BBL clubs privatisation moves forward as NSW and Queensland resist in 2026

Cricket Australia plans to test the global market for BBL team stakes despite resistance from NSW and Queensland.

Queensland and NSW oppose CA privatisation plan Queensland joined New South Wales in rejecting Cricket Australia’s plan to privatise Big Bash League clubs, though their reasons differed. Cricket Australia confirmed that Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania remained willing to proceed to the next stage of evaluating global investor interest in purchasing minority stakes in their teams. South Australia, which operates the Adelaide Strikers, has not outright rejected the idea but prefers to delay selling its team until after initial sales are completed. ## CA confirms privatisation remains inevitable Cricket Australia chief executive Todd Greenberg stated last week that privatisation ‘was inevitable’ but admitted the original plan to sell all eight BBL clubs simultaneously was no longer feasible. He acknowledged the need for alternative approaches, including allowing some teams to progress while others opt out. The revised strategy will move quickly toward market testing, though a formal sale process remains far off. ## Clarifying what is being sold in privatisation Cricket Australia clarified that states do not own BBL franchises—Cricket Australia holds full ownership while states operate teams under 30-year leases, now halfway through their term. The proposal allows states to sell between 49% and 75% of their franchises to private investors, with Victoria and New South Wales permitted to sell up to 100% of their second franchise. A 49% sale would leave the state owning 51% outright and receiving a cash injection from Cricket Australia based on a percentage of the total sale value. ## Investor influence limited under privatisation model Under this structure, private investors would not influence cricket decisions or state cricket operations. They would only gain a voice in BBL matters if states sold over 50% and relinquished control over team operations, joining other states in collective decisions on scheduling, player contracts, and competition rules. The model closely mirrors the process used for England and Wales Cricket Board’s Hundred league sales, with global advisory firm The Raine Group leading both efforts. ## Market testing begins with investor expressions of interest Market testing involves inviting prospective investors to submit expressions of interest and non-binding valuation estimates for each team. While Cricket Australia and states have avoided publishing specific figures, estimated valuations range from AUD$80 million to AUD$180 million per team, depending on the ownership percentage. For comparison, Trent Rockets and Birmingham Phoenix—where counties retained control—were valued at roughly AUD$155.2 million and AUD$149.6 million respectively, with 49% stakes sold for AUD$76 million and AUD$73 million. ## Full ownership stakes attract global interest A 100% sale of a team would transfer full operational control to the investor, making Melbourne Renegades a prime target for Indian Premier League franchises seeking an entry point into Australia. The Renegades’ home ground, Marvel Stadium, is no longer available after their lease ended, and they are exploring new venues including Geelong and Junction Oval. London Spirit’s 49% stake attracted a US tech consortium paying roughly AUD$558.6 million, while Sun Group acquired 100% of Yorkshire’s Northern Superchargers for about AUD$189 million and rebranded it as Sunrisers Leeds. ## Hundred league sale offers revenue distribution blueprint The sale of all eight Hundred franchises generated AUD$1.846 billion (£975 million) for the ECB, with 10% allocated to grassroots cricket. The remaining funds were distributed in tiers: the first £275 million split 19 ways among first-class counties and MCC, the next £150 million divided 11 ways among non-host counties, and any amount over £425 million again split 19 ways. Advisors including The Raine Group, Deloitte, and ECB’s legal team took a percentage of the proceeds. ## NSW proposes self-funded alternative to privatisation New South Wales submitted a self-funding proposal to its members, arguing that Cricket Australia should optimise existing revenue streams including broadcast, ticketing, and commercial partnerships rather than increasing ties to wagering operators. The proposal stated, ‘Cricket NSW is not seeking to strengthen ties to wagering operators via advertising, sponsorships or increased betting offerings to fund the game.’ It also raised concerns about whether Cricket Australia receives fair value for product fees from wagering operators. ## Queensland questions need for player pay increases Queensland’s opposition reportedly stems from doubts about the necessity of raising player salaries, despite privatisation being partly motivated by the goal of matching global competition levels such as SA20, ILT20, and the upcoming NZ20. Within Australian cricket circles, there is growing sentiment that the BBL—and Australian cricket broadly—does not require financial intervention, as the league has operated profitably without regular involvement from Australia’s top players. ## Concerns over IPL influence drive opposition There is significant concern about Indian Premier League owners becoming stakeholders in the BBL and how that might affect the league’s future. New South Wales chairman John Knox, who invested in Trent Rockets through Ares Management Credit, led opposition despite his financial involvement. IPL owners involved in England’s Hundred have already rebranded teams, adopted IPL names and colours, and plan to staff teams with IPL coaches and support staff. ## Next steps in privatisation process outlined Market testing will yield concrete valuations and a list of interested buyers, along with their preferred sale terms. Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania will then assess whether these terms are acceptable before moving toward an auction process. Some observers expressed surprise that two states opted out before market testing, arguing it might have been clearer to proceed with testing and reject unattractive offers afterward.