Why does the BBL need to consider privatisation?

There are a few factors to get our heads around. Firstly, it goes beyond the Big Bash League and where it stands. Last year, Cricket Australia (CA) reported a net deficit of 11.3 million AUD. So, at the base of it, the board that runs Australian cricket needs an influx of money to deal with its current cash-strapped status. The next broadcast deal for rights to all cricket on Australian soil is not up for grabs before 2031. That rules out an injection of millions for nearly five years from the most obvious source of income that rules the roost in the sporting world.

The feeling therefore within CA's corridors is that bringing in private capital through the potential sale of BBL clubs is the best option available to them. In addition, of course, to the more obvious cause of pushing the BBL back up the pecking order when it comes to T20 leagues around the world.

Has talk around bringing private equity into the BBL only emerged now?

No, in fact the possibility of privatisation in the BBL has been a topic of discussion and debate for a number of years now. It has picked up steam even more so after the arrival and growth of the SA20 and ILT20, which has seen fewer and fewer high-profile foreign players featuring in Australia's premier T20 competition. But it's a genuine fear that Australia's best players might end up leaving their home summer behind for bigger riches elsewhere that's triggered the hottest consideration around the issue.

Why are Cricket Australia so keen on going ahead with it?

There is a strong belief among the top brass of CA that going forward the world of T20 franchise cricket, which is currently flooded with leagues propping up everywhere, will shape itself up like the tennis calendar. Basically, it'll be highlighted with four or five let's say "grand slam" T20 leagues, led by the IPL. And CA are keen to not miss the bus on being in that mix with the BBL, especially for the vital December-January window, which for now still seems up for grabs. Not to forget the looming threat of a new T20 league in New Zealand, which is scheduled to kick off in 2028. To put it bluntly, they don't want to be left behind and fall too far off the pecking order.

Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg has reiterated a few times in the last few months about the "inevitability" around private investment flowing into the BBL.

What is stopping Cricket Australia from just going through and putting a "for sale" board for the BBL?

Unlike with the more or less unanimous sway that the BCCI has when it comes to taking decisions pertaining all matters around Indian cricket, CA is still bound by a federated model, which is integral to pretty much every sporting code in Australia. Wherein the six state associations have a big say on any ultimate decision that CA takes for cricket in the country. In most cases, it needs a consensus.

How does this federated model impact the BBL?

Like in the case of other prominent sporting leagues in Australia, the AFL in particular, the eight BBL clubs are if anything owned by Cricket Australia and are leased out to the six states-with New South Wales and Victoria in charge of two clubs each. And we're currently at the 15-year-mark of a 30-year-long lease. And while CA started off this process with wanting to obtain expressions of interest for all eight clubs from the free market, they have had to shelve that idea for the moment because of not obtaining a consensus from the six state associations for the same.

Who is for privatisation and why?

Cricket Victoria, who run Melbourne Stars and Melbourne Renegades, Cricket Tasmania with Hobart Hurricanes and the Western Australian Cricket Association with Perth Scorchers are the three state bodies who are all for their respective franchises being injected with private investment. South Australia seemed to be on board till only a few weeks ago but for now are in the "undecided" category, wherein they are still open to the idea but not fully convinced yet. Much like CA's top brass, including Greenberg and chairman Mike Baird, these three states are confident that being able to retain the best players in the country while also attracting the best players from around the world to their league will depend increasing the pay scale for those playing in the BBL, and private investment being the only option remaining at the moment.

Who is against privatisation and why?

Cricket New South Wales, who run Sydney Sixers and Sydney Thunder, have been vehemently against the idea of privatisation from the beginning and have been joined by Queensland Cricket who hold the reins for Brisbane Heat. There are a number of reasons for their very open disagreement with the expected benefits of selling stakes in the BBL clubs. They range from genuine fears of CA losing control over the running of cricket in this country to the real possibility of foreign investors in particular not having the best interests for Australian cricket in mind once they enter the scene. While they are on the same page with regards to there being an urgent need for extra cash flow into the ecosystem here, they are adamant that finding other sources within Australia might be more prudent for now. CNSW in particular have not budged from another point, which basically questions whether private investment will automatically mean bigger paycheques for the players.

Where does this leave us?

With no consensus reached, the most likely scenario is for CA to proceed with a hybrid model, which does exist in the National Rugby League, where privatisation is brought into the BBL in a staggered fashion. As in, the three states who are keen to go ahead with it are given the license to do so.

Cricket Victoria boss Nick Cummins was quoted as recently as two days ago talking about his state's interest in at least scoping the market for potential bidders for their two clubs. While Melbourne Renegades is expected to be offered in entirety, as in 100 per cent stake in the club, and a portion of stakes in Melbourne Stars. The Hurricanes and Scorchers will be similarly be open for investment, with a similar model that was used in The Hundred in this regard to be used. Meanwhile, discussions continue to be had between CA and the three states who are not for privatisation at the moment to hopefully find a middle ground.

What does this mean for potential investors?

Keep your eyes and ears open. If you are reading this in India or anywhere in the world, you might be able to own the Renegades for example and also operate a team out of the MCG. It's possible that this might be one of the few teams who could possibly be open for a complete makeover, including a name change. There will also be options to be bought in the Stars, Hurricanes and Scorchers. But it is likely that CA will be very careful as to not letting any form of privatisation interfere with the systems in place here that have stood the test of time in Australian cricket. Especially considering the opposition they've already faced from CNSW and Queensland Cricket. So, while potential investors should have a voice it's not likely that they will have a major say on matters beyond the club they invest in, including when it comes to the running of the BBL.

What do the players have to say?

Ben Horne from The Daily Telegraphhad reported last week about 12 prominent BBL stars having formed a WhatsApp group to discuss their own respective futures in case private investment, which they were expecting to come in by now, doesn't come through, and that they are left in the lurch with regards to the money they'll be leaving on the table by sticking with the BBL and not exploring options in South Africa and elsewhere during the window in which the BBL is played. These are but concerning signs for CA being unable to retain some of the pillars of the BBL at a time when their high-profile international players anyway don't feature too often in the league. For the record, the salary cap for each BBL club as it stands is around AUD 3.1 million, with their highest paid player last season being Babar Azam at AUD 420,000. There's also understandable displeasure amongst the key BBL players around a number of not so prominent foreign players being paid more than they are just so that the BBL continues to have an international feel to it.

How is privatisation coming into the BBL different to what's happened with The Hundred in England?

To put it bluntly, The Hundred was a format that was created to be sold to the free market. Like a mall that was built in place of a parkland that was razed to the ground (County cricket in the crucial summer months of July and August) with the sole purpose that bits of it are sold to the best bidder when the time was right. With the BBL, you're still talking legacy and a 15-year connection that local fans have built with their clubs, especially in cities like Perth and Adelaide. And unlike with English Cricket, CA still have a rather robust cricket ecosystem that should give them more leverage when it comes to what private investment looks like, who's investing and what is truly at stake here, even if it will take a lot more convincing from them to bring all stakeholders on board. The fact that it will eventually go ahead, to quote Greenberg, is "inevitable".