by It was the final that the organizers longed for, which was only missing the outcome that a nation demanded: Rohit Sharma lifting the thirteenth ODI World Cup. However, the World Cup remained the most watched event in the history of cricket, hosted in the sporting and economic giant of the sport. For players, it remains the most coveted prize in the game, as Pat Cummins can now attest. “That’s the pinnacle of cricket: winning a World Cup,” declared Australia’s victorious captain.
Ahead of an exciting final week – three contrasting knockout matches that showcased the full scope of 50-over cricket – some existential angst about the future of the format has been inescapable. Attendance at neutral matches in the early stages of the tournament was disappointing, although it increased markedly. There was a surprising lack of close games. And so, in the context of the rise of Twenty20, those on the periphery of the event even asked: is this the last ODI World Cup?
It is very unlikely that this will be the case. The next two editions of the ODI World Cup have already been confirmed for 2027 and 2031. While India’s victory would have been a boost for the 50-over format, their brilliant streak of 10 consecutive wins ending in the final creates an almost equally compelling narrative. – of the continuation of India’s quest for a third ODI World Cup.
However, the speculation – about switching to 40 overs, or even abandoning the one-day format altogether – speaks to uncertainty over how the 50-over format fits into the crowded cricketing landscape.
“It takes a day” was the motto of the 13th World Cup. To which some have joked: that’s the problem.
“It is very difficult to see much enthusiasm or growth before 2027,” says a senior figure in cricket broadcasting. “There’s no way many kids want to watch 100 overs, whether on the ground or on TV.”
In an age of diminishing attention spans, 50-over cricket occupies a curious position. For all the range of formats, it does not possess the brevity of T20 (or its even shorter cousins) nor the multi-layered tapestry of a Test match. While viewing figures in India for this World Cup have been excellent, insiders report that the enthusiasm among older fans has not been mirrored by teenagers and those in their early 20s.
Changing ODIs to 40 overs would be an attempt to galvanize the one-day game. The 40-over format was more popular than the longer one-day game when it was played in county cricket. A representative says that if the ICC cricket committee advocated for such a change, he would consider supporting it. “If the cricket committee says that the players and the fans say that 40 overs is better for them – a little shorter, probably closer games, but still enough for the players to get adequate hundreds, I would be open to changing.” .
However, the broadcasters emphasize that those put off by the length of the 50+ game probably won’t be captivated by a 40+ game either. “You need to change the DNA of the game. It will not be solved by shortening it,” says an Indian broadcasting expert.
Another full member source laments the slow rates, which mean ODIs can stretch beyond eight hours: “We need to be quite strict on timings. “We need to think outside the box.”
In a sense, the problems facing this World Cup reflect much bigger problems facing the over-50s format. The 10 teams that played in this World Cup played just 277 ODIs in this four-year cycle, compared to 431 between the 2015-19 tournaments. When they do play, teams are almost invariably short-strength, with stars resting or playing in franchise leagues. How can the ODI World Cup remain the pinnacle if it has a format where teams barely play?
“All ICC events have a beginning, middle and end, and every game counts for something,” says Tom Moffat, executive at Fica, the global players’ union. It sets an uncomfortable contrast with bilateral ODIs. “There is increasing feedback from players that international cricket scheduling should not be based solely on filling the calendar, and there is a need to ensure that matches have context and meaning, regardless of the format.”
In most countries, broadcast rights to bilateral white-ball cricket are declining, with fans reacting to what has long been evident: the games matter little. England playing Ireland on September 26, just nine days before their first World Cup match, embodies the feeling that the cricket market is saturated.
The ICC has taken steps to give bilateral ODIs more context. Or at least that’s how it was. The World Cup Super League, which was launched in 2020, gave the 13 competing nations 24 ODIs each, determining qualification for the World Cup. The performances of Afghanistan and Holland in the World Cup attest to the value of the Super League. However, the competition has been abolished; instead, bilateral ODIs have the feel of glorified friendlies. Some hope the Super League can be revived in the future, but it will take larger nations to agree.
While T20 is the sport’s biggest globalization tool, there is no desire among the major partner nations to abandon ODIs. “Getting rid of ODIs would be a mistake,” says Kyle Coetzer, a former Scotland captain who sits on the ICC cricket committee. “ODI cricket is the pinnacle that most associated teams can play at.”
Starting in 2027, Associates will have more chances of reaching this World Cup. The tournament will return from 10 countries to 14, which will mean a more concise first stage, with six matches per team instead of nine. The result should be a competition with more variety, more early dangers and, it is hoped, more days with two games played.
Under the broadcast agreement for the 2024-31 rights cycle, there will be one men’s event each year. Therefore, eliminating ODIs would mean more international T20 events.
Hypothetically, if the ODI World Cup and Champions Trophy were cancelled, they could be replaced by a T20 Champions Trophy, which would be played in odd-numbered years, with the T20 World Cup in even-numbered years. While the events would be differentiated (the T20 World Cup now has 20 teams, and a Champions Trophy could include six to eight), the risk of fatigue about global T20 tournaments would be acute. This is reinforced by the inclusion of T20 in the Olympic Games from 2028; If T20 became the only international white-ball cricket, there would now be five global T20 events every four years. “A diet of non-stop T20 may not be much fun,” observes a Full Member representative.
“Eliminating ODIs would destroy significant economic value,” says Kevin Alavy, global managing director of Futures Sport & Entertainment, a leading sports media consultancy.
“I’m not convinced there is demand for even more T20 cricket franchises, as opposed to the more varied diet that ODIs offer. The big problem for me is the sheer volume of cricket that exists. “Fans have a limited ability to pay attention.”
Concerns about the future of ODIs, then, are a microcosm of much broader problems in the game: the overloaded schedule and uncertainty over how international and franchise cricket can coexist.
The ODI World Cup “may last until 2031, but it is difficult to see beyond that,” says a broadcasting expert. “By then, the sport will be enormously different.”
