Cricket Australia (CA) has been holding extensive discussions about selling stakes in each of the BBL clubs to private investors following a decision to formally explore private investment in July of last year. A deadline is looming with the six state chief executives set to meet to discuss a final proposal this week in Melbourne before a decision is made about whether to formally privatise the BBL or to continue in its current form. The decision to privatise is a complex one and is understood to be causing plenty of angst. Here is what is happening and what is at stake.
What is being discussed?
CA is discussing whether they should proceed with going to market to sell stakes in the eight BBL clubs to private investors in a similar manner to how the ECB sold stakes in their eight Hundred franchises last year. CA is currently discussing the prospect at board level, with the six state associations and with the Australia Cricketers Association (ACA), all of which are key stakeholders in the decision. CA chief executive Todd Greenberg told SEN last week that it was the biggest decision Australian cricket would face for a generation and was hopeful that a decision on whether to proceed with privatisation or not could be made by early April at the latest, however there was no guarantee on that timeline.
What is at stake and what is being sold?
There have been reports suggesting CA would sell 49% stakes in six BBL teams, including the four teams in Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Hobart as well as one team from Melbourne and one team from Sydney. There is also reporting that the other teams in Melbourne and Sydney, most likely Renegades and Thunder, will be sold entirely at 100%. It is understood that nothing is set in stone in terms of percentage stakes. The decision whether to proceed is the major discussion point at the moment. But once the teams are up for sale it is understood that the bidding process from prospective investors could dictate what stakes are sold.
In the case of the Hundred, five teams sold 49% stakes with the counties retaining 51%. One team sold 50%, one team sold 70% and another sold 100%. But that was only the financial interest. There are a number of other things that can be included in shareholder agreements with investors that can be decided upon by the states and CA in terms of what investors can purchase a stake in and what they can’t. That includes things such as team names, colours, coaching, player control, selection, schedules, high performance pathways, as well as broadcast, sponsorship and ticketing revenue. What is for sale could dictate what percentages are sold for each individual team.
What type of money is expected from the sale and who gets it?
There are reported forecasts suggesting the total sales will reap $AUD600-800 million but, again, that will depend on what prospective investors value the teams at and what investors are looking to invest in. As with any private market, potential investors may pay a higher price for greater control over teams and less for lower percentages and less control. CA, the states and the players would all share in the initial cash injection derived from the sale and who gets what is part of the ongoing discussions. Future revenue from the teams and the league moving forward, mainly via broadcast rights, would then be split among the investors, CA, the states and the players depending on what percentages have been agreed upon.
Who are the potential investors?
CA has not held any formal discussions with potential investors given there is nothing for sale yet but it is understood a number have reached out to CA to express early interest in being part of the process if the privatisation proceeds. There is no doubt that some IPL owners will show interest in adding another franchise in the BBL to teams in the Hundred, the SA20, the MLC, the CPL and the ILT20. However, as was the case with the Hundred and the MLC, there are tech investors in America who have a keen interest in cricket and have bought stakes in teams in both leagues. There is also the possibility that wealthy local investors from Australia could be suitable partners for certain teams which could be very attractive to CA.
Why are CA exploring this?
This is where much of angst and debate is centered. There are various strands to it. But the crux of the reasoning is to shore up Australian cricket’s financial future. CA has long been reliant on cyclical revenue from major men’s Test tours by England and India, and they reported a loss last year despite India’s visit. There has also long been a want to build a strong BBL to overcome those financial peaks and troughs year to year. But the BBL has come under threat from the SA20 and ILT20, in particular, given they currently play in the same January window.
Private investment in both of those leagues has seen player salaries sky rocket. There is already angst among Australia’s best white-ball players that they are getting paltry sums in the BBL compared to counterparts in the SA20. ESPNcricinfo also understands that some overseas players have recently chosen to play in the SA20 over the BBL to be more visible to IPL owners who own teams in that league. The strength and broadcast value of the BBL will diminish if the best local and overseas players aren’t playing.
A similar issue applies to the WBBL. Beth Mooney’s purchase at the Hundred auction last week for well over three times her WBBL salary only illustrates the point further. Tim David also earned more than three times his BBL deal in the Hundred auction and twice his 12-month CA contract that he qualified for via an upgrade. If CA can’t pay their best players appropriately, there is a fear they will exit the system entirely.
Player salaries are only one part of the equation. Funding to support the game in Australia more broadly is another. CA has done some significant cost-cutting in recent times within the administration, as well as in pathways and community cricket. A large cash injection would ease those concerns and significantly grow a future fund that could be better managed and distributed.
What are the potential issues of privatising or not?
No one knows the exact ramifications of selling stakes in BBL clubs to private investors, with queries as to whether any of them will put the interests of Australia cricket at the forefront of any decision-making. There have been questions around whether capital can be raised through other means that are currently not being fully maximised.
Executives at both CA and state level have had a close look at what is happening in England in the aftermath of the Hundred sales but the full ramifications of that will not be known for some time. The changing of team names and colours at three of the Hundred franchises was carefully noted. However, there is a belief within CA that the longer legacy of the BBL and the stronger identity fan bases have with names and colours would see investors wary of changing those things. It can also be written into shareholder agreements in the sales process that team names and colours are to remain.
Alternatively, as Greenberg stated on SEN, there is a significant risk to not privatising as well. Deciding not to follow the trend of most of the major global boards by partnering with private investment to make sure the BBL is part of a global ecosystem of top tier T20 leagues is a huge risk. It would mean needing to raise money through other means to remain competitive in a global market where Australia is already being priced out. It would also mean raising money significantly ongoing, rather than just in the short term, to retain players and keep the BBL strong while privatised leagues elsewhere are expected to continue to raise salaries in a bid to lure the best players there.
What does it mean for Australia’s Test summer?
Again, this is a major cause of concern. Test cricket remains hugely popular in Australia and it is the centrepiece of the Australian summer. There is concern that the Boxing Day Test and the New Year’s Test, which are greatly attended and broadcast hits each year may disappear if a privatised BBL takes over the summer. There are also concerns that players will be pulled out of Test cricket by private owners to play in the BBL.
It is understood that CA wants to keep Test cricket as a priority and the decisions around which private investors to partner with will shape what the Test summers look like, with international schedules and national player priorities all capable of being protected within the sales process. The 2026-27 summer will remain as is regardless of whether CA does go to market this year or not. The BBL next summer will be severely compromised due to Australia’s men playing four Tests against New Zealand and five Tests in India in December, January and February which means none of the Test players will play a single BBL game next season and many potential tourists of India will also be removed from the competition.
The ICC’s Future Tours Programme for 2028 and beyond is not yet set although it is being worked through. CA has also signed a broadcast deal with Seven and Foxtel until the end of 2031. Greenberg has been on record saying the Test summer could look different in Australia in the medium term. There certainly appears to be a desire for CA to keep January clear of international cricket for the BBL. But it appears likely that Test cricket in Australia in December will remain a central part of the calendar in the medium term. However, nothing is off the table and hence there remains some apprehension around the consequences of privatising the BBL.
