Cricket Australia Adamant For BBL Sell-Off Despite Rejections

BBL Winners in frame [Source: BBL's official X handle]Cricket Australia is moving into the next stage of its Big Bash League privatisation plan, even though two powerful state associations have refused to back it. While New South Wales and Queensland recently rejected the proposal to sell stakes in BBL clubs, CA is preparing to test the market value of the Melbourne Renegades, Perth Scorchers and Hobart Hurricanes. The rejections and acceptances of the privatisation by Cricket Australia The divide within Australian cricket became public last Wednesday when Queensland joined New South Wales in blocking a blanket sale of all eight franchises. However, the two states have very different reasons for their stance. Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania are all willing to explore potential investor interest. South Australia, home of the Adelaide Strikers, hasn't rejected privatisation outright, but would rather wait and sell at a later date if the initial batch of sales proves successful. CA chief executive Todd Greenberg acknowledged the split but signalled that change is coming. He told reporters that privatisation “was inevitable” and admitted that the original plan to put every BBL club on the market simultaneously was no longer an option. Instead, CA will allow some teams to progress to the next phase while others stay on the sidelines. What is CA actually offering to sell? There has been some confusion about what is really on offer. The state associations do not own the BBL franchises. CA owns all eight teams, while the states hold 30-year leases to operate them. Those leases began when the BBL launched 15 years ago, meaning they are now exactly halfway through their lifespan. Under CA’s proposal, each state could sell between 49% and 75% of its franchise to private investors. The state would also receive a cash injection from CA, calculated as an agreed percentage of the overall sales pool. In that scenario, future revenues from the franchise would be split between the state and the private investor. Also Read- Mumbai Indians Told To Have 'Honest Conversation' With Jasprit Bumrah Amid IPL RutThe power of the investor as per CA termsCrucially, if the investor holds less than 50%, they would have no say in cricket decisions and no influence over state cricket or CA’s broader running of the game. If a state chooses to sell more than 50% and hands over operational control, the investor would have a voice in BBL matters, but only as one vote among eight. The market test means CA will ask prospective investors to submit expressions of interest and provide a non-binding estimate of what they believe a team is worth. For example, in total, the sale of all eight The Hundred teams generated AUD $1.846 billion for the ECB, with the proceeds split according to a tiered formula and 10% set aside for recreational cricket. CA had a similar distribution plan for a full eight-team sale, but that will now need reworking, given that only some states are willing to proceed. The reason behind the rejection of Cricket Australia’s model New South Wales has presented an alternative, self-funding model for the BBL. In a letter to its members, Cricket NSW laid out its position, arguing that there are still many revenue streams to be improved within the existing structure. "There are many line items, including broadcast, ticketing and commercial partnerships, to be optimised within our sport. Cricket NSW is not seeking to strengthen ties to wagering operators via advertising, sponsorships or increased betting offerings to fund the game,” the letter said. There is also a broader feeling in some cricket circles that the BBL is not broken and does not require a financial fix, especially since the league has been profitable even without Australia’s top international stars playing regularly. Underneath the debate, there is also a clear rift between states that are carrying debt from expensive stadium redevelopments and those that are financially secure. The IPL anxiety Finally, genuine anxiety exists about IPL owners becoming stakeholders and what that would mean for the BBL and CA’s future. It is noteworthy that NSW chairman John Knox, who signed the letter to members, has been a vocal opponent despite being personally invested in a Hundred franchise through a consortium. In England, some IPL-linked owners have already rebranded teams with their IPL colours and names, raising fears about their influence over player retention and auction rules, though no direct interference in county or international scheduling has yet been observed. The future of BBL in Cricket Australia’s hands The upcoming market test will hand CA some concrete numbers to work with, as well as a list of interested buyers and the terms they would find acceptable. Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania would then need to decide whether those terms are palatable before moving to a formal auction. Some within the game are surprised that New South Wales and Queensland rejected privatisation without even first seeing what price the market might offer. Those against the plan, however, argue that once valuations are known, momentum behind a sale might become unstoppable, and they would rather explore alternative funding paths right now. Also Read- David Warner Openly Questions Mohsin Naqvi-Led PCB's Fairness After Leaving Pakistan