Opinion
I have spent a lifetime in cricket – as a player, captain, coach, and selector – and I have seen how easily the game can be shaped, and sometimes distorted, by money and outside interests.
When the conversation turns to privatising the Big Bash League (BBL), I view it with deep caution.
Australian cricket has thrived by keeping control of its own destiny. To surrender even part of that control now would be a grave and unnecessary mistake, with consequences that could echo for decades.
Around 2012, when the BBL was embryonic, Darshak Mehta – chairman and co-founder of The Chappell Foundation – along with a couple of associates (one of whom remains a leading figure in Australian cricket circles), attempted to buy the Sydney Sixers franchise.
They passionately believed in the competition’s potential. But without proper due diligence, they were unable to assemble a compelling bid and ultimately walked away, frustrated. Back then, you might have called Darshak a poacher. Today, he is very much a gamekeeper.
He cares deeply about the long-term health of Australian cricket, and his perspective has evolved with experience: Cricket Australia and the state associations should steer well clear of privatising the BBL.
That early episode is instructive. It shows both the long-standing commercial interest in the league and the importance of resisting the urge to act prematurely or without full consideration of the consequences. The BBL has since grown into a thriving competition under its existing model – one that reflects Australian cricket’s broader philosophy of central coordination and shared benefit.
Today, however, privatisation is once again on the agenda. Proposals reportedly include selling stakes of up to 49 per cent in several teams, and even full ownership of select franchises in Melbourne and Sydney. Such a move could generate more than $500 million.
The argument is that this injection would allow the league to keep pace with the financial might of competitions such as the Indian Premier League and South Africa’s SA20. But the allure of fast money should not blind us to the long-term risks.
The BBL is not a failing enterprise in need of rescue. It is, by most meaningful measures, a success. The current hybrid model – where Cricket Australia owns the league and its clubs, while state associations manage them – has proven stable and effective. It has produced a competition that is entertaining, accessible, and deeply embedded in the Australian summer.
Recent seasons have reinforced this strength. BBL|15, for example, was among the most-watched in the league’s history, with streaming figures surpassing 1.1 billion minutes and average national audiences rising to around 807,000 per match.
Several games exceeded one million viewers. Attendances have also been impressive, with crowds of up to 68,000 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground contributing to record single-day figures. The BBL remains one of Australia’s most widely followed domestic sporting competitions.
Given these outcomes, the question must be asked: Why disrupt a model that is working?
One of the most significant risks of privatisation is the erosion of control over the game’s structure and scheduling. At present, Australian cricket operates as a coordinated ecosystem.
The BBL sits alongside Sheffield Shield matches, international tours, and iconic Test fixtures such as the Boxing Day and New Year’s Tests. This balance is not accidental – it is carefully managed to ensure that each format supports the others.
Introduce private ownership, and that balance becomes harder to maintain. Investors will naturally seek returns, and that often translates into influence. Even minority stakeholders can exert pressure when substantial capital is involved.
This could lead to demands for more matches, altered scheduling, or preferential access to high-profile players or restrictions on their availability.
We have seen elements of this dynamic in England’s The Hundred, where the sale of stakes has coincided with changes to team identities and branding – moves that have not always been well received by the cricket public. Such changes may seem cosmetic, but they can have a profound impact on fan engagement and loyalty.
Player management presents another challenge. Under the current system, centrally contracted players such as Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc operate within a framework that prioritises national duties and long-term performance.
Workloads are managed carefully, and participation across formats is coordinated to maximise both player welfare and team success.
Private ownership could disrupt this equilibrium. Franchise owners investing heavily in players will expect returns on that investment, potentially pushing for greater availability during the BBL season.
This could place players in difficult positions – torn between franchise commitments and national responsibilities – and increase the risk of fatigue and injury.
Salary inflation is another likely consequence. We have already seen significant increases in player earnings in privately influenced leagues, including The Hundred.
The BBL is not a failing enterprise in need of rescue. It is, by most meaningful measures, a success.
While improved remuneration is welcome, it must be sustainable. A bidding war driven by private owners could create financial imbalances that extend beyond the BBL and affect the entire domestic system.
