I hadn’t meant to write this article as I am not focused on the short-term comings and goings of cricket in relation to specific tournaments or events but this T20 World Cup has felt different and I have found myself in a lot of conversations and on a lot of podcasts, talking about Associate cricket. So here are my thoughts on how we ensure Associate Members have a sustainable future.

This is the 13th in a series exploring the future of cricket by Eddie Fitzgibbon, a Wisden board member and strategic advisor specialising in cricket with a focus on the USA market and sports technology. Read part one, part two, part three, part four, part five, part six, part seven, part eight, part nine, part ten, part 11 and part 12 and get more from Eddie on his Substack and connect with him on LinkedIn.

In the wake of the 2026 T20 World Cup, cricket is back in its favourite ritual: debating the ‘plight’ of the Associate nations. It happens every cycle. An upset lands (or almost does), the sport looks surprised, the same pundit discussions spin up, and then the calendar moves on and the momentum leaks away.

But this time the volume feels different. It is less a polite request and more a roar the establishment cannot simply nod at and park until the next tournament.

After stepping back, it is clear we are not looking at a few lucky moments anymore. We are looking at a recurring structural signal.

Every few years, like clockwork, an Associate produces a moment that forces cricket to look in the mirror. The Netherlands did it in 2009 by beating England at a T20 World Cup. Ireland (when they were still an Associate) did it in 2011 by beating England at the ODI World Cup. It has hit again with Nepal taking England to within four runs at this T20 World Cup, and the USA beating Pakistan in a Super Over in 2024.

The reaction is always the same: these guys are actually good. We should give them more opportunities.

Players like Scott Edwards have been among the loudest voices, and they are right about the core problem. The post-World Cup comedown is where progress goes to die. Then comes the familiar follow-on debate about funding allocations, fixture access, and ‘global growth’. All valid. But we are now far enough into this cycle to say it plainly.

Yes, the ICC provides a floor of funding. Now, we can debate the size of that floor all you want and whether it is equitable. But let’s deal with the reality: it does not provide the ceiling. Even with a meaningful uplift in Associate distributions, incremental grants are not a growth strategy. They are maintenance.

If Associate cricket wants to break out for good, it has to stop waiting for permission and start building an opportunity engine of its own.

The opportunity system is missing

During my time at the ICC, I ran the 50-over pathway events, the World Cricket League. The WCL was a 50-over machine, and in that format the gap between the top and the chasing pack was structural. The format, the calendar, the economics, the squad depth, it all reinforced the hierarchy. You could do plenty right and still get stuck if you had one bad day.

T20 is different. It is more democratic, more volatile, and far easier for emerging nations to compete quickly. It is also a simpler product: shorter, more legible to new fans, and easier to stage in markets without deep infrastructure. That is why the T20 World Cup has become the ideal Associate format. Twenty teams can qualify today, and that number feels far more likely to expand than contract over time.

So the problem is not that Associates lack a pathway. The problem is that cricket still does not have an opportunity system that compounds between tournaments.

Associate cricket still lives on spikes of attention followed by long stretches of silence. That boom-bust cycle is the killer. Sponsors and broadcasters pay for rhythm and repeatability. Most Associates don’t have enough bankable fixtures to sell, and a viral moment doesn’t automatically become a year-round relationship with fans, partners, or governments.

If we want this to change, we need a model that turns moments into systems.

The fix? A PPP model where the ICC becomes a market-maker

My suggested fix is a Public Private Partnership model where the ICC evolves from donor to market-maker. To be clear, this isn’t the ICC becoming an operator or an investor. It’s the ICC creating a sanctioned wrapper so private capital can show up without political risk.

If the ICC does not want to provide the capital, fine. But it can still provide the three things private money actually needs before it shows up: permission, proof, and distribution.

In practice, that means sanctioning, standards, and a data layer that allows the product to be measured and monetised properly, plus the ability to put a serious marketing engine behind a product that deserves one.

This is not the ICC funding the ceiling. It is the ICC certifying the ceiling.

Here is what that looks like.

