Cricket Australia’s ambitious push to privatise the Big Bash League has hit a decisive roadblock, with two of its most influential state bodies — New South Wales and Queensland — effectively halting momentum behind what had been shaping as a landmark AU$600–800 million (approx. US$432–576 million) transformation of the competition.
The resistance has not only paused the timeline for potential investment but also triggered a broader strategic rethink around governance, financial sustainability, and the league’s long-term global positioning.
Queensland joins NSW in rejecting BBL sale
The tipping point came when Queensland formally aligned with New South Wales in opposing the next phase of Cricket Australia’s sales process.
“We have informed Cricket Australia that we will not be moving to the next phase of the sales process. Instead, we wish to continue to find ways to work with Cricket Australia to grow the Big Bash Leagues in Australia and make it one of the best T20 competitions throughout the world, without selling a minority share in the Brisbane Heat,” a Queensland Cricket statement said.
“Queensland Cricket has completed an exhaustive due diligence process over the past several months, and we thank Cricket Australia for the additional time to complete this. Queensland Cricket remains focused on promoting and growing the game across Queensland and throughout Australia to accelerate participation in our sport.”
Their stance follows earlier opposition from NSW, as previously reported by cricexec, leaving Cricket Australia without the required five-state backing needed to proceed with testing market interest in selling stakes across all eight BBL franchises.
Cricket Australia said on Thursday that a lack of state consensus has stalled the next phase of the BBL sales process, with alternative options now under consideration.
“Private investment in the Big Bash Leagues needs to benefit all of Australian cricket and this is a major decision for the game,” the statement read.
“Given CA does not currently have full alignment on the proposed next step with our members, some alternative options are being considered that require additional analysis and consideration with States, and that work is underway.
“Australian cricket remains united on the need to grow and continue investment in all aspects of the game and CA thanks the State Associations and players for their engagement and collaboration in this project.
“We will continue to monitor the shifting global landscape, including the player market and developments in other domestic T20 leagues.”
A divided system: states split on private investment
The breakdown underscores a deeper structural challenge within Australian cricket’s federated model — one where six state associations effectively control the game’s direction.
“NSW and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital,” Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg said on Thursday while speaking to reporters.
“NSW have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland don’t have an alternative model, but they don’t believe private capital is something for them,” he added.
“South Australia are in a hybrid situation where they would like the ability for some states to be able to take the opportunity to bring private capital in, and some states to come later at their choice,” Greenberg stated.
“Then we’ve got three other states, Victoria, WA and Tasmania who are very strong and very supportive of the opportunity to bring private capital into their states. If you’re sitting in my shoes with the federated model and six members, that’s why it’s difficult.”
Hybrid model emerges as leading alternative
With unanimity off the table, Cricket Australia is now exploring a more flexible approach — one that could allow selective privatisation.
“We move to trying to analyse what a different model might look like, and is there a model where some states are taking private capital and some states aren’t,” Greenberg said. “We would have to get some deep analysis to understand the impacts on Australian cricket.”
“I do think at some point in our lifetimes that private capital will come in. If we’re going to compete with the rest of the world it is inevitable,” he added.
“Our whole project has been about balancing the risks that come with that and making sure the controls are in place for Australian cricket to bring private capital in but continue to operate the way the game has been governed and should be governed. My personal view is it will happen at some point, I’m just not sure when.”
This “opt-in” model — initially proposed by South Australia — would represent a significant shift from Cricket Australia’s original strategy of a unified, league-wide transaction designed to maximise valuation.
Financial pressures driving the debate
At the heart of the privatisation push is a growing concern about keeping pace with the global T20 economy — particularly around player salaries.
“They’ve been very public with a stated request for an increase in their percentage of the revenue share, that’s not something that’s been supported by the states,” Greenberg said.
“My whole focus been how do we grow the revenue piece itself. If you grow the revenue then the players’ share of that continues to rise, as does the rest of Australian cricket.”
“Without an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time, and that’s been one of the risks that we’ve been assessing, can we keep pace with the global market and global demands, and can we do that without private capital. That’s a real challenge for us.”
The Australian Cricketers’ Association’s push for a higher revenue share — above the current 27.5% — has added another layer of complexity, particularly as states remain resistant to increasing distributions without new revenue streams.
Alternative funding models rejected
New South Wales has floated an alternative approach centred on boosting revenue through expanded wagering partnerships — but that idea has been firmly dismissed by Cricket Australia leadership.
“Our view is that’s not a step the sport would accept,” Greenberg said.
“To back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game, and that’s been very clear from the Cricket Australia board.”
This effectively narrows the viable pathways for funding future growth, reinforcing why private investment remains central to Cricket Australia’s long-term thinking.
What happens next for the BBL?
For now, Cricket Australia’s preferred “all-in” privatisation model is on hold — and its timeline for a 2027–28 rollout is increasingly uncertain.
“The six states have completely opposing views about the types of partners they want to bring in,” Greenberg said. “Some are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership. Some have the complete opposite.”
“Option A for us has always been to extract maximum value if we do it at the same time, but clearly we are not at that point, so now we have to reassess what comes next.”
For industry stakeholders, the message is clear: private capital may still be coming, but the pathway — and pace — will now be far more complex than initially envisioned.