Fans, too, have much to lose. The BBL’s appeal lies in its authenticity. Teams are closely tied to their states and communities, creating a sense of local identity and pride. Matches are family-friendly, ticket prices are accessible, and the overall atmosphere is inclusive.
Many fans have told me that privatisation risks “selling the soul” of the league. Changes to colours, branding, or team identity – driven by commercial considerations – might deliver short-term gains but could erode the unique character that has made the BBL so successful.
The connection between teams and their communities is not easily replaced once lost.
There is also the matter of where the money goes. Under the current structure, BBL revenues are reinvested into Australian cricket – supporting grassroots initiatives, state associations, and the national team. Privatisation would inevitably redirect a portion of those profits to private stakeholders, potentially including overseas investors.
This raises important questions about control and independence. If ownership stakes are acquired by entities with links to overseas leagues – particularly the Indian Premier League – there is a risk that external priorities and interests could begin to influence domestic decision-making.
Australian cricket has long benefited from maintaining its autonomy. Surrendering even part of that independence could have far-reaching consequences.
Critics of the current model argue that greater financial investment is needed to retain top players and remain competitive in the global T20 landscape. While there is merit in ensuring that players are adequately compensated, privatisation is not the only path to achieving this.
Alternative strategies exist. Improved media rights negotiations, more effective sponsorship arrangements, and the careful expansion of revenue streams – such as wagering – can all contribute to increased income. These approaches allow the game to grow financially while retaining control of its core assets.
It is also important to recognise that recent financial pressures faced by Cricket Australia are not indicative of systemic failure. They are, in many cases, the result of specific circumstances, including pandemic-related disruptions and scheduling challenges. Addressing these issues does not require selling off parts of the league.
Player development is another area where the risks of privatisation are significant. The current system provides a clear and effective pathway from junior cricket through state competitions and into the BBL and the national team. This integrated approach has been central to Australia’s long-standing success.
Private owners, focused on short-term returns, may prioritise established stars and overseas imports over nurturing local talent. This could weaken the development pipeline and, over time, reduce the depth that has been a defining feature of Australian cricket.
The BBL’s strength lies in its community roots and its place within a balanced cricket ecosystem. Turning franchises into corporate assets risks shifting priorities away from long-term development and towards immediate profitability.
“We need to resist the allure of fabulous IPL-type riches, as the franchises there are tightly controlled by the BCCI – which is in lock-step with the Indian government,” Darshak Mehta notes. “CA operate in a totally different environment.”
Integrity is another consideration. The introduction of private equity or ownership groups with interests in other leagues could create conflicts of interest. Decisions about scheduling, player availability, and competition structure might be influenced by considerations that extend beyond the best interests of Australian cricket.
Maintaining a unified governance model helps safeguard against these risks. It ensures consistency, transparency, and a clear alignment of priorities across all levels of the game.
Importantly, there are viable alternatives to privatisation that deserve serious consideration. Enhanced broadcast deals, improved fan engagement strategies, and thoughtful scheduling adjustments can all contribute to the league’s continued growth. Modest expansion – undertaken carefully and within the existing framework – could also provide additional opportunities without compromising control.
The experience of England’s The Hundred offers a cautionary tale. While the sale of stakes has generated significant revenue, the long-term implications for governance and fan engagement remain uncertain. Australia is under no obligation to follow the same path, particularly when the BBL is already performing strongly.
Ultimately, this is a question of long-term vision. Privatisation offers immediate financial rewards, but at the cost of reduced control and increased complexity. It risks transforming the BBL from a cohesive, nationally integrated competition into a fragmented collection of commercially driven entities.
Australian cricket has achieved sustained success by maintaining a clear sense of purpose and control. The BBL is a product of that approach. It complements the broader cricket ecosystem, supports player development, and engages fans in a way that few domestic competitions can match.
To compromise that model for short-term gain would be a mistake.
Cricket Australia should reject the privatisation of the BBL – or, at the very least, limit any private involvement to a level that does not threaten sovereignty. The league’s true value lies not in what it could fetch on the open market, but in what it contributes to the game as a whole.
The BBL does not need rescuing. It needs protecting.
