I am quite sure that all these reasons are the main cause why cricket is not going to be in the Olympics. The big 3 surely do not want to lose their control over the ICC and if cricket is inserted into the Olympics that will surely be a problem for them. they are a lot used to the special treatment by the ICC and if they are treated equally as all the other teams it will hurt their ego. So, even if ICC wants to add cricket to the Olympics I don't think the big 3 will let them.
Maybe we should use big-4 instead of big-3. A lot of the times, boards such as ECB and NZC are the most vocal opponents of popularizing and globalizing cricket, but in the end the blame always fall on the BCCI. I am not saying that BCCI guys are all saints, but sometimes we ignore the negative influence of boards such as the NZC. And also, let's not forget the fact that the current head of ICC is a businessman from New Zealand. During the elections, he defeated a former player (Imran Khwaja) with support from the pig-4 grouping.
I think it's understandable why BCCI gets a lot of blame. It's because they are the one who shows off too much. They like to think of themselves as some kind of premium product and honestly a lot of people hate that.
That's how life pan out in wilderness or more precisely in socialist world in terms of thought process. Every entity is going to attract criticism if they are generating significant amount of wealth in comparison to their counterparts.
One of the reason NZC never attract any backlash and they have a good boy image in the cricketing world.
And they also don't do too much showoff. They try to keep things as simple as they can. I know that they also have some type of dominance in the ICC but they hardly show any signs of that.
A few years ago, I read an article in ESPN Cricinfo. It analyzed the 10 test playing nations (back then Ireland and Afghanistan were not test members) and the support that they have provided to the associate nations. ECB was on top, as they regularly allow teams from Netherlands, Scotland and Denmark to take part in the county competition. They were followed by West Indies and South Africa, who also have a similar setup. Pakistan and India did their bit in developing cricket in Afghanistan. Sri Lanka always had a sympathetic view of the associate nations, probably because they themselves were in that position once. Australia is ranked very low, although they provide some support to teams such as PNG and Fiji. And at the rock bottom we have NZC, who have never helped any associate nation till date.
ECB always generally helps associate teams and we are very familiar with that. But I really did not expect this type of thing from the New Zealand cricket board. That was actually least expected from New Zealand cricket board. If they somehow become more active in increasing the number of teams playing cricket regularly I think the recent scenario in cricket might change.
