So when the format for future World Cups was being designed, the I.C.C. knew what sponsors wanted: a guarantee that India would be far more involved in the tournament than it was in 2007. The I.C.C. set about designing a format to ensure that India played as many matches as possible, even if it performed poorly.

In this year’s tournament, as in 2011, a convoluted group stage is being used, with two groups of seven playing a combined 42 games to determine the eight quarterfinalists. While this leads to far fewer high-tension games than in soccer’s World Cup — the 2010 champion Spain was knocked out after two losses in group stage in 2014 — it also ensures that all competing nations play at least six cricket matches.

If it seems like a format designed for Indian television, it will be even more so in the next World Cup.

In 2019, all 10 teams will play each other once in a marathon 45-game group stage, with the top four teams progressing to the semifinals.

The television rights for the eight-year cycle of I.C.C. events were recently sold for an estimated $2 billion. The prospect of India playing a guaranteed nine games in the 2019 and 2023 World Cups — including against Pakistan — helped to drive this record sum.

In 2014, the I.C.C. was restructured to give India, England and Australia far greater power and revenue, which was justified on the grounds that these nations, especially India, drive cricket’s economy. Shrinking the size of the World Cup to please the Indian market prioritized the short-term enrichment of the wealthiest cricketing nations over the long-term investment of growing the game globally. So too did the decision to award the three showpiece I.C.C. events — the World Twenty20, the Champions Trophy and the Cricket World Cup — exclusively to the Big Three nations in the future. (This year’s World Cup is being co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand.)

Compare that to rugby, which awarded the 2019 World Cup to Japan, even though it is not a premier country yet in the sport.