Trending
Loading
Today’s rising star could soon be wearing a Sydney Sixers jersey one week and an MI Cape Town shirt the next—contractually obliged to attend pre-season in Dubai, not a Shield match in Perth.
Who controls player pathways in that model? Not CA. Not state associations. Not, crucially, the fans.
Cricket was built from the bottom up. Clubs, schools, regional competitions—this is where the love of the game is born. Yet, under the current proposal, there’s no binding mechanism to ensure grassroots cricket will benefit from franchise sales.
Who owns cricket?
Isn’t it the countless volunteers who have given their blood, sweat and tears to the game for the best part of 150 years? Without them, the club infrastructure will just dissolve. When that happens, where will the players come from?
If the lion’s share of profits flows to elite franchises and offshore investors, community cricket will wither. Junior coaches, volunteers, and regional academies already battle limited funding. Will they see a cent from a $50 million franchise deal? Unlikely—unless CA enshrines protections now.
If the game’s foundation is neglected, no amount of overseas stardust in the BBL can fix it.
CA must remember the fans in all of this: the sport doesn’t belong to the boardroom. It belongs to the people who turn up on scorching summer days, who follow the Sheffield Shield scorecards on their phones, who paint their faces for BBL matches and tear up when a debutant receives their Baggy Green.
CA should avoid making this decision behind closed doors, with only high-level
consultants and financiers at the table.
Loading
Transparency isn’t a luxury here—it’s a necessity. If fans aren’t brought along for the ride, CA risks losing not just their support, but their trust.
Selling equity in BBL franchises isn’t like adjusting match fixtures or trialling a new format. Once sold, the genie cannot go back in the bottle. Private investors will have a legal say. Commercial priorities will weigh heavily. Strategic decisions—TV rights, match windows, player management—will no longer be made solely in Australia’s best interests. CA could become a junior partner in its own competition.
And history offers a sobering warning. The West Indies, once a global powerhouse, saw its Test strength eroded as players followed the money to freelance T20 gigs. Without revenue or control, their national team declined. Are we willing to flirt with the same fate?
The situation is undeniably complex. Do nothing, and risk the BBL slipping into irrelevance. Sell now, and risk cricket’s soul being mortgaged for a quick payday. But complexity is not an excuse for recklessness. It is precisely in these moments that leadership is tested.
Loading
CA must proceed—but with caution, clarity, and accountability.
Disclose the nature of its agreement with BCG and any potential conflicts of interest.
Guarantee that revenue from franchise sales will be ring-fenced for grassroots and red-ball development.
Enshrine protections for the domestic calendar and Test cricket availability.
Create a stakeholder oversight committee that includes current and past players, grassroots representatives, and independent advisors.
Engage the public openly. Publish discussion papers. Hold public consultations. Make fans feel like partners—not passengers. Present a proposal, not a fait accompli!
Cricket Australia is the custodian of a cultural treasure. It doesn’t just manage a sport; it stewards a national identity, a summer rhythm, a shared love that stretches from the outback to the suburbs, from grandstands to backyard pitches.
If private ownership becomes the dominant model, the role of the board changes forever. No longer the independent guardian of Australian cricket, but a stakeholder among many—some foreign, some corporate, some indifferent to the game’s traditions.
That transformation will be irreversible.
Loading
The question is, who stands to gain from this? There is enough money in the game in Australia. To me, it is only the corporates and a few players who will gain. But, it will come at the expense of the heart and soul of Australian cricket.
Cricket was never built by private equity. It was built by communities, clubs, families, and dreams. Selling off pieces of the family silver may help in the short term, but it could very well jeopardise everything that makes Australian cricket imposing. CA are custodians of something exalted. It should not be a mere business decision because once the soul of the game is gone, no amount of money will bring it back.
I also struggle to appreciate or even comprehend what private investors can teach
seasoned administrators like CA CEO Todd Greenberg about running the sport.
Sir Donald Bradman once told me, “Greg, when sport becomes a business, it loses
something.” In a quarter of a century since, the game is awash with money from
“stakeholders” who are primarily interested in turning a profit and individuals who are
attracted by the glitz and glamour.
Players must be mindful of their legacy to Test cricket and its primacy. T20 is the enemy of Test cricket, so they can’t say that they support it whilst their actions undermine their words. We need many more like Mitch Starc – a principled man who scoffed at obscene riches, opting out of IPL auctions for five years so he could prioritise red-ball cricket.
Mitchell Starc has consistently prioritised Tests.Credit: AP
Cricket boards find themselves in a conundrum. The Barbarians are at their gate,
seducing them with their money, for a format that masquerades as a saviour of the real McCoy.
We cannot and should not widen the window for T20 tournaments around
the world. We cannot and should not cede sovereignty that has been zealously guarded for
nearly 150 years, for if Test cricket falls, the empire it built will inevitably crumble. In chasing what can be counted, let us not discard what has always counted most—our game’s indomitable spirit, its glorious story, and the people who have carried it this far.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter
Loading
Today’s rising star could soon be wearing a Sydney Sixers jersey one week and an MI Cape Town shirt the next—contractually obliged to attend pre-season in Dubai, not a Shield match in Perth.
