Mr Davidson has criticised the England and Wales Cricket Board for turning First Class cricket into a football-style 'money game' and failing in its duty to protect the interests of those counties within a 'Lower Income' group.

In calling for fairness to be introduced into County Cricket in an evidence-based report which supports his argument, he has also demanded that those Lower Income group counties be compensated for lost income as a result of the ECB's inequitable policy decisions over the past eight years.

Leicestershire's Chairman has drawn a parallel between the disparity of income and the performances of the counties in the 'Upper Income' and 'Lower Income' groups in the County Championship since the year 2000.

"All major ECB policy decisions implemented since 2000 have worked unfairly to the detriment of the Lower Income Group and those counties within that particular group have had a raw deal," said Mr Davidson.

"The ECB Board has a duty to rectify matters, not only structurally to create a level playing field but also financially to compensate Lower Income group counties for lost income as a result of inequitable policy decisions.

"It is time for fairness to be re-introduced into County Cricket for the good of the game before untold damage is done to our cricketing infrastructure."

In Mr Davidson's report, the 'Upper Income' group consists of six Test Match ground counties - Surrey, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and Durham - plus the three highest income non-Test Match ground counties which are Hampshire, Sussex and Kent.

Leicestershire are in the 'Lower Income' group which also features Essex, Middlesex, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Worcestershire, Glamorgan, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire.

A table of finances from the ECB's 'FCC's and MCC Financial Report 2006. shows Surrey received £10.1 million, while at the other end of the scale Derbyshire's share was just £2.4 million.

Of the £24.2 million increase in total income reported by all counties since the year 2000, £17.6 million has flowed to the Upper Income group with only £6.6 million going to the Lower Income group.

Almost half of that £24.2 million went to the six Test Match ground counties and Surrey alone benefited to the tune of £4 million.

"It is little wonder that the Lower Income group of counties are struggling to compete," commented Mr Davidson.

"Clearly, something fundamental has occurred in the competitive environment since 2000 for the Lower Income group of counties to be so hopelessly uncompetitive in the County Championship."

He added: "No Lower Income group county has won the County Championship in the period 2000-2007. In the previous decade, the Championship was won by a Lower Income group county on seven occasions and two of those titles were achieved by Leicestershire in 1996 and 1998.

"Indeed, Leicestershire are the last county from that Lower Income group to have won the County Championship 10 years ago"

"In 2007, there was a near perfect correlation between Championship division and income, the Upper Income group in Division One and the Lower Income group in Division Two. Two anomalies - Notts and Worcestershire - were promoted and relegated respectively after one season 'out of place'."

"No Lower Income group county has played in the C&G/Friends Provident Final since 2004, suggesting that domination by the Upper Income group is extending into one-day cricket. The Lower Income group are being marginalised into the shorter forms of the game (NatWest Pro40/Twenty20 Cup) where they have fared better, but for how long will that be the case."

Mr Davidson states that the struggle for the Lower Income group has been compounded by two major policy changes implemented by the ECB in 2000 which come on top of the shift in relative income.

Those changes have seen the introduction of Central Contracts with priority given to the needs of the England team, while there was also the formation of a two division County Championship.

"This has created a migration of players to the richer, not necessarily better counties," said Leicestershire's Chairman. "The Upper Income group are retaining bigger squads to fill gaps left by England players and therefore they plunder the Lower Income group.

"There are also fewer good quality 'cast offs' coming out of the larger counties because they need to keep them.

"What is the point of the likes of Leicestershire producing more 'Stuart Broads' if they immediately get poached by Upper Income group counties, a number of whom make little obvious effort to develop home grown players?"

Mr Davidson also argues that the introduction of the Performance Related Fee Payments in 2005 has hit the 'Lower Income' group, describing it as a 'regressive tax' on those counties within that group.

"Performance Related Fee Payments were introduced in response to the Kolpak ruling in 2003 and are ostensibly a bundle of five measures designed to encourage counties 'to nurture future talent' for the England team and certainly one of the measures does that," said Mr Davidson.

"In reality, however, the largest PRFP, Performance Analysis, which accounts for over 60% of the total, contains a £25,000 tax on every additional non-qualified cricketer above two that a county chooses to play across the season."

He added: "The Lower Income counties are disadvantaged in two ways; if they try to play by the rules with nine England qualified cricketers, they cannot afford the better quality players. Play more than two 'not qualifieds' and they get 'whacked' disproportionately."

Mr Davidson prepared a 69-page report last summer entitled 'An Evidence Based Approach to Identifying and Developing England Test Cricketers in the County Championship' which set out ways to encourage counties to develop home-grown players rather than impose financial penalties on those for not fielding players qualified for the England team.