3 Reasons why the World Cup should have more than 10 teams.

The fixture list for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 came out sometime back and you might have noticed a few things. For one, there are only 10 teams as compared to the 14 that participated in three of the last four World Cups.

Fewer teams means there will be fewer matches, however the 2019 tournament shall be lengthier than before.

The World Cup is a special event. It’s a tournament that every little kid dreams of winning for their country one day. There’s a special excitement when your country plays a World Cup match, no matter who the opposition.

Reducing the number of teams takes some of that away. At a time when people are thinking Test Cricket is dying and One Day Cricket is becoming boring, should they really be looking to exclude the few teams that are wanting to play?

The FIFA World Cup is arguably the most popular sporting event in the world. It is a 32 team World Cup and yet they're looking at expanding the number of participants. The Cricket World Cup has less than half the number of teams. Yet, the ICC has decided to reduce the numbers.

#1. The associate nations need more revenue

A major source of the revenue received during the World Cup is from TV rights and therefore, it’s extremely helpful when teams like India and Pakistan play. The revenue sharing system however isn’t uniform. Strong boards like the BCCI get a much higher share while other boards are left struggling.

Yes, the amount of revenue that teams like Zimbabwe receive has increased, however it’s not enough. The minimum a team received just for participating in the 2015 WC was $35,000. If they don’t get to participate, they don’t even get this minimal amount. Players playing for countries with cash-strapped boards are unsure of their futures. In countries like Scotland, Ireland etc, players retire early and look towards other methods to sustain themselves. Even in a country like South Africa, which has been at the top of the game for many years now, players leave on Kolpak deals.

A shortage of revenue also means these countries can't invest in technology. As a result of this, they have to play most of their matches without DRS. The recently concluded Test between Ireland and Pakistan didn't have DRS as Ireland thought it was too costly and they couldn't afford it.

It also makes it tough to improve the infrastructure and facilities available to the players. Better facilities would lead to a higher quality of players coming through. This would enable them to compete at a higher level. But without the money, there's not much they can do.

#2. They don't get enough matches to play

When the big three (India, Australia and England) play against each other, they always play a Test Series comprising of either four or five Test matches. But for most of the remaining Test playing nations, this isn't the case. While Pakistan played a two Test series against England, Sri Lanka's upcoming series with South Africa will also have just two test matches. England's tour of New Zealand earlier this year included only two test matches and it was the same when New Zealand toured England last. Kane Williamson even stated, "We've played four Tests this year, I think there's a little bit of frustration, guys want to play more Test cricket". If a major test nation feels this way, what hope is there for newly inducted Ireland and Afghanistan?

The Associate Members don't even have Test status. However, when was the last time India played any ODIs outside the World Cup against an associate nation? India has played just one ODI against Ireland outside the World Cup and just one overall against Scotland, both of which were back in 2007. Their only two games against Netherlands were in a World Cup as well. It’s not just India though, most of the major Test playing nations have similar records.

The Associate nations head into the World Cup with hardly any games against the big sides and they still put up a very good fight. Sure, playing once every four years against the big teams won't help them as much. But it'll give them exposure, experience and understanding of what it's like to play on the big stage. The only way for them to improve is to play as many matches as possible at the highest level. If the countries outside the top 10 are denied an opportunity to play in the World Cup, when will they ever get to play against the big teams?

#3. Minnows no more.

The ICC might consider these teams minnows, but in the last few years, they’ve shown they’re capable of challenging the big teams. The rise of Bangladesh and Afghanistan is proof of what can happen when these teams are given enough opportunities.

Ireland played their first Test match last month and put in a very good performance against Pakistan. It's not the first time they've caused some problems for Pakistan. In 2007 they famously knocked them out of the World Cup. Ireland have also beaten England in the World Cup before as well, back in 2011. While in the previous World Cup, they got the better of West Indies.

Bangladesh knocked out England and India from the 2015 and 2007 World Cups respectively. In fact they beat England in 2011 and South Africa in the 2007 World Cup too.

Scotland only narrowly lost to New Zealand by 7 wickets in a low-scoring thriller in 2015. They also just beat the World’s number one side England in an ODI. Calum MacLeod's unbeaten innings of 140 helped Scotland reach 371-5 in their 50 overs. Not only is this the highest total achieved by an Associate nation in an ODI, it's also the fourth highest total England have conceded. England were looking on course at one stage courtesy a rapid hundred by Jonny Bairstow. However, an inspired comeback led by Watt, Evans and Berrington ensured Scotland held on by 6 runs.

While Kenya managed to reach the semi-finals of the 2003 World Cup beating Sri Lanka along the way.

The World Cup has been turned into a glorified Champions Trophy. Although It's too late to make changes to the lineup for 2019, hopefully they come to their senses in 2023 edition.