The International Cricket Council‘s decision to overhaul the format of the 2027 Men’s ODI World Cup has drawn immediate and forceful criticism from Associate nations and the World Cricketers’ Association, with players and officials arguing the revised structure reduces meaningful opportunities for emerging cricket nations while raising fundamental questions about how the game is governed.
WCA raises concerns over transparency and consultation
The WCA issued a formal statement this week setting out its concerns across four areas — transparency, consultation, global growth and the human impact on players and countries who have built their careers around qualification pathways that have now materially changed. Tom Moffat, Chief Executive Officer of the World Cricketers’ Association, said in the WCA statement: “The ICC is entitled to determine the structure of its global events. However, when commitments are made to the game, qualification pathways are established and countries and players invest years pursuing those opportunities, significant changes deserve genuine consultation, transparency and a clear explanation.”
Moffat did not stop at process. He argued the decision sits in direct conflict with the sport’s stated ambition of expanding its global footprint. “It is difficult to reconcile the game’s stated ambition of growing cricket globally with decisions that reduce meaningful opportunities at pinnacle events for some of the countries that stood to benefit most from genuine expansion,” he added.
He also situated cricket’s governance challenges within a broader global sporting context. “Across global sport, the long-term trend has been towards broader participation, stronger stakeholder engagement and greater certainty including around major events. Cricket has an opportunity to embrace those same principles and ensure its major events continue to strengthen the global game,” Moffat said.
On the personal consequences for players, he was equally direct. “For many players, qualifying for an ODI World Cup can be the pinnacle of a career. Players make significant professional and personal commitments in pursuit of that opportunity. To spend years working towards a clearly understood pathway, only to see that materially change within a cycle, has real consequences,” he noted.
Moffat framed the issue as one that extends well beyond a single tournament. “This isn’t simply about the format of one tournament. It’s about ensuring game wide confidence in how the game makes major strategic decisions. As highlighted in WCA’s Global Game Structure Report, completed following extensive consultation across the game, there is broad recognition that cricket has extraordinary opportunities ahead through greater global alignment,” he said. He closed with a direct call to action. “Realising those opportunities requires greater transparency, modern leadership and meaningful collaboration and engagement between all stakeholders, including with the people who make cricket what it is. We continue to urge the ICC and its members to do so,” Moffat added.
What the revised format means for Associate nations
As previously reported by cricexec, the ICC approved the revised structure at its Annual Conference in Edinburgh. The 2027 tournament will retain 14 teams but will introduce a preliminary Super Series round in which the three lowest-ranked qualifiers compete in a round-robin stage, with only the top team advancing to Round Two. Two nations will therefore be eliminated having played just two matches — a stark contrast to the original format, under which all 14 teams were scheduled to participate in two groups of seven.
The change has left Associate nations questioning the value of the gruelling qualification process they have been navigating. Eight nations are currently contesting 36 matches each in the Cricket World Cup League 2 in pursuit of a place at next year’s global qualifier, a commitment that now carries far less certainty about what awaits at the tournament itself.
The Netherlands’ situation illustrates the frustration acutely. Despite defeating South Africa and Bangladesh at the 2023 World Cup, the Dutch have not played a single ODI against a Full Member nation since that tournament — a reality that makes every World Cup appearance all the more significant for a side with limited access to top-level competition.
Captains unite in criticism
Scott Edwards, Dutch Men’s Captain, was unsparing in his assessment. “Qualifying for an ODI World Cup is a huge achievement for any country, so when the reality of that opportunity changes after years of planning, it’s incredibly disappointing. The ICC talks a lot about growing the game globally but decisions like this make it harder for associate nations to play against the best teams in the world. Those opportunities are what helps countries improve and inspires the next generation of players. If we’re serious about making cricket a global sport, we should be creating more opportunities on the global stage not less,” Edwards said.
Gerhard Erasmus, Namibian Men’s Captain, questioned whether qualifying under the new structure would constitute a genuine opportunity at all. “For players in many countries, an ODI World Cup isn’t just another tournament, it’s our long form and something careers are built around and generations of players aspire to. We all accept that you have to earn the right to be there, but we also want qualification to provide a real opportunity to compete on the biggest stage. This follows a long history of limited opportunity at associate level,” Erasmus noted.
Richie Berrington, Scotland Men’s Captain, directed his criticism at the process rather than solely the outcome. “Players don’t expect to make every decision, but we should be meaningfully consulted on decisions that have significant impacts on the game and on players’ careers. Better decisions are made when different perspectives are brought to the table, and we’re urging the game to start doing that properly,” Berrington stated.
Paul Stirling, Ireland Men’s Captain, pointed to the recently concluded FIFA World Cup as a model cricket should consider. “The smaller and associate countries have consistently proven to add value and interest at global events. The football World Cup we’ve just witnessed is testament to that in other sports and it would be great to see cricket take a similar approach to maximise opportunities for the game,” Stirling said.
Broader player community adds its voice
The criticism extended beyond captains. Harmeet Singh, a United States player, emphasised the wider consequences of the decision. “Countries, and players invest years preparing for opportunities like an ODI World Cup. Those opportunities mean a lot, not just for the players involved but for growing the game in emerging countries and for the fans who invest in the game. That’s why decisions like these matter well beyond one tournament,” Singh added.
Daryl Mitchell, a New Zealand player, offered a statement of solidarity. “We are fully supportive of players and countries around the world being provided with consistent and fair opportunities to reach and compete on the game’s biggest platforms,” Mitchell stated.
Scotland opener George Munsey was more blunt, telling Cricinfo: “Absolutely no surprise that the ICC hasn’t looked after anyone outside the top three [Australia, England and India].” The remark reflects a wider frustration among Associate players that the governance structures shaping the global game remain heavily weighted towards its most powerful Full Member boards. It is worth noting that cricket boards in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka do not recognise the WCA, according to Cricinfo, a reality that limits the players’ association’s ability to engage at the highest levels of the game.
ICC defends the revised structure
When announcing the changes, the ICC described the revised format as producing a “more compelling tournament” and said it would “enhance the overall experience for fans while continuing to provide emerging teams with the opportunity to compete on cricket’s biggest stage.” The governing body has maintained that the structure creates greater consequence at every stage of the competition and that the recommendations were approved by a Board that includes three Associate nation representatives. The WCA and the captains who have spoken out this week are asking for something more: a seat at the table before decisions are made, not after.
