Teams are not as competitive because the game is more professional and professionalism brings the need for greater money. The greater the money the more competitive you can be. Maybe I'm biased but England have been involved in some truly great test matches in the last 18 months. If other teams aren't that's on them and their approach.My position w.r.t Tests isn't immovable. I have genuinely enjoyed Test cricket in the past, but I do feel the quality on offer has gone down. As I mention below, only a handful of competitive nations remain. In the 1990s, most of the nations that played the longest format were competitive. It was good to watch. Furthermore, you haven't yet addressed how 'payment of equal match fees will help sustain the format?' Merely making a point and backing out of a debate just so you can't justify shouldn't be the way forth.
I haven't said that equal match fees will help sustain the format. It might go someway but it will only impact 11 players per team. I actually think it's a sticking plaster and more radical solutions are needed.
Tell New Zealand that they aren't playing competitive test cricket after winning the World Test Championship - not that I think it matters as a tournament, but I know it hurts Indians, so it matters to them.Also, coming from the UK, your thought process around Tests is going to be different than many others. Competitive test cricket is only being played by 3 nations- India, England and Australia. You could add the odd SA, NZ ,Pak to it, based on their minute successes. If countries cannot sustain themselves, they shouldn't be playing the format. It is as simple as that. While, the purists of the game still remain, it is a dwindling population, aided by many macro factors. Tackling these isn't going to be possible, even for an organization like the ICC.
India, Australia and England play test cricket because there's an appetite for it and money in it BECAUSE people enjoy it. I don't think that's particularly different culturally different to New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa etc. I also don't buy into this idea that 'people aren't interested in test cricket anymore because of T20'. We're constantly told this by people with vested interest in making T20 the primary format. The fans are fed a constant diet of T20 and told that it's because we love it, when ultimately it's because broadcasters love it because it brings in money and that money (some of it) goes back to the boards. It's nothing to do with what viewing audiences actually want.
If most teams can't afford to play test cricket do you say 'well, tough luck I guess it's over for you and your players'. I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, but I that seems to be exactly what you think; 'the party is over, time pack up and only do what makes the most amount of money.' Or do you say, how can we (the ICC) make playing test cricket more feasible for all teams and players. Granted, maintaining three formats is difficult but that doesn't mean the primacy and value of test cricket can't be and shouldn't be maintained. There's many things the ICC could do although the reality is the ship has probably sailed due to the short-sighted decision making that has plagued the sport.
Competition can be improved by leveling the playing field. Equal-match fees, like I say, won't solve things, but might have minimal impact on the current situation.