Updated ,first published
A Cricket Australia plan to sell off stakes in all eight Big Bash League clubs for 2027 is effectively dead after NSW and Queensland opposed the privatisation plan, leaving an uncertain path forward for the game.
Queensland Cricket informed CA chair Mike Baird and chief executive Todd Greenberg on Wednesday that the state was joining NSW in rejecting the plan, in particular arguing against a further rise in player payments.
โWe have informed Cricket Australia that we will not be moving to the next phase of the sales process. Instead, we wish to continue to find ways to work with Cricket Australia to grow the Big Bash Leagues in Australia and make it one of the best T20 competitions throughout the world, without selling a minority share in the Brisbane Heat,โ a Queensland Cricket statement said.
โQueensland Cricket has completed an exhaustive due diligence process over the past several months, and we thank Cricket Australia for the additional time to complete this. Queensland Cricket remains focused on promoting and growing the game across Queensland and throughout Australia to accelerate participation in our sport.โ
NSW, the home state of both Baird and Greenberg, had previously spoken out against the plan, arguing that selling clubs would risk losing control of the carefully balanced Australian cricket system.
Bairdโs term as CA chair expires in October, but he is eligible for re-election for a further three years.
โNSW and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital,โ Greenberg said on Thursday. โNSW have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland donโt have an alternative model, but they donโt believe private capital is something for them.
โSouth Australia are in a hybrid situation where they would like the ability for some states to be able to take the opportunity to bring private capital in, and some states to come later at their choice.
โThen weโve got three other states, Victoria, WA and Tasmania who are very strong and very supportive of the opportunity to bring private capital into their states. If youโre sitting in my shoes with the federated model and six members, thatโs why itโs difficult.โ
Greenberg maintained his view that private capital would eventually become a reality for the BBL, but was now unsure when it would take place. The plans rejected by NSW and Queensland called for clubs to be opened up to valuations and expressions of interest this year, before new investors took their places in the league for 2027-28.
โWe move to trying to analyse what a different model might look like, and is there a model where some states are taking private capital and some states arenโt,โ Greenberg said. โWe would have to get some deep analysis to understand the impacts on Australian cricket.
โI do think at some point in our lifetimes that private capital will come in. If weโre going to compete with the rest of the world it is inevitable.
โOur whole project has been about balancing the risks that come with that and making sure the controls are in place for Australian cricket to bring private capital in but continue to operate the way the game has been governed and should be governed. My personal view is it will happen at some point, Iโm just not sure when.โ
A key element of the discussion was the renegotiation of the pay deal with the Australian Cricketers Association should private capital be injected. The ACA had informed CA of its wish to push for a rise in the playersโ revenue share from the current 27.5 per cent of Australian cricket revenue to something north of 30 per cent. That push has found little support among states or CA.
โTheyโve been very public with a stated request for an increase in their percentage of the revenue share, thatโs not something thatโs been supported by the states,โ Greenberg said. โMy whole focus been how do we grow the revenue piece itself. If you grow the revenue then the playersโ share of that continues to rise, as does the rest of Australian cricket.
โWithout an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time, and thatโs been one of the risks that weโve been assessing, can we keep pace with the global market and global demands, and can we do that without private capital. Thatโs a real challenge for us.โ
Part of the NSW โalternative strategyโ for self-funding Australian cricket is to chase greater product fees from wagering companies, effectively taking more money from gamblers to fund the game. Greenberg was adamant that Baird and the rest of the CA board did not support this option.
โOur view is thatโs not a step the sport would accept,โ Greenberg said. โTo back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game, and thatโs been very clear from the Cricket Australia board.โ
Greenberg made several references to the unruly nature of the Australian cricket โfederalโ system, where CA is effectively owned by its six member states.
โThe six states have completely opposing views about the types of partners they want to bring in,โ he said. โSome are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership. Some have the complete opposite.
โOption A for us has always been to extract maximum value if we do it at the same time, but clearly we are not at that point, so now we have to reassess what comes next.โ
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
Daniel Brettig is The Age’s chief cricket writer and the author of several books on cricket.Connect via X.From our partners
About the Author
