Explained: Why CA is considering privatising the BBL

Why does the BBL need to consider privatisation?

Cricket Australia (CA) reported a net deficit of AUD 11.3 million last year. The next broadcast deal for cricket on Australian soil isn't available until 2031, meaning no major broadcast revenue injection for nearly five years. CA believes selling BBL clubs to private capital is the best option to address its cash-strapped status and push the BBL back up the T20 league pecking order.

Has talk around private equity only emerged now?

No. The possibility has been discussed for years, gaining momentum after SA20 and ILT20 grew, attracting high-profile foreign players away from the BBL. The genuine fear is that Australia's best players might leave their home summer for bigger riches elsewhere.

Why are CA so keen on going ahead?

CA believes T20 franchise cricket will eventually resemble the tennis calendar—highlighted by four or five "grand slam" leagues led by the IPL. They want the BBL to be in that mix for the December-January window, especially with a new T20 league in New Zealand launching in 2028. CEO Todd Greenberg has called private investment "inevitable".

What is stopping CA from simply selling?

Unlike the BCCI, CA operates under a federated model where six state associations have significant say and decisions require consensus.

How does this model impact the BBL?

The eight BBL clubs are owned by CA and leased to the six states (NSW and Victoria have two clubs each). We're at the 15-year mark of a 30-year lease. CA initially wanted expressions of interest for all eight clubs but shelved that due to lack of consensus.

Who is for privatisation and why?

• Cricket Victoria (Melbourne Stars, Melbourne Renegades)
• Cricket Tasmania (Hobart Hurricanes)
• Western Australian Cricket Association (Perth Scorchers)

These states believe private investment is the only way to increase pay scales and retain/attract top players.

Who is against and why?

• Cricket NSW (Sydney Sixers, Sydney Thunder) – vehemently opposed
• Queensland Cricket (Brisbane Heat)

Their concerns include losing control over Australian cricket, foreign investors not having local best interests at heart, and whether private investment automatically means bigger player paycheques. They prefer finding other Australian funding sources.

Where does this leave us?

Without consensus, a hybrid model is likely—similar to the NRL—where privatisation happens in staggered fashion. The three keen states would proceed first. Melbourne Renegades could be offered as 100% stake (possibly with complete makeover, including name change), while Melbourne Stars would sell a portion. Hurricanes and Scorchers will also be open for investment, similar to The Hundred model. Talks continue with opposing states.

What does this mean for potential investors?

Global investors could potentially own the Renegades and operate from the MCG. Options exist to buy into Stars, Hurricanes and Scorchers. However, CA will be careful not to let privatisation interfere with established Australian cricket systems, and investors are unlikely to have major say beyond their club.

What do players say?

Twelve prominent BBL stars reportedly formed a WhatsApp group discussing their futures if private investment doesn't materialise, concerned about leaving money on the table by not exploring South Africa and other leagues. The salary cap is around AUD 3.1 million per club; last season's highest-paid player was Babar Azam at AUD 420,000. There's displeasure among key players that less prominent foreign stars are paid more than them just to maintain an international feel.

How is this different from The Hundred?

The Hundred was created specifically to be sold. With the BBL, there's 15 years of legacy and local fan connection. CA has a more robust cricket ecosystem than English Cricket, giving them more leverage over what privatisation looks like, who invests, and what's at stake—even if more convincing is needed to bring all stakeholders on board.