Why Cricket Australia Is Fighting to Save Bilateral ODIs

Dr. Annelies De Vos · 2026-08-16

Cricket Australia chief executive Todd Greenberg has raised a red flag over the financial fallout that could follow if bilateral ODI cricket gets stripped from the international calendar. But here's the twist: he also admits the format desperately needs more context and stakes to stay relevant. Speaking in Darwin during Australia's opening Test against Bangladesh, Greenberg responded to ICC CEO Sanjog Gupta's recent remarks that the age of loosely scheduled bilateral series must end. Gupta has made it clear that the ODI format's future should be tied more closely to the World Cup cycle, and that's got boardrooms buzzing. ### The Revenue Dilemma That Won't Go Away Greenberg confirmed that Gupta had delivered similar messages during a visit to Cricket Australia's Melbourne offices, and he broadly agreed with the direction of that thinking. He said matches need to carry weight and consequence for players and fans alike. But here's where it gets tricky: boards can't simply erase bilateral ODIs without addressing what replaces the revenue those fixtures generate. Broadcast deals across the cricketing world lean heavily on bilateral ODI content. That's not just a casual footnote; it's a massive commercial reality that shapes every decision. Greenberg described the situation as a balancing act between short-term broadcast obligations and long-term structural reform. He added that creating meaning within the calendar remains important, even though achieving it won't happen quickly or easily. Let's be honest: this isn't a simple problem with a simple fix. The money has to come from somewhere, and if you strip away the fixtures that fill the broadcast schedule, you're left with a gaping hole in the budget. ### The ICC Working Group and What's Next Greenberg currently sits on the ICC working group tasked with finalising the Future Tours Programme for the 2028-31 cycle. The same group is also sketching an early outline for 2032-35. That's a long runway, and the decisions made now will ripple through the sport for years. His comments suggest Cricket Australia will push for a format that retains context-heavy fixtures while protecting the financial base bilateral cricket provides to member boards. This is especially critical for those without the bargaining power of the bigger nations. ### Squad Size Push Gains Momentum Beyond the FTP discussions, Greenberg addressed Australia coach Andrew McDonald's call for larger squads at the upcoming ODI World Cup. This request is driven by changes to the tournament format, and Greenberg said Cricket Australia has pushed the issue directly with the ICC after McDonald made his position clear internally. He noted that several other countries have raised similar concerns. Squad-size flexibility has become a live topic on the ICC's agenda as boards adjust to the revised structure of the event. It's a practical issue that could affect how teams prepare and perform on the biggest stage. ### Associate Nations Left Out as Format Shrinks Here's where things get uncomfortable. On the reduction of Associate teams in the ODI World Cup, Greenberg said Cricket Australia did not push hard against the change. He noted that the decision appeared to arrive with limited consultation beforehand. The shift likely reflects an effort to maximise commercial returns from the tournament, even as some Associate nations have expressed frustration publicly. Greenberg suggested the T20 World Cup, which is expanding to include more Associate sides, offers those nations a more realistic pathway into ICC events going forward. He confirmed Cricket Australia supports that broader strategy, even as the ODI World Cup narrows its field. ### What This Means for the Future of Cricket Greenberg's comments arrive as the ICC continues shaping the next FTP cycle. Bilateral ODI cricket's structure, revenue model, and place in the international calendar are all still under active discussion among member boards. The tension is real: you can't have meaningful cricket without money, and you can't have money without meaningful cricket. For fans, the hope is that the sport finds a balance that keeps everyone engaged. For boards, it's about survival in a crowded marketplace. And for players, it's about having a calendar that makes sense. One thing's for sure: the conversation isn't over. The decisions made in the coming months will determine whether bilateral ODIs survive, evolve, or fade into history. Let's hope the people in charge get it right.