BBL privatisation: Why IPL owners are eyeing Australian franchises | Business

Cricket Australia’s decision to open Big Bash League (BBL) franchises to private investment has put another major T20 competition on the radar of Indian Premier League (IPL) team owners, who have steadily expanded their presence across franchise cricket around the world.

Indian investors, including owners associated with IPL teams, have shown interest in the opportunity as Cricket Australia begins the process of bringing private capital into the BBL. However, the structure being proposed — particularly limits on ownership and operational control — could determine how far that interest eventually translates into investment.

For IPL owners, the BBL represents one of the few major overseas franchise competitions where they do not already have a substantial presence. IPL-backed groups have invested in leagues in South Africa, the UAE, the US, the Caribbean and England, building multi-team cricket businesses around some of the most recognisable brands in the IPL.

Australia could now become the next market in that expansion.

Cricket Australia has appointed US-based merchant bank Raine Group to oversee the process. The firm was also involved in the sale of stakes in England’s The Hundred franchises.

Cricket Australia chief executive Todd Greenberg has described the proposed BBL privatisation as a “billion-dollar opportunity” for Australian cricket.

But the structure of the investment process means prospective buyers will have to weigh the opportunity against several restrictions.

Melbourne Renegades offer first route into BBL

At present, Melbourne Renegades are the only BBL franchise expected to be available for a 100 per cent acquisition.

The sale process is being overseen by Cricket Australia rather than Cricket Victoria and is expected to be completed by Christmas.

A prospective owner, however, would effectively have to develop the franchise afresh rather than acquire a structure carrying the same degree of established private ownership and commercial identity seen in other global T20 leagues.

Hobart Hurricanes and Perth Scorchers could be among the teams considered for private investment subsequently. But future transactions are expected to be structured differently, with private investors potentially restricted to stakes of up to 49 per cent.

That could become one of the main sticking points for IPL owners.

Control could emerge as key issue for IPL groups

IPL franchise owners have generally preferred investments that provide either outright ownership or substantial operational control.

That has largely been possible in other overseas competitions.

All six SA20 teams are owned by groups associated with IPL franchises, while IPL owners also control teams in the International League T20 (ILT20), Major League Cricket (MLC) and the Caribbean Premier League (CPL).

Their investments in The Hundred have taken different forms.

Sun Group, owner of Sunrisers Hyderabad, owns Sunrisers Leeds, while the RPSG Group, which owns Lucknow Super Giants, holds a 70 per cent stake in Manchester Super Giants. Reliance Industries, which owns Mumbai Indians, and GMR Group, co-owner of Delhi Capitals, hold 49 per cent stakes in their respective Hundred franchises but have operational involvement.

GMR has also expanded into English county cricket through its ownership of Hampshire.

The model being developed by Cricket Australia could provide investors with less control.

Cricket Australia chairman Mike Baird has indicated that the governing body and its members intend to retain authority over important areas including international scheduling, player availability, BBL salary caps, branding proposals, reserve prices for licences and the approval of investors.

Those conditions mean an investor could put substantial capital into a BBL franchise without receiving the level of control IPL owners have become accustomed to in several other competitions.

Player availability another concern

The commercial value of a BBL investment will also depend heavily on the availability of Australia’s leading cricketers.

Unlike the IPL, which occupies a dedicated window in India’s cricket calendar, the BBL has traditionally overlapped with Australia’s international commitments.

That has meant some of Australia’s biggest players have appeared only occasionally in the competition.

Pat Cummins, for instance, has played only seven BBL matches since 2016. Over the same period, he has featured in 76 IPL matches.

The contrast is significant for investors trying to build teams around recognisable players.

India’s leading cricketers have generally been available throughout the IPL. MS Dhoni has played 149 IPL matches since 2016, while Virat Kohli has featured in 160, Rohit Sharma in 153 and Jasprit Bumrah in 141 during the same period.

Without similar certainty over Australian stars, prospective BBL owners could find it harder to build consistently marketable franchises.

Overseas players, tax and travel add to equation

Availability of international players is another consideration.

The BBL competes for overseas talent with leagues in South Africa, the UAE and Bangladesh during a crowded part of the global cricket calendar.

Australia’s taxation structure could also affect what overseas players ultimately earn compared with competing leagues, potentially influencing their choice of tournament.

Geography adds another challenge.

Australia’s major cities are separated by considerable distances, meaning teams can face journeys of five or six hours when travelling to venues such as Perth.

That contrasts with competitions such as SA20, where travel between host cities is considerably shorter.

For multi-franchise owners accustomed to running teams across several markets, travel costs, scheduling and player logistics could therefore form an important part of the BBL investment calculation.

Media rights and player union also under scrutiny

The league’s broadcasting arrangements will be another factor prospective investors examine closely.

Cricket Australia is currently part-way through a seven-year media rights agreement, limiting the immediate opportunity for a major reset in broadcast valuation following private investment.

IPL owners are also expected to assess the role of the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA), particularly in areas involving player rights, contracts and the broader commercial framework of Australian cricket.

These factors make the BBL different from some of the newer franchise competitions where private owners entered at an earlier stage and were able to shape the commercial structure more extensively.

Profitability offers BBL an important advantage

There is, however, an important attraction.

Most BBL teams are understood to be profitable, giving Cricket Australia a stronger starting point than competitions that require owners to absorb losses while building audiences and commercial revenues.

That profitability may also explain why there remains debate within Australian cricket over how much private investment should be allowed and how much control should be surrendered.

For IPL owners, an established competition with a domestic audience, existing media rights and profitable franchises could still represent an attractive addition to their international portfolios.

BBL could fill final major gap in IPL owners’ global networks

The broader significance of the Australian move lies in the rapid international expansion of IPL-backed cricket businesses.

Several IPL owners are no longer operating only one team in India. They are developing networks of franchises carrying similar names, branding and commercial structures across multiple countries.

Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals, Sunrisers Hyderabad, Kolkata Knight Riders, Rajasthan Royals and other IPL-linked groups have already established footprints in overseas leagues.

The BBL remains one of the most prominent franchise competitions outside that network, along with the Pakistan Super League.

That makes Australia’s move towards private investment strategically significant even if IPL owners remain cautious about the terms on offer.

The question for Cricket Australia is whether access to an established and potentially profitable BBL franchise will be enough to compensate investors for restrictions on ownership, control and player availability.

For IPL owners, the opportunity offers another route towards creating truly global cricket franchises. But before adding Australia to their growing map, they are likely to want greater certainty over who controls the team, which players will be available and how much commercial freedom comes with the investment.