If the International Cricket Council ran football, New Zealand would never have gotten anywhere near the 2010 World Cup. Allowing this motley bunch to compete against the world's best would be anathema to the mantra of David Richardson, the chief executive of the ICC, that "World Cups should be played between evenly matched teams".
Five years ago, the New Zealand football team was flattered by odds of 750-1 to win the World Cup, yet no one said they did not deserve their place in the tournament. But Richardson recently said the presence of four associate nations in the Cricket World Cup - the only teams to qualify, while all 10 test-playing nations get a guaranteed free pass - threatens to reduce the tournament to a "jamboree" rather than "the pinnacle of the one-day game".
This is the justification for the ICC's plans to reduce the size of the next World Cup to 10 teams, who will play each other in a marathon 45-game round robin.
The truth has nothing to do with competitiveness. Australia, England and India, the boards that control the decision-making arm of the ICC, prioritise short-term self-enrichment over a vision to expand the game - and leave everyone, themselves included, richer in the medium term.
"The thing the broadcasters loved was a 10-team event because India get nine matches guaranteed," admits a senior ICC source.