To critics, a proposed revamp of the game's governing body, the International Cricket Council, threatens to consign New Zealand and other less bankable cricketing nations to the game's outer oval while heavyweights Australia, England and India capture more of the spoils.
A backroom deal drafted by the so-called "Big 3" - with the blessing of the ICC's president, New Zealander Alan Isaac - has the cricketing world in ferment over whether the changes will protect the interests of the more vulnerable members of cricket's small family or cement the wealth and power of the elite.
The draft proposal would shift both resourcing and governance, with India, Australia and England grabbing the lion's share of revenues (which they claim would increase) from ICC events and taking the reins of the ICC. Instead of the current even distribution of revenues from world cups and other ICC competitions to full-member countries, payments would reflect their "contribution" to these events. India, the source of 80 per cent of ICC revenues, stands to gain hundreds of millions more for its controlling board, the BCCI.
The ICC's Future Tours Programme - which promises each nation home and away series against each other over a five-year cycle - would be torn up and replaced with negotiated bilateral arrangements. And it is tours which bring host nations the bulk of their income.
If, as seems likely, the bald principles are agreed after today's meeting, India will take charge for the next two years - a takeover long viewed as ominous but inevitable. Each test playing nation has a seat on the ICC board and could theoretically block its hijacking. But, since the plans emerged a fortnight ago, each of the "minnows" - Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe - has rolled over on pledges of guaranteed exchanges with the Big 3 and more stable finances.
The missing link is South Africa, the No 1 test-playing nation, which should rightly have been part of the deal-making. Its ostracism is seen as an act of vengeance by BCCI supremo Narayanaswami Srinivasan towards South African CEO Haroon Lorgat, who ran foul of the Indian board when CEO of the ICC. The Machiavellian goings-on only hint at the potential for cricket's supposedly friendly family to tear itself apart.
Like most sports striving to maintain and grow a global foothold, cricket faces stark commercial realities. Five-day tests remain the pinnacle of the game for players and fans but, outside the Big 3, time-poor fans vacated the terraces years ago. (It's a game actually enhanced by TV coverage, though sponsors like to see bums on seats as much as players do.) Instead, one-dayers and T20 internationals fund test cricket, but tours between the minnows (such as our pre-Christmas hosting of the West Indies) mostly run at a loss. Over and above the ICC proceeds, it is regular tours by the Big 3 that keep national boards afloat. Crucial for both is the sale of broadcasting and sponsorship rights into India, with its cricket-mad population of 1.27 billion.
It is the renegotiation of the ICC event rights, to cover the 2016-23 cycle, that has triggered this uncricket-like game of divide and rule. India basically threatened to walk away, taking its rupees with it, unless its demands for a much bigger slice of proceeds and more control over the game were met. "[One] who is contributing more should get more than what [others] get," BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel told reporters.
Australia and England saw more benefit in appeasement than standing up to the bully.
If the Black Caps were to embarrass India in the tests as in the one-dayers, the cheering will be heard around the cricketing world.
New Zealand Cricket's finances remain delicate two years after it was forced to shed staff to cut costs. It posted a small profit last year after England toured, with Barmy Army fans contributing largely to a 38 per cent improvement in ground attendances. The year before, even star-studded South Africa couldn't drag fans through the gates, though NZC blamed its $8 million loss on currency fluctuations and an inability to sell the naming rights for the Black Caps. But the interest is there when the side performs: last year's test matches against England saw a leap in attendances, over and above tickets bought by the Barmy Army.
Next year's World Cup, which NZC is co-hosting with Cricket Australia, looms as "an opportunity to significantly improve its financial viability and strength", its annual report says. The prospect of India not turning up might scupper that.
The leaking of the proposals launched a tsunami of protest from players, former players, commentators and fans, both over the secrecy and the possible implications for the game. The big fear is that the Big 3 (or 4 if South Africa is brought on board) will look to play more against each other to boost their own revenues, consigning second-tier countries to a fixture list of ever diminishing returns.
Fica, the international players association, warned of the risk of widening the gap between rich and poor. Geoff Boycott, the former England cricketer, was scathing. "This is power gone mad. There's nothing good in this whatsoever. [England, Australia and India] should be ashamed and embarrassed to have put this forward but they're not, and that tells you everything about them, doesn't it?"
Telegraph writer Huw Turbervill forecast the end for uneconomic tours between minnows: "If lower-tier series like New Zealand vs Sri Lanka predictably fail to initiate a renaissance in the test game outside the leading nations, these countries could float away like melting icebergs, never to return."
Adding fuel to the fretting is suspicion of India, the source not just of revenue but of corruption allegations that threaten the game's credibility. Plans to expand the Indian Premier League, the franchise-based T20 competition in which players earn fortunes, raise fears that top players in second-tier nations could be lured to a franchise-based future. Conspiracy theorists point out that BCCI president Srinivasan - poised to become head of the ICC - owns the Chennai Super Kings.
