Queensland join NSW in rejecting BBL privatisation, CA considers alternatives

Cricket Australia (CA) has been forced to reconsider its strategy for the Big Bash League (BBL) after Queensland Cricket officially joined Cricket NSW in rejecting a proposal to sell minority stakes in the competition’s eight franchises to private investors.

The decision, reached after an exhaustive due diligence process, leaves the league’s governing body without a consensus among its six member states.

The rejection is a significant hurdle for Cricket Australia CEO, Todd Greenberg, and chair, Mike Baird, who have argued that private capital is a mechanical necessity to keep pace with the global explosion in T20 player salaries.

A Fragmented Federated Model

The impasse highlights the complex nature of Australian cricket’s federated structure, with states holding diametrically opposed views on the competition’s commercial future:

• The “No” Camp (NSW & Queensland): Both states have rejected the model in its entirety. NSW believes the league should be self-funded through incremental revenue and higher wagering product fees. Queensland, while not offering an alternative funding model, opposes both privatisation and a significant hike in player payments.
• The “Hybrid” Camp (South Australia): SA has suggested a model where states can choose to opt-in to private investment immediately or at a later date.
• The “Yes” Camp (Victoria, WA, & Tasmania): These states remain strongly supportive of bringing in private capital to bolster their local franchises.

The Global Salary Arms Race

Currently, the BBL salary cap stands at AUD3,121,200 for 18 players, meaning top local stars rarely exceed AUD400,000 per season. In contrast, overseas leagues like South Africa’s SA20 and the IPL are now offering contracts exceeding AU$1 million.

“Without an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time,” Greenberg warned.

The concern is that Australia’s elite T20 talent may increasingly opt for lucrative overseas franchise opportunities over BBL or national duties if the domestic market remains stagnant.

Alternative Revenue and Wagering Disputes

The rejection from NSW comes with a proposal to increase revenue via wagering product fees, fees paid by betting operators for the right to use data and offer markets. NSW argues the BBL is not extracting the same value from the wagering industry as other major Australian sporting codes.

However, the CA Board remains steadfast in its refusal to fund the sport through increased betting reliance. “To back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game. It’s been very clear from the CA board,” Greenberg stated.

Preservation of Control

Addressing fears that private investment would lead to a loss of sovereignty to foreign owners (particularly IPL franchises), Greenberg clarified that CA’s proposal was designed to keep capital at the club level rather than the league level.

This structure was intended to prevent private entities from gaining a seat at the table in the sport’s broader governance or international scheduling.

Despite the current deadlock, Cricket Australia intends to maintain the BBL’s current format for the 2026-27 season. The governing body will now spend the coming months analysing “hybrid” models, aiming for a resolution by the 2027-28 season, well within the current broadcast agreement with Channel Seven and Foxtel which runs until 2031.

Don’t miss out on the latest in sports business – Subscribe today to the free Ministry of Sport newsletter and stay ahead of the game. For even more exclusive insights, event tickets, professional development and networking events, become a MoS Member today!.