DNA
The final domino may be about to fall, but Cricket Australia’s decision on Sept. 8 to welcome private investors to the Big Bash League is causing much agitation.
The announcement revealed a self-determination model whereby each state will be able to decide if it wants to sell its BBL team or teams. This is the latest stage in a long-running saga, involving a battle between CA’s executives and those in several states, with New South Wales the major adversary. The latter’s response to the news was to claim that it risks leaving the game “strategically and financially worse off” in Australia.
The BBL is cricket’s second-oldest T20 franchise league, starting in 2011-12, three years after the Indian Premier League, followed by its women’s league in 2015. Unlike the IPL, which was privatized from the outset, the BBL franchises have been owned by the individual state cricket boards.
In 2012, the Bangladesh Premier League was established on the franchise model, with mainly Bangladeshi corporate owners and investors. The Caribbean Premier League was established in 2013 on a franchise basis, with hefty private Indian investment, either locally based or from IPL franchise owners. In 2016, the Pakistan Super League was introduced by the Pakistan Cricket Board, based on the sale of 10-year franchises which have been acquired almost entirely by corporate Pakistani investors.
Although the Afghanistan Premier League opened in 2018, it ran only one edition before payment issues and concerns over its integrity emerged. This year, it has been relaunched and will be played in the UAE starting on Dec. 27. In 2018, the Global T20 in Canada and the Mzansi Super League in South Africa were launched, but COVID-19 brought a halt to their development. The pandemic had a deleterious effect on cricket’s income-generating abilities, creating financially poor situations for a number of boards.
In order to address this, a number of them investigated the T20 franchise route. Cricket South Africa determined that it was in such dire financial straits that it invited Indian IPL owners’ investment to initiate SA20 in 2022. The England and Wales Cricket Board invented The Hundred, which launched in 2021, and sold tranches of its equity in 2025 to private investors, despite continuing to operate its domestic T20 Blast competition, played by its county teams. Sri Lanka’s franchised Lanka Premier League has had a checkered life since its inauguration in 2020, from both political and ownership perspectives.
Currently, its five franchises are owned by international conglomerates displaying local links. Meanwhile, the US Major League Cricket was opened in 2023 with substantial IPL and Indian funding. In New Zealand, in 2027 it is planned to replace the existing provincially structured Super Smash T20 competition with a franchise model, with a view to attracting external investment.
Out of the 12 Test-playing ICC Full Members, eight have franchised, privately invested T20 leagues. New Zealand, having dallied with whether to join with CA, is planning to go down that route. Australia is on the brink. This leaves only Zimbabwe and Ireland, although the new European T20 Premier League does involve Ireland’s board, its main venue and its players. The ETPL has attracted investment from sources that are largely unassociated with other franchise leagues and also involves Scotland and the Netherlands. Other associate countries which have established a T20 franchise are, of course, the Emirates Cricket Board with the ILT20 in 2023 and Nepal with the Nepal Premier League in 2024. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the northern nations of sub-Saharan Africa may be next in line.
In the midst of this sea change for T20 format ownership, Australia’s resistance to the siren sounds of seductive offers to sell out has been admirable to those who view the direction of travel with suspicion. This has reflected a very Australian belief that cricket is not something that is owned by CA. It is the country’s national pastime and, as such, it belongs to the people. CA’s role is to be a steward, a protector and a custodian of the game. Its current management is interpreting this role differently from its predecessors. Now, the resistance to privatisation looks set to change, but by how much and at what speed is uncertain.
The driving forces for the different direction lie in new CA executives and an impasse between CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association. Mike Baird became CA’s chair in February 2023. A former investment banker, he served as premier of New South Wales between 2014 and 2017. By all accounts he is a serial privatizer, seemingly a believer that anything in the public sector can be turned into profit by private investment. Todd Greenberg became CA’s chief executive officer in March 2025, moving on after four years as CEO of the ACA. Together, he and Baird seem intent on privatizing the BBL.
The language they use is the same as with other equity sell-offs. Perhaps this is because they have the same advisers, the US-based merchant bank The Raine Group, which presided over the sale of The Hundred franchises in England. Baird has said that “by opening the door to private investment in the Big Bash Leagues, Cricket Australia is taking a deliberate step to strengthen and secure the long-term future of the game.” This is how he interprets CA’s role as steward, protector and custodian of the game. Others do not see it that way.
The first step in this will be to offer 100 percent of the Melbourne Renegades to the market, one of two teams under Cricket Victoria, which will continue to manage the Melbourne Stars. The aim is for the Renegades to operate in a transitional mode in 2026-27 before being under new ownership the following season. Depending on how that sale goes, CA will consider allowing other teams to be offered to the market.
It seems that CA has been mindful of the acrimony its proposals for sale has created and is adopting a stealthier approach to achieve its objectives. It has gone so far to say that its self-determination model “will enhance funding for community, domestic and international pathways and elite cricket; protect the primacy of Test cricket; continue to develop and engage the best players in our national teams and the Big Bash Leagues; and grow our brands, fan engagement and commercial strength.” This is a very bold and embracing claim which promises all things to Australia.
There is little flesh on these bones. The proportion of equity to be offered in each team was not specified. It is clear that protecting the primacy of Test cricket means that the country’s best players will continue to be unavailable for the BBL because domestic Tests clash with it. CA cannot proceed with the sale of any teams without the ACA’s agreement and that is some way off. It is very likely that IPL owners will be interested in acquiring BBL equity.
However, they seek to maximize control. The potential for achieving this in the current conditions is suboptimal. The announcement looks to be a first sacrificial offering of a willing team of Renegades to keep the process moving forward, tempt interest and assuage doubters a little.
The process will not be a T20 innings, short and hard-hitting, but a longer Test match innings, where temperament, negotiating skill, changing conditions, probing and technique will navigate the final outcome. There are still critical issues to resolve. The domino that represents the soul of Australian cricket will not fall just yet.
