Nearly all T20 leagues are privately owned. This means that the respective hosting country's board has no influence over the teams. However, Australia's Big Bash League (BBL) hasn't been under that model.
However, there are reports that the league is looking into privatisation. This hasn't been approved by everyone.
The debate over whether to privatise the bbl has been so long and arduous it was almost inevitable someone would break ranks and take matters into their own hands.
It ended up being Cricket Victoria (CV), which informed staff on Tuesday it planned to sell the team known as the Melbourne Renegades and turn its other club, the Melbourne Stars, into a renamed Victorian side. Chief executive, Nick Cummins, said the move was designed to provide certainty to his staff.
"To be clear, the decision we made … was not intended to expedite the BBL sale process or place any pressure on any other state," he wrote to his state counterparts this week. "It was about relieving CV of the time pressure we are currently under and allowing us to move forward with more clarity."
CV may have certainty but it appears to be the only one – fans, players and rivals appear more confused than ever about the future. Blame for the shemozzle has swiftly pivoted from CV to Cricket Australia (CA), the governing body that has been trying to get private investment off the ground since early last year.
"Victoria has definitely gone rogue and there’s a benefit to CA to speed this up," one executive said.
CA makes a lot of money from traditional formats such as Test cricket but its ability to take the BBL to the world stage has been complicated by the eye-watering salaries paid in the Indian Premier League, which have driven up player payments internationally.
BBL privatisation has been discussed on and off for more than a decade as a way to bring money into the game. CA chairman, Mike Baird and chief executive, Todd Greenberg, brought it back into focus last year with a Boston Consulting Group report that claimed the BBL would need $90 million over three to four years to compete with rivals.
The pair have since been working on a path to privatisation and hit a roadblock in April when their proposed model was rejected by NSW, South Australia and Queensland.
One alternative – a revised "self-determination" model that would give state associations the ability to sell if and when they want – was due to be discussed with state executives and chairmen over the next two weeks. Cricket NSW also wants to consider a strategy that doesn't involve clubs. No model has been agreed, which is what upset stakeholders when CV’s plans became known.
The chairs and chief executives of the five states other than Victoria met Greenberg and Baird on Thursday to express their concerns and understand how this was allowed to happen.
The pair denied rubber-stamping the proposal but cricket sources have said they were taken step-by-step through CV’s plan, including the day and time of the restructure. Baird and Greenberg said they told CV they would prefer it not be announced without a formalised model in place, but understood the reasons why it had chosen to do so.
"We understand their challenges," Greenberg said publicly on Thursday. "We had productive discussions with several state chairs and CEOs today to ensure talks about the possible inclusion of private investment in the Big Bash League remain fully aligned."
Still, most observers are convinced CA gave the Victorians a wink and a nudge that the new model would get off the ground, a theory not helped by the fact that they dismissed the possibility of sanctions against the Victorian association. The very fact that CV is expecting privatisation to go ahead is indicative of what the CA narrative is behind closed doors.
It has been no secret that since February, Cummins has wanted to offload the Renegades to a new investor (rival states claim they knew nothing about plans to remove the Melbourne Stars brand). He knows there is a way to go on agreeing to a new model and that he requires approval for any sale from CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association; which was arguably the most frustrated when the news broke this week.
This group, formerly run by Greenberg, negotiates employment contracts on behalf of the players and their approval is critical for any plans to proceed.
CV hasn't decided what it will rename the Melbourne Stars, but rivals already have thoughts on what the decision means for the BBL and privatisation. There are small issues, such as how CV’s plan affects the existing broadcast deal that singles out the Victorian and NSW derbies and how it may affect the upcoming season’s ticket sales.
Some people think CV’s move will blow up privatisation altogether, while others believe it will slow it down and lead to more scrutiny. Then there are the fans – about 1 million of whom are split across Victoria’s two teams; who have grown up with the Renegades and the Stars. CV is hopeful they will retain this base, but that remains to be seen.
There is also an argument that CV revealing its plans before approvals could reduce the overall value of its asset, especially since its focus has now turned to a rebranded Victorian team. CV is confident it will not and that any private investors are mostly interested in being part of the competition and having a venue agreement over a brand.
Everyone is united on the need to revamp the BBL and bring some much-needed money into cricket. What unfolded this week won’t make that any easier, especially if state chiefs are sceptical of CA’s role in the debacle.
"Robust, constructive discussion ultimately leads you to a better result, whatever that is," Baird said last September. He’ll be hoping that is true when the next set of meetings begins next week.
It has been a chaotic week in Australian cricket with regards the push to introduce private investment into the BBL.There are a lot of unknowns as to how this will play out. Nothing has officially progressed as yet and no formal moves in the process can be made until after the six state executives and chairs meet with CA in Melbourne next week with a decision on whether they proceed to the next phase of the privatisation plan likely to come on 15 June.