Effectively, ICC members are being asked to take a leap of faith that India will look after their interests, when recent behaviour offers evidence to the contrary. The BCCI has picked and chosen who, and how often, the national side plays and even interfered in the running of the international players' federation. Wellington accountant Isaac's appointment as ICC head came after India vetoed the choice of John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister.
That New Zealand was first to express support for the changes (coupled with Isaac's role in initiating the process) caused widespread dismay. NZ Cricket's ICC delegate Martin Snedden has been cast as Neville Chamberlain, proclaiming peace for our time. Before leaving for today's meeting, Snedden told the Weekend Herald of "bottom lines" he and CEO David White will insist on. They include ratification of the future tours programme (due to run until 2020) and, hopefully, its extension to 2023. New Zealand also wants a revenue-sharing model for ICC events that guarantees strong revenue growth for NZC until 2023.
Enshrining the tours programme would be an improvement on the current model with which India has played fast and loose - agreeing to only two tests on the current tour, as it did in a pre-Christmas tour of South Africa. It would also guarantee that India honours its next scheduled visit here in 2019, Snedden promises.
In the past fortnight, all the other minnows have received similar pledges of bilateral tours from the Big 3 - even Bangladesh, which neighbour India has refused to play since it gained test match status 14 years ago. The West Indies believes its revenues will rise "by at least 100 per cent" over the eight-year cycle and, more disturbingly for New Zealand, that it will no longer be bound to host unprofitable tours.
The assurances have not silenced critics. "So much for the fiduciary duty, explicitly stated, that the directors should put the interests of the ICC before that of their home board," wrote Mike Atherton, the ex-England captain turned commentator, in The Times.
But the pledges have at least eased fears of a Big 3 plot to play test cricket largely among themselves, with the accompanying risk of destroying the golden goose. The critics, however, claim that the annual cricket calendar would need to stretch to 18 months to accommodate all the tours promised.
Snedden admits it won't be easy and, even if a deal is struck this weekend, finalising a new playing schedule will take months. Countries may have to wait a little longer than 2020 for scheduled visits. "We may see some scheduling that goes beyond 2023 to help achieve that balance."
As for money, the proposal is predicated on a billion-dollar boost to revenues from the new rights round for ICC events, to around US$2.5 billion ($3 billion). India's share would rocket to US$568 million over eight years, or a third of a total distribution of $1.6 billion. New Zealand's would rise from US$52 million for the 2007-15 cycle to US$85 million. We would also gain $10 million from the proposed Test Cricket Fund to help countries other than the Big 3 underwrite the cost of unprofitable test matches.
But there's scepticism that the projected billion-dollar increase is realistic. Prominent Indian cricket writer Vijay Lokapally suggests the Indian cash cow is not as voluptuous as assumed. "Sponsorship is dwindling even in India for cricket," Lokapally told the Weekend Herald. "There have been problems finding sponsors for domestic cricket and rates have come down for the IPL. The BCCI believes the money generated within India is sufficient to run world cricket, which I think is a long shot."
Lokapally is a strident critic of Srinivasan, whose leadership of Indian cricket has been dogged by corruption allegations. He disputes the need for such drastic changes to the ICC. "This is just one man's obsession with power, one man's greed, that's led to this."
Lokapally is not alone in querying New Zealand's support for a revamp that so obviously threatens to widen the gulf between rich and poor. "It's very disappointing that New Zealand has come out in support."
More than the promises of stability, the capitulations seem founded on the belief that the ICC, and world cricket, could not survive without India. Lokapally and others don't buy it. NZ Players Association head Heath Mills believes Indian fans would not accept India's absence from world cups and other ICC competitions. And such is the fervour for the game in India, he suspects broadcasters and advertisers would pay for these events even without India's involvement.
"If they can work out a fairer and more equitable revenue model, let's do it," says Mills. "But the way it has been done is a pretty sad indictment on our game and the fact we haven't been able to get a decent governance model [in the ICC]."
Most disappointing, says Mills, is the clandestine nature of the revamp. "It doesn't give a lot of confidence to stakeholders about the governance of the sport. The process that's been followed here in my view has been appalling."
Isaac responded to the chorus of criticism after last week's ICC meeting in Dubai, saying he had encouraged the Big 3 to "help resolve some of the key commercial and governance issues facing the game". He was very disappointed that the draft had been leaked during ongoing "extremely constructive" negotiations of the board, leading to unwarranted criticism.
Mills disputes this version of events. "If it was a good, open process, why hadn't we heard about it before it was leaked to the public domain? It's always better to have a clear and transparent process where people feel they are part of the decision-making process. When people feel backed into a corner it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth."
