The Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA) has warned that player participation in a privatised Big Bash League (BBL) cannot be guaranteed without a financial agreement with Cricket Australia (CA), as a dispute over how proceeds from franchise sales should be distributed remains unresolved.
At the centre of the disagreement is whether cricketers should receive a share of the money raised when BBL teams are sold to private investors. The ACA maintains that existing revenue-sharing arrangements entitle players to a portion of those proceeds, while Cricket Australia considers franchise sales separate from its ordinary revenue streams.
The disagreement has become a significant obstacle to the league’s proposed ownership changes, with the players’ association seeking arbitration while negotiations remain at an impasse.
Players seek a share of franchise sale proceeds
Under the current agreement between Cricket Australia and the ACA, players receive 27.12% of CA’s revenue. The union believes this entitlement should also extend to proceeds generated through the sale of BBL franchises.
The distinction is particularly important as Cricket Australia moves towards introducing private investment into the competition. While the board views franchise sales as capital transactions outside the existing revenue-sharing arrangement, the ACA argues that the money should fall within the financial framework already agreed with players.
Australian Cricketers’ Association Chief Executive Officer Paul Marsh addressed the issue while speaking on Wisden’s The Scoop podcast. He said, “I think to understand that it’s probably worth just sort of understanding what our current agreement with Cricket Australia looks like and from our position we believe the players are actually entitled to that 27.12 per cent of any proceeds from privatization.”
The financial implications could be substantial, with the Melbourne Renegades becoming the first BBL franchise put up for sale in September 2026 and franchise valuations expected to reach approximately A$200 million.
ACA proposes alternative revenue-sharing model
The disagreement has also prompted discussions about how the financial relationship between players and the league might operate following a change in franchise ownership.
The ACA has put forward a proposal intended to accommodate Cricket Australia and the state associations while addressing the union’s concerns about player compensation.
Marsh outlined the union’s position, saying, “So I think it’s important, if that’s your starting point, what we’ve said all the way along is that we are prepared to forego that share of the proceeds but it needs to then be converted into a higher share of ongoing revenue. We think that’s a win-win.”
Under this approach, the money raised from franchise sales would remain available to Cricket Australia and the states, while players would receive a greater proportion of future BBL revenue rather than an immediate payment from the transactions.
Cricket Australia and ACA remain divided
Cricket Australia has not accepted the ACA’s interpretation of the existing financial agreement. Its position is that selling ownership stakes in BBL teams is fundamentally different from generating the revenue ordinarily shared with players.
This distinction has prevented the parties from establishing a common basis for negotiations, despite the ACA’s willingness to consider different financial arrangements.
Marsh added, “Cricket Australia at the moment is not on that page, but if we need to press forward with a share of the proceeds, then we will do that. But I think that the better model is to give Cricket Australia the states that opportunity to spend that big amount of money up front and then for the players to be benefiting going forward.”
The ACA has also sought arbitration, with the disagreement extending beyond discussions between the two organisations into a formal process aimed at resolving the impasse.
Player agreement remains unresolved ahead of BBL privatisation
The proposed introduction of private ownership represents a significant change to the BBL’s commercial structure, with negotiations over player compensation still unfinished as the franchise sale process moves forward.
For the ACA, the immediate priority is reaching an arrangement with Cricket Australia that addresses the financial consequences of privatisation for professional cricketers.
Reflecting on the negotiations, Marsh said, “So, look, like every negotiation, there’s always areas of compromise and we’re certainly up for that. Our position really hasn’t progressed because of this fundamental difference around whether the players should get a share of the proceeds or not.”
With no settlement in place, the ACA has stopped short of guaranteeing that players will participate in a privatised BBL. The union’s pursuit of arbitration remains an outstanding development as Cricket Australia advances its franchise sale plans.
