On October 22, New Zealand Cricket pulled out of its deal with True North Sports Ventures, ending a plan to help run an MLC franchise from 2027. It is the latest move in a strategy set in March, when the board voted 7-0 to back NZ20, a privately owned six-team domestic league, over putting New Zealand teams into Australia’s Big Bash. As of today, NZ20 has no announced investor, no signed license, and no protected place in the calendar.
The board’s own Deloitte report leaned the other way, favouring further exploration of the Big Bash option and citing financial upside and governance. The board’s case, set out in detail only this month, comes down to control: a capital fund from team sales to support community cricket, six teams spread nationally, an ownership stake at no cost, and the backing of the major associations and the players. The cost so far includes chief executive Scott Weenink, board member Dion Nash, two senior executives, and a letter from Sir Richard Hadlee — received by cricexec and the Herald publisher — saying he is embarrassed to have his name attached to the organisation.
In the vlog below, cricexec founder and publisher Zee Zaidi lays out what New Zealand has bet on, and the three things that have to go right.
Transcript
In the last 10 months, New Zealand Cricket has lost its Chief Executive, turned down a place in Australia’s Big Bash, walked away from a franchise in America, and been told by one of its greatest players ever that he’s embarrassed to be associated with it. All of it traces back to one decision, a bet on a homegrown T20 league that, as of today, still has no announced investor, no signed license, and no guaranteed place in the cricket calendar. So, what exactly has New Zealand bet on, and what has to go right for this bet to pay off?
I’m Zee Zaidi, founder and publisher of cricexec, the leading publication covering the business of cricket worldwide. We’re read daily by the people who run the sport, boards, franchises, sponsors, players, and more.
So, let’s start with last week, because it’s the clearest signal yet where New Zealand is heading. On October the 22nd, New Zealand Cricket pulled out of its deal with True North Sports Ventures, the group run by two of Major League Cricket’s co-founders. The plan, announced in April of 2025, was for New Zealand Cricket to help run a new MLC franchise starting in 2027 in either Toronto or Atlanta, but leaning towards Toronto. A couple of Australian states already have tie-ups with MLC teams, but this went much further. This was a deal, like I said, announced last year, and it was championed heavily by New Zealand Cricket’s then CEO, Scott Weenink. Now, New Zealand Cricket apparently hadn’t put any money in yet, so it walks away clean.
Chief Executive Geoff Allott, announcing the decision to pull out, said the timing wasn’t right and that the priority now is investing at home. A day later, Allott was on New Zealand radio calling for something else, fixed windows in the international cricket calendar, so international cricket and the franchise league stop fighting over the same dates.
Two announcements, one strategy. To understand it, you have to go back a year. New Zealand has a problem every smaller cricket nation recognizes. Its best players are wanted by franchise leagues all over the world. Its own domestic T20 competition, the Super Smash, can’t compete with that kind of money.
And New Zealand Cricket’s income swings hugely depending on who’s touring. Allott recently said that a single India tour can help fund the organization for two or three years. There is, of course, a tour of New Zealand by India going on right now. Started in October 22nd and goes on until the beginning of December of 2026. So, the question was never whether New Zealand needed a bigger T20 product. It was what kind.
So, option one, put New Zealand teams into Australia’s Big Bash and Women’s Big Bash, the BBL and the WBBL. Plug into a proven league right next door. Option two, the NZ20, a new privately owned six-team league at home, men’s and women’s tournaments with overseas stars and outside investment. We know that template. All six major domestic associations in New Zealand backed NZ20. So did the Players Association.
But the chief executive at the time, Scott Weenink, was widely reported to prefer the Big Bash route. That disagreement didn’t stay polite. In December of 2025, Weenink went on leave ahead of a mediation with the board, and on December 19th, he resigned. In a statement, he said he held a different view from several member associations and the Players Association on the future of the game and on the role of T20 cricket in New Zealand. The argument back then, made by those who favored the BBL path, was that, understandably enough, New Zealand itself is a small market, and a small market can’t support that scale of a league or that scale of an investment. In March of this year, 2026, the board made its decision, NZ20 by seven votes to nil. Within hours, board member and former Black Cap Dion Nash had resigned.
