Two matches and out? Cricket’s new World Cup format raises questions for smaller teams

When the ICC announced a new structure for the 2027 Men’s Cricket World Cup, the headline appeared reassuring: 14 teams would still take part. But the detail beneath it told a more complicated story.
 
Under the revised format, the three lowest-ranked qualified sides will not enter the main World Cup group stage straight away. Instead, they will play a preliminary three-team round—the Super Series—where only one side progresses. For the other two teams, a World Cup campaign could end after just two matches.
 
For cricket’s established powers, the format promises more high-stakes matches and fewer early mismatches. For Associate nations and lower-ranked teams, however, it raises a difficult question: what does qualifying for a World Cup really mean if you can be out before the main tournament has properly begun?
 
A Place, But Not Equal Status
 
The 2027 World Cup, to be co-hosted by South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, will retain a 14-team field. Yet the competition will not begin on equal terms for every qualifier. The 12 highest-ranked teams will go directly into two main groups of six. The three lowest ranked qualified teams will first face one another in the Super Series. Only the winner earns a place in the group stage; the remaining two teams will leave the tournament without playing a single match against the competition’s leading sides.
 
That may sound like a small technical adjustment. In reality, it could have major consequences. For India, Australia, England, Pakistan, or South Africa, a World Cup is a familiar event with huge crowds, deep squads, extensive media coverage, and powerful commercial backing. For a country such as Scotland, the Netherlands, Namibia, Nepal, or the USA, it can be a rare chance to step into the global spotlight.
 
One strong World Cup performance can change the direction of a cricketing nation. It can attract sponsors, encourage government support, fill academies with young players, and persuade broadcasters to show more games. It can turn a promising side into a recognised international team. Two matches may not be enough time for any of that to happen.
 
Associates Fear Another Closed Door
 
Scotland and the Netherlands have been among the most outspoken critics of the new arrangement. Both boards have questioned not only the format but also the timing of the change, arguing that it came after the qualification pathway was already in progress. Their frustration is understandable.
 
Associate nations already operate in a very different world from cricket’s biggest countries. They play fewer fixtures against elite opposition, have smaller budgets, struggle for regular broadcasting deals, and often rely on limited pools of contracted players. Every major tournament is therefore more than a sporting event. It is an opportunity to survive, develop, and be seen.
 
The Netherlands know the value of such opportunities. The Dutch have repeatedly shown that Associate teams can challenge far stronger opponents when given the stage. Scotland, too, has been a regular contender in qualification events and has developed a reputation for disciplined, competitive cricket. Neither country is asking for a free pass. Both are arguing that teams which have already qualified should receive a meaningful chance to compete.
 
The criticism has not come only from Associate boards. Former Australia captain Steve Waugh labelled the revised World Cup qualification system a “backward step,” while former India spinner R. Ashwin said emerging teams need more meaningful matches against stronger opposition. Their views support the concerns of Associate players. Netherlands captain Scott Edwards called the changes “incredibly disappointing,” arguing that a World Cup opportunity is essential for countries seeking to develop their players and inspire the next generation. Together, these reactions suggest that the debate is not simply about tournament structure; it is about who gets a genuine chance to belong in international cricket.

The fear is that the revised format creates a World Cup with two classes of participants: teams that enter the main event automatically, and teams that must first prove they deserve to be there.
 
The ICC’s Case: More Consequence
 
The ICC has defended the restructuring as a way to create greater “context, competitiveness and consequence” from the first match. There is a clear commercial and sporting logic behind that idea. Broadcasters want tight contests. Fans want games that matter. Tournament organisers want to avoid one-sided matches that can make the opening weeks feel predictable.
 
A preliminary round also guarantees that the teams involved will begin with knockout-style pressure. No match will be meaningless. Every run, wicket, and net run-rate calculation will carry weight. But that logic comes with a risk.
 
Cricket has often spoken about expanding beyond its traditional centres. It wants the sport to grow in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. It wants new supporters, new markets, and new generations of players. 

Yet expansion requires patience. It requires strong teams to play weaker teams, even when the result is not always close. It requires organisers to accept that progress is rarely neat or immediate. A developing nation cannot become competitive without playing competitive cricket.
 
Growth Needs More Than Good Intentions
 
The recent rise of Nepal shows why the issue matters. Nepal has one of cricket’s most passionate fan bases outside the game’s traditional powers and has become an important development story for the ICC. Increased investment and attention can help the country improve facilities, develop players, and build a more stable international programme.
 
But funding alone is not enough. Players need matches against elite opponents. They need to experience hostile crowds, high-pressure chases, world-class bowling attacks, and the tactical demands of major tournaments.
 
Afghanistan’s growth offers a broader lesson. Its journey from emerging side to serious international competitor came through opportunities, exposure, and sustained development. Cricket did not grow there because Afghanistan was kept away from the biggest stages. It grew because the country was gradually allowed to compete on them. The same principle applies to every smaller cricket nation.
 
If Scotland, the Netherlands, Namibia, Nepal, the USA, or Canada are to become more than occasional World Cup visitors, they need a pathway that rewards progress rather than adding new obstacles at the final step.
 
A World Cup Must Be More Than a Showcase
 
The ICC is right to want competitive matches. No tournament benefits from poor cricket or predictable results. But competitiveness should not be confused with exclusivity. A World Cup should be difficult to win. It should not be difficult merely to participate in once a team has qualified.
 
There are alternatives. The ICC could guarantee every qualified nation a minimum number of group matches. It could create a longer event with more teams and a format that preserves competitive balance. It could organise more regular ODI series between Full Members and Associate sides outside World Cup years.
 
Most importantly, it could ensure that changes to qualification systems are made early, transparently, and with proper consultation. Smaller boards cannot plan player contracts, budgets, travel, and development programmes if the rules change halfway through the journey.
 
The Verdict
 
The 2027 format may deliver sharper early contests, but it also risks sending the wrong message to cricket’s emerging nations. A team that qualifies for a World Cup should not arrive wondering whether it will be gone before the tournament’s real story begins. The game’s smaller countries do not want sympathy. They want the same thing every cricketing nation wants: a fair chance to compete.
 
Cricket’s future will not be decided only in Mumbai, Melbourne, London, or Karachi. It will also be shaped in Amsterdam, Glasgow, Kathmandu, Windhoek, and cities where young players are still deciding whether cricket is a dream worth pursuing.
 
If the World Cup is meant to represent the world, it must leave room for those dreams.