Cricket Australia seeks private funding to boost BBL player salaries amid state resistance and growing competition from global T20 leagues.
In 1977, Kerry Packer’s secret sign-on bonuses disguised as theatre tickets fractured Australian cricket for two years, reshaping the sport forever. Today, Cricket Australia (CA) pursues private investors to inject funds into the Big Bash League (BBL), while New South Wales resists and Queensland and South Australia explore alternatives beyond CA’s privatisation plan. The core objective remains unchanged: CA aims to compensate players for competing in the T20 league while securing financial stability and future growth for the sport.
Australian cricket fans want detailed explanations about the privatisation push, not blind faith. Eight years after Sandpapergate, lingering frustration persists over the lack of transparency in how the incident unfolded. While critics argue that Australian cricketers are already well-paid, the debate isn’t about their earnings relative to the average Australian during a cost-of-living crisis. Instead, the focus lies on the BBL’s comparatively low player payments, particularly when measured against the global franchise market.
The BBL pays its elite local and overseas players significantly less than global T20 leagues like the IPL, even accounting for Australia’s high tax rates. CA CEO Todd Greenberg, who previously led the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA), understands this disparity firsthand. While the IPL allocates only 18% of its revenue to player salaries—compared to the NFL’s 48% and the EPL’s 70%—the BBL distributes just 27.5%, with Australian football codes like the NRL (40%) and AFL (31%) offering higher percentages. The widening gap between the BBL and rival leagues such as the SA20 and ILT20 threatens to lure Australia’s best players away.
Last year’s SA20 auction saw Dewald Brevis and Aiden Markram secured for R16.5 million (A$1.3 million or US$940,000), nearly four times the top BBL contracts. Australian players reacted with shock, sharing screenshots of the figures with BBL list managers. Though SA20’s bottom-end salaries are lower than the BBL’s, the headline figures drew attention from domestic talent. Overseas players were initially offered A$340,000 (US$233,853) via a draft in 2022, later increased to A$420,000 (US$303,000), sparking anger among Australia’s white-ball players during a tour when they earned just A$200,000-250,000 (US$144,000-180,000). Top local earners now make A$300,000-400,000 (US$216,000-290,000), but only a few reach that level.
Pat Cummins, Australia’s Test and ODI captain, recently highlighted concerns about balancing international commitments with lucrative domestic opportunities. He considered skipping two Tests against Bangladesh in August 2026 to earn up to A$675,000 (US$485,000) in The Hundred. CA responded by offering him A$4 million (US$2.9 million) annually for three years, though this deal excludes BBL earnings. Since June 30, 2024, Cummins has played 18 matches for Sunrisers Hyderabad, six in the MLC, and just one 50-over game for NSW, with zero BBL appearances since 2019.
Domestic stars like Cameron Green and Travis Head have prioritised rest and preparation for international tours over BBL appearances since 2020 and 2023 respectively. Opponents of privatisation argue the BBL thrives without these players, but the real concern is losing them to richer overseas leagues. Cooper Connolly’s performance in the IPL for Punjab Kings, earning roughly A$450,000 (US$325,000), plus an MLC deal of A$170,000 (US$123,000), far exceeds his combined WA and Perth Scorchers domestic contracts. He currently lacks a CA central deal.
What if an IPL ownership group owning franchises in the IPL, The Hundred, ILT20, and SA20 offers a player like Connolly A$5 million (US$3.6 million) to play across all leagues year-round, excluding BBL and Australian duty? Similar offers could target rising talents like Mahli Beardman, Callum Vidler, or Ollie Peake, who excelled in the BBL and U19 World Cup. Peake averages 26 on tough Sheffield Shield pitches but could earn five to ten times more in global franchise cricket. Trent Boult, one of the world’s best T20 bowlers, has played just two matches in New Zealand since 2022 due to year-round commitments with Mumbai Indians and affiliates.
CA’s initial privatisation proposal suggested increasing the combined WBBL and BBL salary caps by A$2 million (US$1.4 million) per club, raising the total from A$3.88 million (US$2.8 million) to A$5.88 million (US$4.2 million). The current BBL cap is A$3.1 million (US$2.2 million) for 18 players, including overseas signings, while the WBBL cap is A$762,222 (US$550,000) for 15 players. This increase aims to let top BBL talent earn A$600,000-800,000 (US$433,000-578,000) and boost WBBL salaries, reducing the incentive to play overseas for marginally higher pay during December-January.
Under the current Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between CA and the ACA, players receive 27.5% of CA’s revenue, set to be renegotiated if privatisation proceeds. To fund a A$16 million (27.5%) player pay rise via increased caps, CA would need to generate roughly A$58 million (US$42 million) more annually in revenue. The plan involved creating a future fund from BBL club sales and sharing revenue from it, alongside broadcast and commercial income. The ACA seeks a higher revenue-share percentage in negotiations and may forgo a lump sum from club sales, but CA and dissenting states oppose this idea.
Critics argue that Australia’s highest-profile international players are pushing for larger shares of revenue, potentially at the expense of lower-tier domestic players who already earn comparatively well. CA’s decision to issue only 21 men’s contracts for the 2026-27 season—below the MoU’s allowance of 24—reflects creative accounting to allocate more funds to top players. The ACA warns that stagnating domestic pay could push young players toward franchise cricket earlier, undermining their long-term development for Test cricket.