Bilateral vs Multilateral Cricket Series: Format and Commercial Trade-offs
Most international cricket is played in bilateral series — one nation versus another — but triangular and quadrangular tournaments have also played a role in cricket history. This article compares bilateral and multilateral series formats, explains why bilateral cricket dominates the current schedule, and considers the trade-offs between the two approaches.
What Bilateral Series Means
A bilateral cricket series is a set of matches between exactly two nations — one hosting the other for a predetermined number of Tests, ODIs, or T20Is. Bilateral series are the primary structure of international cricket's Future Tours Programme (FTP) — the ICC's master schedule of international matches, negotiated between cricket boards, that allocates hosting rights and tour reciprocity. A typical bilateral arrangement: Australia hosts India for a series of 4 Tests, 3 ODIs, and 2 T20Is, with India hosting Australia for an equivalent series 2-3 years later. Bilateral series are commercially straightforward (the host board controls all revenues and scheduling), logistically simpler (two teams rather than three or four), and narratively focused (the series buildup and rivalry between two specific nations is a clear story to sell to broadcasters and fans).
The Era of Triangular Tournaments
Triangular tournaments — three nations competing in a round-robin before semifinals and finals — were common in the 1980s and 1990s. Australia's home summer historically featured a triangular ODI series (Australia plus two touring nations) that gave the home board the ability to host more competitive matches per season than bilateral series allowed. The WSC (World Series Cricket, from 1977) pioneered the triangular format commercially. By the 2000s, triangular series were less common — replaced by bilateral series between the highest-profile matchups (India vs Australia; England vs South Africa), which generated higher broadcast revenues per match than triangulars where the two non-Australian teams were sometimes less commercially appealing.
Why Bilateral Dominates Today
Bilateral series dominate the modern schedule for commercial and logistical reasons: broadcast deals for India vs [major nation] bilateral series generate significantly more revenue than trilateral events without India (or with India as one of three); bilateral series allow the FTP to maximise the number of India-hosting matches (the most commercially valuable matches in cricket); and bilateral series are simpler to broadcast and market (one rivalry, one story, one set of bilateral broadcast rights). The ICC's major events (World Cups, Champions Trophies, ICC World Test Championship cycles) provide the multilateral competition — bilateral series fill the schedule between ICC events. Some analysts argue that too many bilateral series reduces the sense of significance for individual matches — a fourth bilateral T20I in a seven-match series feels less consequential than a World Cup knockout match.
Frequently asked questions
What determines how many matches are in a bilateral series?
The number of matches in a bilateral series is negotiated between the two cricket boards as part of the FTP agreement. Commercial factors dominate: a 5-Test series between England and Australia (The Ashes) is commercially viable because both nations have large cricket followings that sustain 5 tests of audience; a 2-Test series between two smaller cricket nations may be the maximum that can generate sustainable commercial interest. T20I series have grown longer (up to 5 or 7 matches) as T20 audience numbers have increased; ODI series have sometimes been reduced in length as ODI commercial appeal has been perceived as declining relative to T20. The FTP allocates total match-days between boards — the specific split between formats within that allocation is negotiated bilaterally.
Has any team won a bilateral series against every other Test nation?
No team has won a bilateral series against every other Test nation simultaneously — cricket's schedule makes it impossible to have current bilateral series against all nations running concurrently. However, Australia's dominance from the late 1990s to early 2000s saw them win a very high proportion of bilateral series across all nations — they achieved the ICC Test ranking number one position for an extended period precisely because their bilateral series wins across multiple opponents were exceptional. The ICC Test Championship, launched in 2019, provides a single competitive framework for ranking Test nations against multiple opponents, which is the closest equivalent to a comprehensive measure of bilateral series dominance.
Do multilateral tournaments help cricket's development nations?
Yes — multilateral tournaments (including ICC World Cups, regional ICC events like Asia Cup, and ACC and ICC developmental events) provide associate and development nations with high-profile matches against major cricket nations that bilateral FTP scheduling rarely provides. Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland, Netherlands, and other associate members have primarily built their international profiles through multilateral tournament appearances — World Cup groups where they face major nations, or ICC T20 World Cup qualifying rounds where they compete at the highest level. Bilateral series between a major nation and an associate are commercially unappealing for the major board — they won't generate the broadcast revenue that justifies the scheduling cost. Multilateral events package these matchups as part of larger events where the commercial viability comes from the overall tournament.