It’s official — BBL privatisation is happening.
After months of back and forth and vocal opposition from some states, Cricket Australia has announced it will push ahead with the sale of BBL franchises.
Daniel Cherny answers the key questions.
What’s happened?
More than a year after Cricket Australia received a Boston Consulting Group report recommended the sale of minority stakes in its eight Big Bash League clubs, CA announced in Sydney on Tuesday that it had approved the sale of the Melbourne Renegades in their entirety.
The decision was formalised by the CA board on Monday night.
The Renegades will be the first BBL club to be sold as part of the so-called self-determination model whereby each state will have the right to decide whether to sell off part of all of its respective club/s.
An expression of interest process for the Renegades will launch almost immediately.
What does this mean for the upcoming men’s and women’s Big Bash seasons?
Not much. Despite the earlier hopes of Cricket Victoria to expedite the rebranding of the Melbourne Stars and sale of the Renegades, those two clubs will remain in their current iterations for the upcoming campaigns, even if the Renegades sale is finalised before the start of the men’s season in December.
The league’s pay structure was amended last month in a move designed to enable big name overseas and top Australian players to earn more. Ben Stokes (Adelaide Strikers) and Adam Zampa (Hobart Hurricanes) are the most prominent acquisitions to date. The BBL season will also commence in Chennai with a match between the Renegades and Perth Scorchers.
And the 2027-28 season?
This is where things will look significantly different. The Renegades will be sold, with a host of Indian Premier League conglomerates among the interested parties. It is likely the Renegades would be rebranded by their new owners, similar to moves made by purchasers of clubs in the UK’s Hundred competition. The Stars could also have a new name if approved by CA, with Cricket Victoria having sought a trademark on the Rangers, Blazers and Magic monikers. The renamed Stars could also take on traditional Victorian sporting colours of navy blue and white, albeit that too would need CA approval.
Depending on how quickly the Renegades sale is completed, the Stars, Hobart Hurricanes and Perth Scorchers could also be put on the market under the self-determination model. It’s understood both Cricket Tasmania and WA Cricket have financial thresholds that would need to be met before they choose to sell their teams.
How do the other states/clubs feel?
South Australia, Queensland and NSW have had varying degrees of reservations about proceeding with privatisation. SA has been something of a swing vote on the matter r, having devised the opt-in model. But SA has only been keen to proceed provided mooted governance reforms from CA are also ticked off. Queensland is not diametrically opposed to private equity in the BBL but is adamant it will only jump if the price is right.
Like SA, Queensland also has concerns about proposed penalties from CA for states who don’t sell at the first instance, whereby they would need to pay something of a tax should they sell down the track. The finer points of that scheme have been the source of hot debate behind the scenes over the past week. NSW is the most dogmatic of the no bloc. It is against privatisation on several fronts, including the supposed threat to the sovereignty to Australian cricket, while also casting doubts over the numbers pitched by CA to further the private equity case.
What about the players?
Under the terms of the current memorandum of understanding between CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association, players are entitled to negotiate a new pay deal in the event that the ownership structure of the league changes. Given that will happen with the sale of the Renegades, the ACA will push for a greater share of Australian cricket revenue that is funnelled to players. Pursuant to the ongoing deal which expires in 2027-28, players are entitled to 27.5 per cent. The ACA is keen for a substantial uptick, pushing for that sum to rise as high as 33 per cent depending on whether various conditions are met under the sale process.
CA chief Todd Greenberg is steadfast that such a sum is too high. The ACA wants a pay rise for all its players, including women and non-BBL domestic cricketers. A CA counteroffer this year made next to no provision for men’s state cricketers to have a pay rise. There is scope for division within the playing ranks given that there is greater incentive for certain players to want a deal to be done quickly, as opposed to others.
Why is this happening?
That depends who you ask. CA and CV are of the view that Australian cricket needs the cash injection that will come from private equity in the BBL. Some other states are less convinced, wondering whether the situation is as dire as the one that has been painted, and also querying whether private equity will actually solve a long-term revenue issue. More money in the BBL will mean more money for players and therefore greater competitiveness to fend off interest from rival T20 franchise leagues in South Africa, the UAE and New Zealand.
But the fact Stokes has already signed for the Strikers somewhat undermines that point given there can hardly be a bigger name overseas player on the market than the former England captain. CA is also adamant that this move is necessary to ensure top Aussie players don’t abandon the Australian summer to play elsewhere, although unless there is dramatic change to the Test calendar then Australia’s biggest stars will only play in the BBL during gaps on the international schedule.
How much money will be raised?
It’s an unanswerable question at this point given the sale process hasn’t begun, but Greenberg said on Tuesday that CA was hopeful that private equity could lead to the injection of upward of $1 billion into the game in this country.
Originally published as Cricket Australia confirms BBL privatisation plans despite opposition from some states