Will revenue triumph over fairness? by StuffsEarth

The cricketing world could soon be in store for major upheaval following reports that ICC Chair Jay Shah will meet Cricket Australia Chair Mike Baird and England’s Richard Thompson to discuss splitting international Test Cricket into two tiers.

In what would likely be a major boost for the Big 3– a two-tier Test system would likely see the axis of India, England and Australia face off more frequently.

At this stage it’s unclear what the final details of this new WTC format would look like – but speculation of a six-team top tier and 4-5 team second tier, all playing each other a prescribed number of times.

When the topic of tiers was last discussed in 2016, the BCCI emphatically rejected the proposal citing their need to protect smaller nations from potential revenue losses and the reduced opportunity to play.

In 2025 it’s hard to see what has changed. Meaning the only logical reason for this renewed push is big R-word that lingers over cricketing administrators across the globe.

Revenue.

In the UK, about 75% of its £310m annual revenue comes from broadcast rights, while the BCCI will earn around US$720m from broadcast rights over five years (2023-2027). Interest and attention surges when Australia, England and India face off against each other so ensuring the schedule aligns for this happen is of interest to the Big 3.

Beyond the dollars and cents, the undercurrent of displeasure with the current system has begun to reach the surface – and rumblings from those in India and the UK have been growing louder and louder in recent weeks following South Africa’s qualification for the WTC final despite playing little more than half the amount of games as their cricketing overlords.

The WTC was originally introduced to increase the relevance of bilateral cricket to audiences growing tired of seemingly meaningless Test series, but its introduction failed to address the underlying inequity in world cricket that exists between the haves and have-nots.

The fact that South Africa only plays in two Test series is largely due to the lacking popularity for the format in the country coupled by the crippling costs of both hosting and touring. Simply mandating that South Africa and co. play more games doesn’t address these issues.

And while it does seem farcical that despite having played so little cricket, and little more than a year ago running out a second-string side in New Zealand – South Africa’s qualification for the final is off the back of being shafted from the adult table and being relegated to a pseudo second-tier nation through an inequitable ICC revenue sharing model.

In a Telegraph column on the topic, Michael Vaughan advocated for Test match windows to be implemented and allow for domestic T20 leagues to operate without international cricket creating scheduling conflicts.

While good in theory – the reality is such change without rules around ensuring a balanced home and away schedule will further entrench disadvantage in smaller nations. Both South Africa and New Zealand should be able to lay claim to hosting Tests during December-January when their fans appetite for cricket peaks – but when it comes time to playing Australia, we know whose bread will be buttered first.

Can you imagine a future without the Boxing Day Test, as Australia is required to play in Johannesburg? Or the Ashes reduced to a three-game series to give fairness to Sri Lanka who may not be able to afford to play more games on their piece-meal budgets? Me neither.

Changing the system and bringing in Test match windows alone won’t solve the glaring issue of power-imbalances in cricket, and it’s a little wonder that only Australia, England and India are involved in drawing the blueprint for how the game will be played in the future. This revelation is only further evidence that cricket already has an embedded two-tier system – although right now it’s the Big 3 and the rest who are encumbered to the decisions made for them.

The future of Test cricket hangs precariously between tradition and transformation. While the proposed two-tier system and Test match windows may aim to boost revenue and streamline schedules, they risk deepening the already stark inequalities in the game.

Without equitable revenue sharing and genuine efforts to support smaller nations, these changes may only solidify the dominance of the Big 3. Cricket’s soul lies in its diversity and competitive spirit, and any blueprint for the future must prioritize fairness and inclusivity over short-term financial gain. The decisions made now will shape not just the sport’s format but its very identity in the years to come.