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.
“We 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,” a Queensland Cricket statement said.
“Queensland 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.”
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.
Baird’s term as CA chair expires in October, but he is eligible for re-election for a further three years.
“NSW and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital,” Greenberg said on Thursday. “NSW have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland don’t have an alternative model, but they don’t believe private capital is something for them.
“South 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.
“Then we’ve 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 you’re sitting in my shoes with the federated model and six members, that’s why it’s difficult.”
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.
“We 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 aren’t,” Greenberg said. “We would have to get some deep analysis to understand the impacts on Australian cricket.
“I do think at some point in our lifetimes that private capital will come in. If we’re going to compete with the rest of the world it is inevitable.
“Our 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, I’m just not sure when.”
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 players’ 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.
“They’ve been very public with a stated request for an increase in their percentage of the revenue share, that’s not something that’s been supported by the states,” Greenberg said. “My whole focus been how do we grow the revenue piece itself. If you grow the revenue then the players’ share of that continues to rise, as does the rest of Australian cricket.
“Without an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time, and that’s been one of the risks that we’ve been assessing, can we keep pace with the global market and global demands, and can we do that without private capital. That’s a real challenge for us.”
Part of the NSW “alternative strategy” 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.
“Our view is that’s not a step the sport would accept,” Greenberg said. “To back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game, and that’s been very clear from the Cricket Australia board.”
Greenberg made several references to the unruly nature of the Australian cricket “federal” system, where CA is effectively owned by its six member states.
“The six states have completely opposing views about the types of partners they want to bring in,” he said. “Some are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership. Some have the complete opposite.
“Option 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.”
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.