And here’s the part that’s still causing trouble. One of the reports behind that decision came from the blue-chip management consulting firm Deloitte, and Deloitte’s analysis leaned the other way. It favored exploring the Big Bash option further and cited financial upside and governance for the reasons. So, why did the board go against it?
Its answer, set out in detail only this month, in October, comes down to four things. One, a capital fund built from the sale of NZ20 teams to support community cricket, which is constitutionally what NZC exists for. And if you look at other countries that have gone through something similar or exploring something similar, that was the rationale there as well. If you look at The Hundred in England, the ECB sold off stakes in The Hundred teams in order to help fund county cricket. That was reason number one. Reason number two, six teams spread across the country. Reason number three, a significant ownership stake in the league at no cost to New Zealand Cricket. And four, the people who run the game locally, the major associations and the players, wanted it. Underneath all of that is one word, control. Join the Big Bash, and New Zealand’s T20 future becomes a line item in someone else’s league. Back NZ20, and New Zealand Cricket keeps a stake of its own.
So, that’s a defensible argument. But the board itself now admits that it didn’t explain it well enough at the time, and that silence has a cost. According to a recent report in the New Zealand Herald, a leaked staff survey described Weenink as effectively forced out, and the board then hired a forensic investigator to find the leaker. New Zealand Cricket’s Chief Strategy and Financial Officer has since left. So has its long-serving Public Affairs Manager, who told the staff he’d lost confidence in the board’s integrity.
Then, at the start of this month, the Herald publisher and cricexec also received a letter from Sir Richard Hadlee to the board. And in it, Sir Richard says he’s embarrassed to have his name attached to New Zealand Cricket right now. He wants an unredacted copy of the Deloitte report and says he’d consider asking other life members to back legal action if he doesn’t get this report. And he still believes New Zealand should just have a team in the Big Bash League.
On top of that, New Zealand Cricket has reported a preliminary loss of 7.3 million New Zealand dollars for the latest financial year, four times what it had budgeted. To be fair, New Zealand Cricket says that was mainly down to budgeting for broadcast money that had actually arrived in earlier years, plus the loss of a title sponsor. And it’s now forecasting a surplus of around 10 million New Zealand dollars this year, largely thanks to India’s tour that I just mentioned. But in a year like this one, that headline did not help. So that’s the price of this bet.
Now, what has to go right for this bet to pay off? First, money. NZ20 still needs its main investor. Back in May, the league said interest was growing and that it would run a competitive process for its primary investment partner and for the franchises. No partner has been announced, and the license with New Zealand Cricket, according to reports, is still being negotiated.
Second, the calendar. And this is where Allott’s comments last week stop sounding like general governance talk. NZ20 was supposed to launch in January 2027. It was pushed back to December 2027, and a key reason given was that home tests against Australia and Sri Lanka left the window too tight. The league’s own establishment Chair said it has to sit alongside international cricket, not against it. The ICC now is expected to lock in the next four-year tour programming, known as the FTP, the Future Tours Program, at its meeting next month. If New Zealand wants a protected window for NZ20 every summer, every New Zealand summer, this is the moment to argue for it. That’s exactly what fixed windows would give it.
Third, for the bet to go right, players. A new league needs local stars and overseas names good enough to sell tickets and broadcast rights. Captain Mitchell Santner has publicly backed the decision, and that matters. But New Zealand’s best players are also in demand on the franchise circuit, and the league will need to give them reasons to be at home in December.
Which brings us back to America. Walking away from MLC isn’t New Zealand Cricket turning its back on franchise cricket altogether. It’s New Zealand Cricket refusing to split its focus while its own league is being built.
So here’s where it lands. New Zealand has chosen to own rather than rent. If the NZ20 lands its investor, secures its window, and keeps its players, other small boards will be studying this playbook closely, build your own league, and share the upside with people who run the game locally. But if it stalls, New Zealand will have turned down the Big Bash, lost a chief executive, and fallen out with one of its greatest players for a league that never arrived. The ICC meeting next month is the first real test of which of these stories this becomes.
