As the Indian Premier League pushes against its current limits, the conversation around expansion is increasingly exposing deeper structural tensions within the global game. IPL Chairman Arun Singh Dhumal, in an interview with Chris Kay, Financial Times Mumbai Bureau Chief, outlined how scheduling constraints, shifting fan demand, and the rise of franchise leagues are forcing a broader rethink of how cricket is organised.
The IPL’s growth ceiling is structural, not commercial
Given strong investor appetite and sustained demand, the IPL’s expansion is currently constrained by time rather than opportunity.
“For the IPL to move from 74 to 94, we really need a bigger window. What we have seen in this Future Tours Programme cycle, [which sets the international schedule], is that most of the international calendar is already spoken for by bilateral series between national teams, so we do not have much room. It is a limited window between roughly mid-March and the end of May,” he said.
That limitation is not easily solved within the existing framework. Weather patterns restrict any extension beyond May, while broadcasters remain sensitive to scheduling density and match clustering.
“As soon as June starts, the monsoon approaches the southern part of India, so there is no way you can extend at that point in time. If we try to go from 74 to 94 games in the current window, we will end up having more double-headers [when consecutive matches are played on the same day in the same stadium]. That does not work well for broadcasters. We have to look at their interests too. That is why we have restricted ourselves to 74 games,” he added.
A global scheduling reset is becoming inevitable
The pressure on the calendar is being driven by a wider shift in the sport’s economic and competitive landscape, where franchise leagues are gaining prominence over traditional bilateral cricket.
“If you look at the transition over the last few years, there is definitely less interest in some bilateral games. That is why countries are coming up with their own leagues: the England and Wales Cricket Board’s The Hundred, Australia’s Big Bash League, the UAE’s International League T20, South Africa’s SA20 and the Caribbean Premier League,” Dhumal noted.
This trend reflects a broader recalibration of priorities across cricket boards.
With the current Future Tours Programme already locked in, any meaningful restructuring will only come in the next cycle. The existing calendar runs through 2027, but discussions around its successor are expected to open the door for a larger IPL window, particularly as its value to both domestic and global cricket continues to grow.
“If this is the trend, then every country will want fewer bilaterals, or bilaterals that make more financial sense for them, and then there is scope to enlarge the IPL window. We are hoping for more discussions with all the countries and colleagues. If that works out, it should work out for everyone,” he said.
Taken together, these shifts point toward a restructured global model.
“In case these leagues are to be held regularly, that is the new world order for cricket: fewer bilaterals, more league cricket, and in between you have ICC events, a bit like football,” he added.
Expansion depends on system-wide alignment
While the IPL sits at the centre of this transformation, Dhumal stressed that its growth must be viewed within the context of the wider ecosystem.
“The larger picture has to be how many bilaterals, how many International Cricket Council events and what windows are available for these leagues. It is not only about the IPL, but also The Hundred, the Big Bash and other leagues,” he noted.
For now, this complexity is shaping a cautious approach to expansion. Rather than increasing the number of teams, the IPL is prioritising flexibility within its existing structure—leaving room to scale matches if a larger window becomes available.
“When we go into the next cycle of bilaterals, we will try to see whether we can get a bigger window during this period so we can go from 74 to 94 games. That is also why we are not thinking of extending the number of teams right now. With the current number of teams, you can still increase the number of matches. If you add more teams and then calculate home-and-away, it becomes difficult to make it work,” he explained.
Growth brings responsibility across the global game
As the IPL’s influence expands, so too does the responsibility to maintain competitive balance across international cricket.
“The IPL is primarily Indian, so most of the playing 11 should be Indian. We also want to maintain a balance for world cricket. If the IPL takes too many international players, then other leagues and even international cricket can get affected. So we want to keep that balance. We have our responsibility not just for Indian cricket, but for world cricket at large,” he said.
That balance extends beyond player distribution into financial dynamics and the long-term health of the sport.
He emphasised that sustaining global competitiveness remains central to the IPL’s long-term positioning within the sport. “We have made commitments to tour and to support other boards. You cannot have just a few countries performing at the highest level. If the same teams win all the time, interest falls. So the quality of cricket has to improve worldwide,” he said.
The long-term direction of the IPL
Looking ahead, the IPL’s ambition extends beyond incremental expansion to establishing itself as the most valuable league in global sport.
“Our only endeavour is to make sure we keep producing the best quality cricket, keep fans engaged not just across those two-and-a-half to three months, but across the year, keep adding value and keep enriching fans. We are working towards making the IPL the biggest sporting league by value,” he said.
Achieving that ambition, however, will depend on more than just the IPL’s own growth. It will require a coordinated shift across the sport—one that balances leagues, international cricket, and player welfare within a calendar that is increasingly under strain.