Who controls player pathways in that model? Not CA. Not state associations. Not, crucially, the fans.
Cricket was built from the bottom up. Clubs, schools, regional competitions—this is where the love of the game is born. Yet, under the current proposal, there’s no binding mechanism to ensure grassroots cricket will benefit from franchise sales.
Who owns cricket?
Isn’t it the countless volunteers who have given their blood, sweat and tears to the game for the best part of 150 years? Without them, the club infrastructure will just dissolve. When that happens, where will the players come from?
If the lion’s share of profits flows to elite franchises and offshore investors, community cricket will wither. Junior coaches, volunteers, and regional academies already battle limited funding. Will they see a cent from a $50 million franchise deal? Unlikely—unless CA enshrines protections now.
If the game’s foundation is neglected, no amount of overseas stardust in the BBL can fix it.
CA must remember the fans in all of this: the sport doesn’t belong to the boardroom. It belongs to the people who turn up on scorching summer days, who follow the Sheffield Shield scorecards on their phones, who paint their faces for BBL matches and tear up when a debutant receives their Baggy Green.
CA should avoid making this decision behind closed doors, with only high-level
consultants and financiers at the table.
Loading
Transparency isn’t a luxury here—it’s a necessity. If fans aren’t brought along for the ride, CA risks losing not just their support, but their trust.
Selling equity in BBL franchises isn’t like adjusting match fixtures or trialling a new format. Once sold, the genie cannot go back in the bottle. Private investors will have a legal say. Commercial priorities will weigh heavily. Strategic decisions—TV rights, match windows, player management—will no longer be made solely in Australia’s best interests. CA could become a junior partner in its own competition.
And history offers a sobering warning. The West Indies, once a global powerhouse, saw its Test strength eroded as players followed the money to freelance T20 gigs. Without revenue or control, their national team declined. Are we willing to flirt with the same fate?
The situation is undeniably complex. Do nothing, and risk the BBL slipping into irrelevance. Sell now, and risk cricket’s soul being mortgaged for a quick payday. But complexity is not an excuse for recklessness. It is precisely in these moments that leadership is tested.
Loading
CA must proceed—but with caution, clarity, and accountability.
Disclose the nature of its agreement with BCG and any potential conflicts of interest.
Guarantee that revenue from franchise sales will be ring-fenced for grassroots and red-ball development.
Enshrine protections for the domestic calendar and Test cricket availability.
Create a stakeholder oversight committee that includes current and past players, grassroots representatives, and independent advisors.
Engage the public openly. Publish discussion papers. Hold public consultations. Make fans feel like partners—not passengers. Present a proposal, not a fait accompli!
Cricket Australia is the custodian of a cultural treasure. It doesn’t just manage a sport; it stewards a national identity, a summer rhythm, a shared love that stretches from the outback to the suburbs, from grandstands to backyard pitches.
If private ownership becomes the dominant model, the role of the board changes forever. No longer the independent guardian of Australian cricket, but a stakeholder among many—some foreign, some corporate, some indifferent to the game’s traditions.
That transformation will be irreversible.
Loading
The question is, who stands to gain from this? There is enough money in the game in Australia. To me, it is only the corporates and a few players who will gain. But, it will come at the expense of the heart and soul of Australian cricket.
Cricket was never built by private equity. It was built by communities, clubs, families, and dreams. Selling off pieces of the family silver may help in the short term, but it could very well jeopardise everything that makes Australian cricket imposing. CA are custodians of something exalted. It should not be a mere business decision because once the soul of the game is gone, no amount of money will bring it back.
I also struggle to appreciate or even comprehend what private investors can teach
seasoned administrators like CA CEO Todd Greenberg about running the sport.
Sir Donald Bradman once told me, “Greg, when sport becomes a business, it loses
something.” In a quarter of a century since, the game is awash with money from
“stakeholders” who are primarily interested in turning a profit and individuals who are
attracted by the glitz and glamour.
Players must be mindful of their legacy to Test cricket and its primacy. T20 is the enemy of Test cricket, so they can’t say that they support it whilst their actions undermine their words. We need many more like Mitch Starc – a principled man who scoffed at obscene riches, opting out of IPL auctions for five years so he could prioritise red-ball cricket.
Mitchell Starc has consistently prioritised Tests.Credit: AP
Cricket boards find themselves in a conundrum. The Barbarians are at their gate,
seducing them with their money, for a format that masquerades as a saviour of the real McCoy.
We cannot and should not widen the window for T20 tournaments around
the world. We cannot and should not cede sovereignty that has been zealously guarded for
nearly 150 years, for if Test cricket falls, the empire it built will inevitably crumble. In chasing what can be counted, let us not discard what has always counted most—our game’s indomitable spirit, its glorious story, and the people who have carried it this far.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter
It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution
The Us Media 2025