Permission and legitimacy

The biggest fear for investors is not whether Associate cricket has talent. It is whether the project gets labelled ‘rebel,’ blocked by politics, or squeezed out of the calendar. Official ICC sanction removes that existential risk. It signals legitimacy, secures workable windows, and sets basic integrity and governance standards that keep the whole thing out of headline trouble.

Proof through a real data plan

Associate cricket’s biggest commercial problem is not passion. It is predictability. A privacy-first framework for capturing fan identity at the local level changes this. It allows sponsorship to be priced properly, retention to be measured, and one-off events to become compounding assets. The point is not ‘opening a database’. The point is helping partners understand the customer and build an owned audience.

Distribution that converts, not just amplifies

When a marquee Full Member team shows up, it needs to be a once-a-year shop window that you actually convert, not a nice weekend. The ICC can amplify those moments, bundle them into a coherent product, and push them through its channels and partners. But the key is conversion: attention becomes identity, identity becomes a year-round relationship. Otherwise you have rented a weekend of hype.

Skin in the game

If ICC wants this to be growth, not charity, it has to be aligned with upside. That does not necessarily mean running tournaments. It could mean taking a minority equity stake, or structured upside, in the regional commercial vehicle so incentives match outcomes. Think of a JV rights vehicle owned by the participating boards, with ICC sanction and minority structured upside. Governance stays intact, but the ICC is no longer just the referee. It is a partner in building the asset.

That is the opportunity. Private capital underwrites the early cycles. The ICC de-risks the model, unlocks the data layer, and strengthens distribution. Associate Members execute locally and capture lifetime value in their own markets. More fans enter the ecosystem, and they stick.

Now, what does execution actually look like?

Lever 1: build a regional P&L

The ‘cricket needs its own Six Nations’ idea is directionally right. The economics are the hurdle.

The Asia Cup works because it has an embedded money printer: India vs Pakistan. That rivalry is the anchor tenant that subsidises the entire P&L. No other region has that.

Without an anchor fixture, a European Six Nations, an African Cup equivalent, or a similar model in the Americas or East Asia Pacific is unlikely to be commercially viable out of the gate. Which means the early cycles need to be treated like customer acquisition cost.

Private capital can underwrite those first editions, but only if a proper data and digital plan is installed from day one. Treat it as a rights vault that matures over a decade, and you turn a tournament into an asset rather than a one-off event.

And you have to avoid Single-Pillar dependence. Europe’s recent experience with the European Cricket Network is a cautionary tale: when a major sponsor (Dream11) tied to one market pulls back due to regulation, the whole ecosystem wobbles. If Associate cricket’s commercial base depends on one jurisdiction, one category, or one platform, it will always be fragile.

Build the regional property. Capture identity. Create sellable fixtures. Let the rights mature.

Similarly, nascent leagues in places like Nepal and emerging franchise leagues in Europe like the ETPL can wire in identity, ticketing, and sponsor measurement from ball one, which is exactly why they can become investable faster than legacy structures.

Lever 2: stopover diplomacy, treated like a tentpole moment

Associate nations need to play Full Members outside World Cups. Everyone agrees on that. The problem is the calendar is built for Full Member economics, not Associate development, and it is already packed.

That is why hub-based mini tournaments, like the recent FIFA Series concept, are worth exploring. These are not qualifiers. They are repeatable, hub-based competitions played in fixed international windows. A product, not an ad hoc favour.

In cricket terms, the practical version is straightforward: when a Full Member tours under the FTP, they stop over for a short series against nearby Associate Members. Not one exhibition match, but a repeatable pattern: a small window, a defined format, and a clear commercial plan.

But it only becomes transformative if the stopover is treated as a commercial and identity-capture event, not a friendly add-on. Bring local governments into the funding mix, then use the window to build an owned audience you can monetise and retain all year.

The lifetime value play is simple: when a star team visits, the board’s job is to capture fan IDs. If you do not pull those families into a 365-day digital tent, you have wasted the cost of getting that fan through the gate. You must own the relationship to own the upside.

Tickets linked to a real member record. Opt-in membership at the gate. Content designed to bring people back. Sponsors measured properly from day one, not guessed after the fact.

