Associate players severely criticise ICC's revamped format for ODI World Cup

The International Cricket Council’s decision to revamp the structure of the next ODI World Cup, to be co‑hosted by Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, has sparked strong criticism from players representing Associate nations. The biggest point of contention is the elimination of two teams after playing two matches each, before the tournament has even gathered momentum.

The upcoming edition will feature 14 teams, but the ICC has introduced a three‑team, round‑robin “Super Series” among the lowest‑ranked qualifiers. This change means two sides will bow out after playing only two games each. The announcement, made after the ICC’s Annual General Meeting in Edinburgh, has left Associate players questioning the relevance of the ongoing Cricket World Cup League 2, a qualification pathway for the signature event.

Netherlands captain Scott Edwards voiced his disappointment in a statement released by the World Cricketers’ Association: “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.”

He added that the ICC’s rhetoric about growing the game globally is undermined by decisions that reduce opportunities for Associate nations:

“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.”

Namibia skipper Gerhard Erasmus echoed those sentiments, stressing the importance of the ODI World Cup for players from smaller nations.

“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.”

Scotland captain Richie Berrington also weighed in, urging the ICC to consult players before making decisions that directly affect their careers.

“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.”

The backlash highlights a growing frustration among Associate nations, who see the revamped format as another barrier to competing meaningfully on cricket’s biggest stage.