Cricket Australia is gearing up to test what three of its Big Bash League clubs might fetch on the open market, even though last week’s pushback from New South Wales and Queensland has slowed the broader privatisation plan.
First things first – what is actually up for grabs?
The states do not own their BBL teams outright; CA holds all eight licences, while each state operates a 30-year lease – we’re now 15 years into that term. CA’s draft model lets states sell between 49% and 75% of their stakes to outside investors, with Victoria and NSW also allowed to move on 100% of their second sides if they wish.
Todd Greenberg, the CA chief executive, said only a few days ago that privatisation “was inevitable”, yet he conceded the original idea of floating all eight clubs together is now “not an option”. Instead, CA will try a staggered approach: Melbourne Renegades, Perth Scorchers and Hobart Hurricanes will be dangled in front of potential buyers, largely to discover what sort of valuation the market places on them. A full sales process remains some way off.
Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania are happy to press ahead with that next step. South Australia have not ruled out selling the Adelaide Strikers but would rather watch how the first deals play out before deciding. NSW and Queensland, though, are holding firm – and for noticeably different reasons.
Why the split among the states?
Queensland’s stance centres on cultural rather than financial worries. Brisbane Heat officials argue that outside money could lessen community links and, in time, weaken pathways for local talent. One QLD official, speaking privately, said, “We’re not against investment; we’re against losing control.”
NSW’s position looks more commercial. The state believes it can self-fund the Sydney Sixers and Thunder by tapping into domestic partners and internal reserves. They also fear that if they hand over majority equity now they will forgo future revenue streams once the Big Bash, or a revised T20 tournament, rebounds in value.
Greenberg has tried to hose down concerns, stressing that under a 49% sale model investors would have “no say in cricket decision-making”. Should a state off-load more than 50%, the new owners would gain a genuine seat at the table, but still “only as one voice among eight”, the CA boss noted last week.
How would the money flow?
The cash split is reasonably straightforward on paper: sell 49% and the state pockets a lump sum while retaining outright control of the remaining 51%. Future profits would then be shared proportionally between state and investors. In return CA would tip in an agreed slice of the total sales pool to each participating state. Australia’s board hopes that mix of upfront funds and longer-term revenue security will tempt at least five of the eight stakeholders.
Is there appetite in the market?
Several private-equity groups and a sprinkling of IPL owners have already kicked the tyres. An executive from one global sports fund told ESPN* recently, “Australia’s time zones are awkward, but the Big Bash brand is still strong.” (Company name withheld at their request.) Whether that interest turns into hard offers above AUD 30-40 million per club – roughly the figure CA floated during early talks – remains the unknown.
What’s next?
Expect CA to issue formal information packs for the Renegades, Scorchers and Hurricanes before the end of winter. If the numbers look healthy, Adelaide may follow soon after. NSW and Queensland are unlikely to budge this year, but Greenberg hinted the door will stay open: “This will take time. We’d rather get it right than do it all at once.”
A messy, staggered sale is hardly ideal, yet the alternative is no sale at all, and CA clearly believes external capital is the best route to freshen up a competition that, while still popular, has slipped behind rival T20 leagues. As one state chief executive admitted off the record, “We’re all feeling the squeeze – broadcast money only stretches so far.”