Do that consistently and you stop living tournament to tournament. You start building a customer base.

Lever 3: shatter the concrete ceiling with infrastructure that yields

Passion doesn’t pay for floodlights. As I discussed in detail in my article on Associate infrastructure and the ‘Concrete Ceiling,’ many nations are trapped by the Maintenance Paradox: renting their future via temporary stands and facilities that swallow match-day margins. Survival isn’t growth.

The fix is moving from single-use grounds to multi-sport community hubs funded by blended capital. By framing these as civic assets rather than just sports fields, boards can unlock development finance and private partnerships that yield 365 days a year. In this model, the ICC’s value isn’t writing cheques; it’s acting as an anchor investor, providing the commercial and event certainty required to de-risk these assets for private capital.

Monetise the emerging and dark markets with D2C economics

If infrastructure is the physical foundation, digital distribution is the economic engine.

For too long, Associate cricket has been treated as a loss leader: content that is given away for free or buried in ‘dark markets’ where no major broadcaster holds the rights.

But those dark markets contain real demand. The mistake is celebrating views when you should be tracking revenue per fan (ARPU). If you’ve got audiences but no meter attached, you don’t have a commercial engine. You’ve got attention you can’t reinvest.

I recently discussed this on a podcast and the point that jumped out was simple: in territories without traditional broadcast partners, the numbers for these markets are not niche. They are meaningful. The appetite is already there.

ICC.tv has helped prove demand exists. The next step is monetisation.

The D2C opportunity is not complicated. Instead of waiting for a traditional broadcast deal that may never come for a regional tournament, go direct. Imagine what it would look like if all Nepal matches were on D2C?

Micropayments, pay-per-match, pay-per-moment, season passes. The mechanism matters less than the result: you build a revenue stream linked to identity, and you can distribute revenue directly back to participating boards.

The math is the point. If a long tail global audience pays even modestly for access to the Associate calendar, you create meaningful annual revenue that is not dependent on one sponsor, one market, or one broadcast gatekeeper.

This is what makes these markets investable. Not because it is romantic, but because it becomes measurable.

The shift for Associate nations isn’t about choosing between free exposure and a paywall. It’s about moving from being data orphans to becoming digital landlords, where the board becomes the primary relationship holder with the fan.

The great thing is that the plumbing now exists. I’ve had multiple conversations with the teams building these rails about how they can plug into cricket’s long-tail markets. Practically, that means wiring in a modern stack from ball one: SportVot for low-cost, cloud-based production, SubstreamAI to wrap footage in broadcast-grade data, graphics and highlights, and a payment rail like Recast that lets fans pay-as-they-consume via a wallet instead of committing to expensive subscriptions.

Done properly (with clean rights packaging and privacy-first opt-in), the value isn’t just views, it’s measurable revenue per fan and a consented database you can actually monetise and retain, rather than handing the upside to a platform. Even modest conversion changes the game: if a Nepal-style long-tail audience converts 100,000 fans at an average $2 per match across 10 matches, that’s $2m gross before fees, sponsorship uplift, and downstream membership. That is the Capture-to-Capital flywheel: attention becomes identity, identity becomes cash flow, and cash flow becomes the bridge from a one-off ‘Golden Generation’ spike to durable, investable cricket infrastructure.

The Verdict

The talent is there. Nepal’s hunger, the USA’s latent upside, the Netherlands’ poise. We have seen enough now to stop treating this as novelty.

But talent without a platform is not enough.

The compounding logic is clear. A predictable calendar for Associates creates inventory. Inventory creates moments to capture identity and data. Owned audiences create commercial certainty. Commercial certainty unlocks private capital for leagues and facilities. Then the system starts to compound, independent of ICC grants and one-off World Cup spikes.

My experience running the WCL taught me we cannot wait for the system to change. We have to change the system.

Reinforce the foundation with a third column of capital. Out-innovate legacy boards with clean tech stacks. Use stopover diplomacy to own the fan relationship. Stop renting the future. Start building it.

The real question is not whether Associates are good enough. It is whether the system is.

Thank you to David Piesing (former Chair of the Guernsey Cricket Board) for his review and input.