Qualification for the World Cup is the dream of cricket administrators in every non-Test country - the chance to compete against the sport's best and, in the short term anyway, media exposure otherwise normally unattainable two of the main benefits.

While both of those are nice, it is money that drives every country's development programme, so just how much of a windfall is World Cup qualification?

For the Netherlands, Namibia and Canada, the size of their haul from their 2003 South African goldmine will depend in part on the generosity of their Associate colleagues.

In past tournaments, each Associate qualifier received a participation fee (in 1999 UKpds125, 000). In addition, they, like all Associate members, received an equal share of the 25% of World Cup profits given to Associate countries.

For 2003, the separation of the participation fee from the Associates' 25% has been scrapped, and the three qualifiers, automatic qualifer, Kenya (through One Day International status) and the 19 non-qualifiers will be left to agree on how much the four Associate World Cup combatants take from the Associate pie.

Further enlivening the argument is that for the first time, the Associate pie will not be split equally - still-to-be-decided criteria will ensure that countries such as Canada and the United States, with a greater number of cricketers, receive a greater share than say, Gibraltar or Israel.

Comforting the Gibraltars and Israels, however, is the fact that thanks to Rupert Murdoch's World Sports Group (or Global Cricket Corporation, as the wing associated with the ICC is known), it is a much bigger pie - up to two to three times bigger than in 1999.

Not so comforting for the Netherlands, Namibia and Canada is the reality, borne out from the experience of past World Cup qualifiers, is that whatever they receive in either participation fees or straight splits with other Associates will be more or less it.

"It was never the financial bonanza that everybody thought it was going to be," Scottish Cricket Union official, Jim Love, said.

"Sponsorship was very difficult to raise," Mr. Love said, referring to Scotland's 1999 World Cup appearance. "We had whiskey and life insurance companies in Scotland we could talk to, but they clashed with the tournament's preferred sponsors, Scrumpy Jacks and Natwest Bank."

The appearance fee Scotland received was primarily used making their amateur players available.

However the higher profile Scottish cricket received, and the fact it played in a sport's world championship provided a direct benefit in gaining it access to Scottish Lottery Fund money.

"Without that we wouldn't have been able to create our six pitch indoor facility or employ Mike Hendrick to work in our development programme."

So what does it matter if any of these countries prosper, giving the game credibility as a world sport?

FIFA, with its revenue raising ability enhanced by global television audiences, paid participation fees to teams eliminated in the first round of the 1998 soccer World Cup $US1.74 million (or $US540,000 a game).

© CricInfo Ltd