations (excluding Nederland) to miss out on the super six stage...and the bottom two Associates miss out on ODI status.
The Netherlands' victory in the WCLC meant that they get to join the 2019-2021 ODI Championship, a thirteen team competition comprising of the twelve full member nations and the top Associate nation (Nederland). This guarantees many ODIs across the two year cycle for all the teams participating, and with it a great increase in funding and resources. Scotland, who are currently the top team in the WCQ and who were just pipped at the post for the WCLC, will also have ODI status during that time, but currently have no guaranteed fixtures and far less available funding. Both nations, along with all their fellow Associates, also receive far less than the full member nations, as is aptly shown by this chart which I am spamming everywhere in the hopes people will see how stupidly unfair it is:
Prior to the big three takeover, the ICC distribution of funds was quite fair. Associates got funding to improve, the full members were on a level playing field and, crucially, there was a development budget set aside that couldn't be touched by anyone else, to be used as the ICC staff saw fit. (This could've, for example, been used to show the World Cup Qualifiers by setting up a streaming service which people could pay a small fee to watch.)
The B3 model went in the opposite direction. India, being the main source of income for global televised cricket, was used by the BCCI to argue that they 'deserved' to have the greatest share of the pot, because it was 'theirs' to begin with. The ECB (ie. Giles Clarke) put forward the ten team World Cup to back them up, because this would guarantee that India would play at least nine matches. CA, knowing how to look out for itself, backed them up. This took away the development budget, thereby leaving the ICC running on a shoestring budget with regards to their stated purpose of growing the game worldwide.
Furthermore, the Associate budget was cut so harshly that most of the funding has to go to the teams with ODI status, while the remaining nations get the leftovers. At the time, that meant that six out of thirty-eight teams would get the majority of funds distributed over four years. That is a long time to go without much funding.
When the B3 model was overturned last year, the initial proposal was better, but still a long way from the pre-B3 one. There was still no development budget, the BCCI alone would receive more than all the Associates, and all the full member nations would have a greater income than they used to. Furthermore, the ICC chose to do away with Affiliates, and made all non-full members into Associates, thereby increasing their potential funding. This meant there were now 94 Associates, of which only six would have ODI status and get the majority of funding.
After the BCCI complained about their funding, this was again changed in July so that they would receive three time what every other full member got, apart from the newly crowned Afghanistan and Ireland. Having left the Associate nest, they agreed to this plan that would give them far more funding (and permanent Test and ODI 'status') than ever before. The remaining 92 Associates, on the other hand, had less funds than ever before to distribute between themselves, and the ICC chose not to expand the number of teams with ODI status. Instead, the removed the position of ODI status as the decider of funding, instead tying it to performance in global events reached - which basically makes it tied to status anyway, just in a roundabout way and with the potential for a team with ODI status to a) play matches against full members (which full members never pursue if they don't have to) and b) go further up the pecking order at global events, thereby increasing their funding (proportional to the total Associate pool, which is still tiny).
The BCCI does not need this much money from the ICC. In fact, they barely need any. In the 2015-16 financial year they ran at a profit of $186 million, most of which was independent of distributed revenue from the ICC. The point of global tournaments that the ICC gets their income from should be to expand the game, both by having more teams there, and by using the revenue they receive at the tournaments as they see fit, rather than how the member boards see fit.
As it stands, the limits of ODI status stand in the way of multiple nations with great potential. Nepal could desperately use more funds to complete their new stadium. PNG could do with funding to expand the game beyond the village of Hanuabada. Namibia need funds to keep their best players from disappearing into careers, as do many other leading Associates.
So, again, is there any good reason why a 50-over match that is played under MCC laws and ICC regulations between two international teams that are member of the ICC should not be considered a One Day International? All members of the ICC should be considered worthy of funding, in order to expand the game and ensure that the international matches they play are of an ever increasing standard.
Last edited:
