I got the point. This raises a fair question. why not support rising teams that perform better with fewer resources? maybe I've my point. First of all Zimbabwe is a full member of the ICC, also have rich history which gives them more rights and funding, even if their performance is poor. ICC may also believe that with continued support, Zimbabwe can recover and improve. anyway many fans now believe it’s time to change this system and funding teams based on performance, not just for any ties and history in cricket.
Well. That is the issue. Why should the full membership be permanent? Either the ICC should elevate top associates to full membership (a proposal they rejected during the conference in Singapore a few days back), or they should relegate Zimbabwe back to associate membership status. It doesn't make sense when a better performing team such as Scotland or Nepal receives just around $250,000 from the ICC per year, when Zimbabwe receives around $20 million.