Cricket is perpetually in a state of crisis. Open a copy of Wisden, the little yellow annual that acts as cricket’s sacred text, from ten, fifty, or even a hundred years ago, and you will find articles lamenting a lack of interest or dwindling attendance numbers - all of which inevitably point to an uncertain future for the game. This constant worrying has resulted in a strange dichotomy for cricket obsessives, who simultaneously adore the sport but are afraid for its survival in equal measure. We don’t mind worrying about cricket’s future - it’s part of the deal of being a fan.

The latest crisis? The proposed decision to separate Test-playing nations into tiers, with the so-called “Big Three” of India, Australia and England in a top tier with New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Sri Lanka; while Bangladesh, the West Indies, Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Afghanistan are left in a second tier, with teams being promoted and relegated based on their performance. Fundamentally, this system goes against one of Test cricket’s central principles: that any country with Test-playing status can play another, regardless of the respective sides’ quality. It makes Test cricket like any other sport, subjecting it to league and knockout formats, robbing it of its heritage as a relic of a bygone gentlemanly era.

However, this decision has a hard logic behind it, namely, Test cricket’s need to evolve and adapt to modern sensibilities. With the rise of T20 leagues and shifting audience preferences, it is not feasible to expect that Test cricket will command fans’ attention, particularly new ones, simply because of its history and prestige. A structured system of promotion and relegation would provide each match with tangible consequences, creating increased stakes beyond bilateral series and ensuring that the most competitive teams consistently face off. Furthermore, it would incentivize lower-ranked nations to improve and enter the top tier and generate greater viewer engagement by creating a broader, season-long narrative beyond standalone Test series in a more meaningful way than the existing World Test Championship.

“The issue is not the how or the what; the issue is why”

So, tiered Test cricket is potentially a solution to several of red ball cricket’s problems. Then why has it provoked such outrage? The issue is not the how or the what; the issue is why. In an ideal world, tiered Test cricket would be put in place for the sake of the general well-being of the global game, structured in a manner designed to expand cricket’s global reach, both competitively and commercially.

But a track record of decisions by cricket administrators points to it being the inverse of this. In 2014, the ICC revamped their financial model, distributing money raised by ICC-run events, namely the World Cup and World Twenty20, in relation to the size of the “contribution” made by the relevant member, a model that disproportionately benefits India, England, and Australia. Or take the decision to reduce the number of teams in the World Cup from 14 to 10 in 2019, which deprived Associate nations like Scotland and Nepal transformative opportunities to compete on the world stage. Recent calls for a tiered system are a means of maximising revenue by allowing the wealthiest teams to consistently play one another, cutting off poorer teams from potentially lucrative tours against Australia, England, and particularly India, catalysing the trend of Test cricket being played among a handful of teams. This shrinking of the playing pool, while disheartening, is inevitable. International cricket is set up to allow major boards to act in their own interests rather than those of the global game. As Giles Clarke, then ECB chairman, admitted when interviewed for the increasingly prescient documentary Death of a Gentleman, he had “every right to put my board’s interests first” - not those of the global game. Cricket’s international governing body, the ICC, cannot take any meaningful steps that will safeguard against this; it is, by the standards of global sports governance, pathetically weak and can rarely act as anything more than a forum for the major power brokers to continually flex their muscles.

“Why bother caring about a sport that contains such a self-destructive streak?”

The most frustrating dimension to this is that tiered Test cricket could be successful if radical action was taken. If Test cricket was split into three tiers of six teams each, as advocated by Australian journalist Jarrod Kimber, there would be an influx of six new Test-playing nations, ensuring the game’s growth rather than restricting it to a select few. But this system would require the major boards to distribute their profits and to take steps to grow the game beyond their privileged few. Such decisions are never going to take place, as it requires the “Big Three” to take steps to weaken their hegemonic power over the global game and allow other nations to participate in the decision-making process.

The logical question is, why bother caring about a sport that contains such a self-destructive streak? Why not consign Test cricket to history as the relic of a bygone era that it is? The answer is that Test cricket gives - and will always give - something intangible that cannot be replicated by any other form of cricket, maybe even any other form of sport. If Test cricket had a defining moment in 2024, it was the West Indies’ incredible win against all odds over Australia at the Gabba, their first win in Australia since 1997. Shamar Joseph’s match-winning 7-68, bowling 90 mph rockets while dosed up on painkillers for a fractured toe, was beyond even the wildest of childhood fantasies—too unrealistic to dream of, yet somehow real. It was the kind of moment that strips away even the most cynical cricket fan’s preconceptions and makes you remember why you fell in love with the game in the first place. It was, in the words of Wisden’s Ben Gardner, a moment indicative of a ‘game and team that simply refuses to die’. In order to survive, Test cricket needs administrators and investors to recognise its unique quality and take the necessary steps to safeguard its future rather than prioritise their own interests and profit margins from their complimentary hospitality suites. Given their track record, I wouldn’t bet on it.