Reports say the 14-team tournament could require the lowest-ranked qualifiers to enter a round-robin Super Series, with only the winner advancing to the main phase. That would leave two teams technically qualified yet potentially without a meaningful World Cup campaign.
For nations such as Netherlands, Scotland, Nepal, Oman, Namibia, UAE, Canada and the USA, the route is already demanding. Years of League 2 cricket, extensive travel and limited resources are supposed to build a bridge to the elite. Adding another filter risks turning that bridge into a toll road.
The issue is not whether the strongest teams should qualify. It is whether associate nations can build momentum when every breakthrough is followed by another barrier.
The commercial logic is easier to understand. India and Pakistan are reportedly expected to share a group, creating a near-certain blockbuster. A second meeting could follow if both progress, while a semi-final would open the door to a third.
That is powerful scheduling, but it raises an uncomfortable question: should the format be shaped around protecting one rivalry? Bilateral meetings have been absent for years, making every global encounter hugely valuable. Yet a World Cup also has a duty to expand the audience, not simply maximise existing demand.
Football’s wider-field experiments offer a useful contrast. “Every nation should be able to dream of taking part,” Gianni Infantino has said. Cricket’s T20 game is moving in that direction; the ODI format risks going the other way.
The next storyline will be whether the 2027 World Cup structure is refined before the qualifying grind begins. A global tournament should make outsiders believe, not ask them to survive one final gate after reaching the door.