It seems all is not well in Australian cricket. Australia remains one of the three robust cricket boards in the world – alongside India and England – with significant financial might that is independent of outside factors.
But life is all about perspective. Problems can arise even in a seemingly strong and financially robust cricket system like Australia.
The issue at hand is private investment. Australia is the last major cricket destination that has steered clear of private investments in one of its most prized assets – the Big Bash League.
Recently, England cricket too took a plunge in the world of privatisation by selling stakes in the Hundred competition, with a valuation of almost £1 billion for the eight teams in the tournament.
Even that figure lags behind the Indian Premier League, obviously, the crown jewel of world cricket, with a valuation of close to $20bn. These numbers are too enormous to ignore, and that is the issue facing Cricket Australia.
Is Australia resisting private investment?
Yes and no. Cricket Australia is keen to allow private investments in its Big Bash teams. The tournament has been a roaring success on the domestic front, with excellent grassroots support for the men’s and women’s competitions.
But in an increasingly cramped cricket calendar, and with the growth of high-paying T20 tournaments in other parts of the world – such as the UAE’s ILT20 and South Africa SAT20 – there is a need to unlock the true financial potential of an established league like the BBL and secure the tournament’s future.
However, in Australia, local state associations carry significant and independent powers – unlike in India – and they need to be convinced of the economics of any potential sale. While Cricket Australia owns the eight franchises, local associations have long-term deals to run them.
As of now, New South Wales and Queensland – home of the Sydney and Brisbane cricket grounds – have rejected Cricket Australia’s proposal to sell stakes in their T20 clubs. The loss of control over the assets seems to be a big factor.
According to Australian cricket chief executive Todd Greenberg, the board “should have done a better job” in convincing the local boards about the merits of the sale.
"There's no doubt we could have, and should have, done a better job of the public narrative of why we're doing private capital and why the concept of private capital is valuable for Australian cricket," Greenberg told SEN network. "Ultimately, people don't like change in any form of life, cricket particularly. So on reflection, we probably could have and should have done a better job of that.”
The biggest issue is that of player salaries. There is some heartburn among Australian players about the significant pay gap – sometimes close to $200,000 – between their salaries and those of overseas players, many of whom are not even the best T20 players in the world.
Cricket Australia believes privatisation will bring significant funds that can result in higher wages for players, especially local stars. However, state associations believe the national board should consider generating more revenue through broadcast and commercial deals.
Are all teams against it?
Not quite. Victoria, which runs Melbourne franchises Stars and Renegades, Western Australia (Perth Scorchers) and Tasmania (Hobart Hurricanes) are willing to consider offers from private investors, with the Australian board keen to get the ball rolling.
If the numbers add up and investors line up, those unwilling to privatise might be forced to reconsider their position. However, the Australian board hopes to put all teams on the market to get the best possible deal.
What about the players?
Australian players, some of the most sought-after names in franchise cricket, seem to be losing patience.
According to ESPNcricinfo and Code Sports, many players have not been impressed by the recent central contract offers. While star captain Pat Cummins has reportedly been offered a central contract of $4 million per year, many others fall well short of that mark.
For Australian players, the lure of becoming unencumbered by central contracts and pursuing franchise cricket throughout the year, while being available for national duty whenever asked, is becoming an attractive proposition.
Some IPL franchises reportedly offered Australian players $10m contracts to join their roster and feature in their teams across global tournaments.
And in the absence of more attractive central and BBL contracts, which could ultimately be funded through private investment, many players might begin to see value in becoming largely independent players like Tim David, who get the minimum Australian contract for representing the national team, while also travelling the world in pursuit of lucrative T20 leagues.
Unless Australian cricket hits a commercial or broadcast deal jackpot, the issue of private investment will persist.
