Queensland Joins NSW in Rejecting Privatisation of Big Bash League

Should the Big Bash League Privatise?

Privatisation has been mooted by CA as the best solution to enable clubs to increase their income, similar to the model that the Indian Premier League (IPL) uses. Todd Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer of CA, has stated that he believes privatisation is “inevitable” as Australia’s T20 league seeks to compete with the global popularity and excitement of the IPL.

While several Australian states have spoken out in favour of the proposals, some have raised concerns that privatisation could lead to an increasingly unequal playing field or models for franchises that don’t benefit Australia’s wider cricket scene. Greenberg has stressed that the latter is an essential consideration when choosing a new model, and CA says that it is working with all states to ensure that a new model has a positive impact on the sport across Australia.

Why Is Queensland’s Decision to Reject Privatisation Significant?

New South Wales has already signalled its disapproval of CA’s proposed model. It has instead proposed a model that would enable clubs to self-fund through an increased share of gambling revenue. This has been rejected as an option by CA, and is not the proposed model that Queensland would follow - Queensland’s alternative proposals are yet to be heard. However, it’s clear that both NSW and Queensland don’t consider privatisation a beneficial model for their teams.

This matters, because under its current federated model, CA needs 5 out of 6 of the states to agree with its proposal before it can turn the concept into action. Queensland joining NSW in opposition means that the current plans for privatisation are at a standstill. Even though most other states back privatisation, CA will need to go back to the drawing board and consider alternative models, potentially including a hybrid solution, if it wishes to move ahead.

What Options Are on the Table for the Big Bash League’s Finances?

So what are the options CA is currently considering, and what are states suggesting as alternatives? The main proposals are outlined below.

Remaining Under Domain of State Associations

The current system has clubs governed by their state associations. While this is a fairly functional model, CA is concerned that it limits clubs’ ability to make money and will potentially hamstring the league compared to the explosive growth of the IPL. This model will remain in place until an alternative can be found.

Privatisation of Clubs

CA’s proposal is for clubs to move to a private franchise model similar to the IPL (which, in turn, was based on the American sports franchise model). The main benefit of this model is that it allows far greater investment into clubs, which supporters argue will benefit the cricket scene across Australia.

However, a key drawback of franchising is that it can massively increase the barrier to entry or success for smaller clubs, as they can simply be outspent by competitors with deeper pockets. It also creates operational debt for clubs, which some state authorities wish to avoid.

Self-Funding Through Increased Share in Gambling Revenue

New South Wales has proposed that clubs could be given a much higher share of gambling revenue based on league games. The Big Bash League attracts a high volume of sports betting, and NSW argues that directing more of these profits to clubs could enable them to self-fund.

CA takes a dim view of this proposal, arguing that it would put Australian cricket at the mercy of gambling markets. It is unlikely to become a central part of any new model.

Hybrid Models

CA has suggested there is room for compromise, but it’s still unclear what this would look like. The risk of compromise is always that it aims for the best of all options but ends up failing to achieve the potential of any. However, with current talks at an impasse, full privatisation is unworkable, so some concessions may be necessary.

Which Route Will CA Take?

CA is likely to pressure Queensland to put forward its own alternative proposals to develop a compromise. A future model will need to take into account the outlier states’ concerns - however, if one of NSW or Queensland can be persuaded to budge, CA will have the 5 out of 6 votes it needs to proceed. Talks will continue throughout the year, so watch this space.