When one brings up the issue of differing status of matches in cricket, it is not uncommon to be met with an adolescent-like nonchalance: “It doesn't matter, I don’t care, whatever!” in a poorly executed Catherine Tate impression.

As with a teenager, it is important to remain calm and respond: “No, not ‘whatever’”, you may add a patronising eyebrow raise here, “it does matter, and you should care”. Here is why:

Having ODI status, as teams like Canada and the Netherlands are painfully aware, is vital to sponsorship. Whether these teams lose their ODI status after their disappointing campaigns at the recent Cricket World Cup Qualifiers remains to be seen, but if they do it could spell disaster.

Sponsors will naturally be less keen to support non-ODI sides because of the diminished exposure for their brands. If the Netherlands were to have their funding (from sponsors and the ICC) cut dramatically in the coming months, that could spell the end of their semi-professional domestic set up. It could also impact on the lesser nations which partly depend on the Netherlands.

Countries like France, Belgium and Germany meet every June in Holland for much needed competition at the ‘Continental T20’. This year, this tournament could be the only senior team international cricket which France plays. With the (expected) loss of funding, it would not be a surprise if this tournament is viewed as an unnecessary expense by the KNCB.

The example of the impact of the Netherlands and Canada (potentially) losing status, demonstrates how important status can be.

In cricket, there will always be people who attempt to protect the sanctity of one status or another. A favourite of the band of protectors is first class cricket. Currently Ireland have a first-class set up in all but name, whilst some would argue Bangladesh have a first-class set up in little but name. Why these two competitions are deemed to be worthy of different status is a mystery.

The protectorate of first-class status would surely argue that they wish to ensure that the quality of First Class cricket is not diluted.

Although when one considers that a potential 4 day match between Nepal and Afghanistan would (currently) not be afforded the same status as a game played in 1810 at Lords between ‘England’ and ‘The Bs’ (a team comprised of players with surnames beginning with ‘B’), then it is difficult to not see the protectorate as snobbish. Particularly when one sees that ‘The Bs’ managed just 6 in their second innings.

More precious to the protectorate than First Class status, is Test status.

I will leave it to the better informed and more eloquent to tear apart the ridiculous proposal paper from the toad-like trio of Srinivasan, Clarke and Edmonds, and moral and financial corruption of the respective boards of the triplet of the amphibian overlords of the game.

Objections to new teams being granted Test status are often met with cries that the sanctity of Test statistics will be defiled. It is clearly ludicrous that anyone should be distressed at the thought of Laker’s 19-90 being ‘tarnished’ by George Dockrell being given the opportunity to play test cricket. If cricket’s Protectorate can handle Ishant Sharma having 149 test wickets, then they can surely handle Dockrell and Sorenson taking test scalps.

The importance of status to developing teams is undoubted, and furthermore the current status-quo of international status is a farce which damages the game. Those following the current CWC Qualifiers will be aware of the status related shambles. The 7th and 8th place play off will be an ODI. The final has a very good chance of being just a List A game. This is a farce, and it undermines the game.

Granting international status to international matches is not a revolutionary idea. It could have a dramatic impact on development, and has limited or no potentially negative repercussions. Will it happen? Probably not.

The status of games is important. It is a tool by which A&A is devalued, intentionally or otherwise, and it is wrong. It does matter and we should care.