So blame the market forces, not the convenient bogeyman. We could be talking about hunger in Africa and you'd find a way to blame the Big 3 for it. You could have presented the argument based on the actual causes for the situation, but yet you chose to shove in an irrelevant Big 3 angle into it. That's not healthy discourse; that's an agenda.
You neglect point (3) which proposes that the existence of a Big 3 is in no way mutually exclusive to growing the game in emerging markets. The Small 7 are free to arrange series with emerging nations. The Small 7 aren't opposed to the Big 3 because it supposedly hurts the growth of the game in emerging markets. They're opposed to the Big 3 because it is not aligned optimally with their own self interests. This is a fact that will not change even if the Big 3 reverts to a Big 10. It's a lazy "Will somebody please think of the children" argument.
No it is absolutely mutually exclusive when Bangladesh haven't toured England since 2010 and India and Australia have played in England twice in the same period.
Bangladesh have only played Australia twice ( 1 home and 1 away) since gaining test status.
Sri Lanka have played in Australia only twice in the last 10 years.
When test playing nations barely get games against Australia, what makes you think Afghanistan will get a game?
You could have presented the argument based on the actual causes for the situation
I have already stated clearly the causes for this situation. I have stated how cricket is on a decline in Australia and England and I have NOT blamed the Big 3 for that. It's just that there always were more popular sports in these nations and in today's time, cricket is just unattractive when competing with rugby or footy or football.
The Big 3 is to blame for their short term approach to this situation.
It is absolutely non sensical to say that small 7 can play each other as many times as they want when some of them are unable to pay their own players sufficiently. That's why I am talking about developing the game in those markets, so that Afghanistan can be a self sufficient cricket board, so that some African nations can develop. In long run, you can then have these teams playing each other in a way that is financially sustainable.
It becomes extremely difficult to have a rational conversation when you get defensive. That's why I clarified at the onset that unlike a lot of people, I do NOT hold BCCI or India responsible for this nor do I have any specific agenda. If it wasn't the BCCI, ECB and CA, it would have been someone else who has the clout. The reason the other boards did not do something like this is not because of principle but because they lacked the clout and financial might pull of such a stunt. I have said this in various topics on numerous occasions.
In fact I did not even talk about BCCI or India in my original post. I was talking about these very market forces in England and Australia. You were the one who brought India into the topic because you assumed that just because I was critical of Big 3, I must have an agenda against India. In fact I hold ECB and CA far more responsible for the current situation because they have been running the game for much much longer. They only begrudgingly accepted BCCI into the private club because they had to thanks to the change in financial equations in the last decade.
If you can go beyond the "people have an agenda against your nation' and look at this matter objectively, I am sure you will understand why it is reasonable to take a critical position on this matter. I have not blamed the Big 3 for creating the market forces. I have only criticised the ICC which in turn is run by the Big 3 for their response to the market forces. They have self appointed themselves as the custodians of the game, hence they have a far larger role to play on the way the game develops than a BCB or WICB. In fact this is precisely the reason they believe they deserve a larger chunk of the pie. Fair enough but then they should also be open to greater criticism for their actions if deemed to be hurting the game, over a BCB or ZC. You can't say I am entitled to a larger chunk of the pie but I am unwilling to take any added responsibility that comes with it. That's like saying I have a right to drive when it's green but I am not sure I'll stop when it's red. You have a right to drive when it's green because you have an obligation to stop when it's red.