Two years ago the Champions League Twenty20 started with a bang. On a balmy night in Bangalore, JP Duminy played one of the knocks of the tournament to silence a capacity crowd as the Cape Cobras won the sort of match which can make Twenty20 undeniably enjoyable. It set the tone for the tournament, which went on to produce plenty of moments which should theoretically have made it a success.

Unknown youngsters such as Rilee Rossouw and Adrian Barath sprung to prominence, old hands such as Glenn McGrath enjoyed a final fling and a new superstar was born in the shape of Kieron Pollard. There were close matches and a few proper upsets, none more spectacular than Trinidad and Tobago's out-of-nowhere victory over New South Wales as the West Indians established themselves as the darlings of the show.

And yet, truth be told, nobody really cared. The people of Sydney did not pour onto the city's streets to celebrate when New South Wales won the final. In fact they were probably all sleeping. Meanwhile stadiums for most of the matches were half-full at best, and television ratings in Twenty20-mad India were poor. There was little appetite for matches that didn't involve Indian teams, which became a huge problem when none of the IPL sides made the last four.

The second edition of the Champions League, held in South Africa last year, showed a small improvement, but it wasn't enough to stop Airtel from bailing out of their five-year, $40 million title sponsorship after just two years. A tournament which was meant to be like the IPL except better has failed to even live up to the Indian tournament.

The organisers have therefore decided that the answer is quite simple: just make the Champions League more like the IPL. A fourth Indian team has therefore been squeezed in via a new qualifying system, which adds six matches to the programme to pacify ESPN Star Sports - whose 10-year, $1 billion broadcast deal was an incredible steal for the Champions League organisers - and also gets rid of some of the riff-raff (ie. teams from countries who don't have a share in tournament profits) early on.

In theory, TV ratings in India should improve, and more prize money should channel into the teams from the three founding boards - India, Australia and South Africa - since only one out of their eight representatives has to qualify.

Just to decrease the chance of Indian teams slipping up against the others, the rule over players who qualified for the tournament with two teams has also changed since that first year. In 2009 the 'home' team (ie. non-Indian team) had the choice of whether they wanted to retain that player. Now the decision rests with the players, who are unlikely to put sentiment ahead of a fat contract with their IPL franchise.

The Indian sides will therefore be at full strength, while, for example, New South Wales will be without Brett Lee, Doug Bollinger and Brad Haddin. Even if the 'home' teams pocket $150,000 per player that turns out for an IPL franchise, on the playing field the dice are loaded. It would be a real surprise if a foreign team was to win the third edition over the next two weeks.

Whether all of this will make it a 'success' is debatable. The first edition, in Twenty20 terms, was a success from a cricketing perspective, but then Twenty20 success has always been measured in dollars and cents by the organisers. After all, it's a form of the game with little cricketing value that was actually created to prop up the other forms financially.

The changes to the Champions League have shifted that relationship even further, eroding its legitimacy in cricket terms for a little bit more financial success. The idea of the tournament is to crown the best domestic Twenty20 franchise in the world. But that becomes skewed when franchises from one country are not only allowed to field more foreigners than everyone else, but are given first choice on their opponents' players.

It also seems devalued when the qualifying process is set up so that eight of the ten teams in the tournament proper are likely to come from only three countries.

Whether it at least brings in more punters remains to be seen, particularly with the IPL losing ground this year. Having marginalised several countries and taken away some of the Champions League's global appeal, the organisers need the Indian public to justify the direction in which the tournament has been taken.