SYDNEY: As Twenty20 cricket competitions explode around the world, Australia’s Big Bash League is struggling to chart a vision for the future, after plans to privatise its franchises stalled.
Cricket Australia chief Todd Greenberg is adamant that outside investment is necessary to shore up the game’s financial future and keep pace with a boom in other well-funded leagues played in a similar time slot.
They include the UAE’s ILT20, South Africa’s SA20, and New Zealand’s privately-backed NZ20 scheduled to start in December 2027, all bidding for the best local and overseas players.
“If those salary caps (of other leagues) are significantly higher than ours over the coming years, and players can earn more in those areas, then players will follow those. That’s a real risk to us,” Greenberg told local media.
“I want to make sure that for Australian cricket, our ambition is to have a league that runs at the key part of the year for us, which is the December-January window, and it’s the best T20 league in the world at that moment in time.
“To do that, we have to have a significant amount of money in our salary caps to attract not only the best players from overseas, but to retain and attract our own best players.”
He added: “The concept of bringing private capital to cricket is inevitable at some point.”
While not a direct competitor as it runs in a different window, the benchmark Indian Premier League has seen massive success thanks to wealthy benefactors, with England’s The Hundred also on a roll after an influx of private capital.
But it is a thorny issue in Australia with an initial proposal to sell stakes in each of BBL’s eight teams stalling last month amid concerns about a loss of control for the game’s local custodians.
While the Victorian, Western Australian and Tasmanian cricket associations voiced support and South Australia said it was open to the idea, New South Wales and Queensland rejected the move.
Queensland Cricket, which controls the Brisbane Heat, said it was worried about player payments skyrocketing to unsustainable levels, and that private owners may not be as invested in the grassroots game.
Cricket NSW, which operates the Sydney Sixers and Sydney Thunder, was similarly concerned that it could be detrimental to how the sport is governed and how local players are produced.
‘Sugar hit’
There are also fears about an Indian takeover, with the most likely buyers seen as the rich IPL team owners who have invested in other short-form competitions around the globe.
Former Australian captain Greg Chappell is in the “No” camp, arguing that the BBL belongs to the states and communities that have built it into a successful and well-attended product.
While acknowledging the commercial realities, he said selling it off was not the answer.
“The moment you introduce private ownership at scale, you introduce a set of priorities that may not always align with the long-term health of the game,” he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald.
“Private investors, however well-intentioned, answer to shareholders, not to Australian cricket.”
Andrew Jones, a former head of strategy at Cricket Australia who was instrumental in the launch of the BBL, is similarly unconvinced.
“A one-off sale is a sugar hit, not a solution,” he said in The Australian newspaper, arguing that revenues can be better grown through sponsorships, wagering, ticketing, and more focus on commercialising the women’s game.
Despite scepticism, Greenberg remains confident and is now eyeing a hybrid ownership model.
This would allow the BBL franchises keen to sell stakes to do so while allowing those against to maintain complete ownership.
“If we end up not going together at the same time, can we still extract the same level of revenue, and can we extract the same level of value?” he said.
“I think we can, but I’ve got to do the work to satisfy a recommendation that would ultimately go to the members and our board.”
