The Big Bash League is reaching its crossroads moment.
Some, including Australian great Meg Lanning, see the privatisation of the BBL as the “next logical step” in the competition and game’s growth.
But others fear the rush for a private sugar hit could leave Australian cricket at a greater loss.
The only place to stream every match of the 2025/26 KFC BBL LIVE is on FOX CRICKET, available on Kayo Sports. | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
There are meetings taking place across the country, counting in one this week, to discuss whether the state bodies should sell their Twenty20 teams to private investors.
From afar, the decision is obvious: states should take the money and run. But there are deep considerations that need to be taken into account.
Here are just some of those considerations:
DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL
A private investor may have very little interest in the development of Australia’s future stars.
The Big Bash League has often been a breeding ground for young prospects with the long-term benefits in mind.
A young player, who could potentially decide a Sheffield Shield final or play for Australia, not playing competitively for 10 weeks is not within the states’ best interest.
But private investors will likely rest their care solely in their product which will lead to much more ruthless selection decisions.
The next Cooper Connolly, Campbell Kellaway and Sam Konstas – who all got their chance to play BBL potentially ahead of time – may be forced to wait their turn.
This will be one of many points of control the states will need to give up, alongside the direction, ideals and purpose of a new regime.
BRAND ALIENATION
The BBL only needs to peer over to The Hundred to see what an identity crisis could look like.
England Cricket Board sold The Hundred and it has resulted in brand changes to some of its most successful teams.
Oval Invincibles are now MI London, Northern Superchargers have moved to Sunrisers Leeds and Manchester Originals have rebranded as Manchester Super Giants.
A brand, logo or colour change naturally detaches supporters’ connection to a team and makes generating crowds and interest a harder sell.
CASH
Like any sale, the figure is important.
The state bodies will need to determine whether the value of selling their BBL teams is going to be enough money to sustainably benefit its future.
The control and development point is crucial and a major hurdle for some states to consider.
Those against privatisation mainly object to handing over the control of its players and their development for any money.
But if the figure is strong enough to ease long-term financial strain and allow a lift in other areas of development, like grassroots, it could turn even the stiffest of heads.
If the figure is only enough to eliminate short-term debt, the states will feel the risk is not worth the reward.
The owners of the Mumbai Indians purchased a 49 per cent stake in Oval Invincibles for approximately £60 million (nearly $120 million).
While there’s no estimate for what a BBL team might be worth, half that amount roughly matches last year’s reported finances for NSW, Victoria, and WA.
THE PRODUCT
The standard of the BBL should improve – but an investment doesn’t guarantee it.
The investors will want to see their team succeed by encouraging the selection of the best players possible.
But they will also bring a strong in resources and knowledge which has put them in the position to buy a Twenty20 team.
They could have experience in professional management, marketing or analytics to elevate the team’s production.
Though, the fans and broadcasters would not care for an improvement in knowledge and would hope the consideration around the product is based on star power and entertainment.
CONTRACT BUNDLING
It’s been an undetectable tactic for as long as time: State bodies paying select players lucrative deals that quietly include an agreement to sign with the partnered BBL side at a reduced rate.
Much to the chagrin of some and delight of others, contract bundling is less likely to occur under independent owners or stakeholders.
While it may even up the playing field, it also drives up the risk of players being forced to play outside of their home state.
THE MOTIVATION OF THE BUYER
A lot of these considerations are moot if each state finds the perfect buyer.
But there are typically three types:
The global conglomerate, who would want to leverage the sport and its brand for long-term commercial growth.
The private equity firms typically like to maximise return on investment by streamlining operations and boosting revenue in hope of a quick sale.
Then there is the net worth individual, who is some state’s perfect customer, because they enjoy the idea of owning a Twenty20 side without causing any structural disruptions.
The third option is the dream for a lot of these states.
The silent billionaire with little knowledge about cricket, who will let them continue running the show with a firm foundation of money.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
The availability of Australia’s best players is, by some, recognised as a bigger carrot than the prospect of state-changing money.
Australia’s Test players have returned to the Big Bash in the past week and the interest has automatically grown.
There are, of course, rebuttals to that with the third highest BBL crowd being played during the Test series and not a single player from the squad included in either side.
Should a tweak to the fixture, shifting the BBL ahead of the Test series be made before the sale of an entire team?
Does finding a way to play Steve Smith and Travis Head draw a bigger crowd, interest and revenue than an international of the same calibre?
All of these considerations start after the states repeat the question they have asked each other for some time now: should we even be having these discussions at all?
Discussion about this post