Here is a look at what is known and what is not known, and what could happen next.
Will there be eight teams in the BBL next season?
Yes. That is guaranteed. There was never any intention on CA's part to make changes to the competition structure in 2026-27 and private investment; if introduced, was not due to be part of the competition until 2027-28. There will be an eight-team BBL competition next season with each team playing ten home and away matches plus the finals and two of those eight teams will be based in Melbourne.
So Melbourne Stars and Melbourne Renegades will play next season?
It's complicated. This is the eye of this week's storm. CV announced on Tuesday that it has already made administrative decisions to merge operations of the two teams under one brand, which will be run by CV and play under a different nickname and colours. Their intention is to sell the second team, currently Renegades, to a private investor before the 2026-27 season. The investor could then re-name and re-brand the team, as has been the case with several Hundred franchises (England's T20 competition) that were sold last year.
Following backlash on Wednesday, CA chief executive, Todd Greenberg, said he was "aware of Cricket Victoria's intentions" but that "there's still plenty of work to be done and nothing has been decided or approved as yet."
On the balance of probabilities, given what CV has done this week, it is hard to see how there is a team named Stars in the competition next season. However, nothing is confirmed yet. There is a chance there will be a Renegades team, but what it will look like is again an unknown.
How will that work?
Good question. It seems hard to believe that those things can happen within five months before the WBBL (women's version) season starts and without the hybrid privatisation model even being approved yet; let alone testing the market with potential buyers and then actually running a formal process to purchase the license.
CV chief executive Nick Cummins is adamant all of this can be done in a couple of months and has already made the necessary administrative moves within the organisation to plan for it. There is also a contingency plan for Renegades if a prospective buyer cannot take over the team in time; with a caretaker administration already being formed to run the team as Renegades in its current form.
Why does Cricket Victoria want to do this?
Victoria had always intended to sell one of its two BBL teams entirely once it decided to vote for privatisation in order to run the other one more efficiently, with a 49% investor; like Western Australia and Tasmania intend to do with their lone teams Perth Scorchers and Hobart Hurricanes respectively.
Victoria has long had trouble spreading its resources adequately across the two teams. Victoria was also hit harder by Covid than most other states, which has both impacted its current financial position differently and shaped its views on what's necessary to future-proof cricket in the state.
The reasoning for merging the Stars and Renegades brands under a different name has come from polling a series of member focus groups earlier in the year. Cummins explained that Renegades fans said they would not support Stars if their team was renamed and sold and neutral Victorians who don't support either team would support one wearing state colours. Rather than alienate one fan base, they have elected to try and unite two.
The reason for announcing it now, two weeks ahead of the privatisation vote, was because of concerns over losing staff and sponsors due to the uncertainty of the short-term future. Cummins felt time pressure after the initial privatisation proposal was knocked back in April.
What's been the reaction from the other states?
Degrees of fury. Especially from New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. Those three states demanded an emergency phone hook-up with CA on Thursday to vent their frustration at being blindsided by Victoria on this announcement and question whether CA had been complicit in it being announced ahead of the state meetings and the vote on whether to move to the next phase.
Western Australia and Tasmania also sat in on the call, which featured CEOs and chairs from all five states plus Greenberg and CA chair Mike Baird. Victoria was not invited on the call.
Before the call, Cummins had sent an e-mail to his state counterparts and attempted to speak to them individually to explain his actions.
Greenberg released a statement after that phone hook-up, saying, "The timing of the news about Cricket Victoria's intentions in the event of private investment was not ideal. But we understand their challenges."
Cricket NSW also remains frustrated that its proposal to self-fund the BBL without private investment hasn't been given a proper audience at CA. It is understood that it may well be discussed at the state executives' meeting next week. At the core of the frustration is a diametrically opposed view on CA's future financial projections.
CA and the states voting for privatisation, believe that CA's balance sheet will be bleak by 2031 without an injection of private money. NSW believes that is wildly pessimistic and believes the game's finances can be managed and grown comfortably without resorting to selling BBL teams to outside investors.
How did the players react?
With equal anger and some anxiety around the future. The Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA) chief executive, Paul Marsh, issued the strongest statement of any on Wednesday, saying, "Cricket Victoria's announcement about a merger between the Stars and Renegades with the introduction of a new, privately owned club has created confusion, uncertainty and anxiety amongst players."
He was firm in reiterating that, "Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Cricket Australia (CA), the States and the ACA, it is clear that agreement must be reached with the ACA for any Big Bash clubs to be privatised. Whilst a potential agreement between CA and the ACA is being discussed, it is not imminent and as such, any talk of privatising any teams for the coming season is premature."
What does it mean for the fans?
For fans of the two Melbourne clubs, they have a right to feel disenfranchised. Particularly fans who were born this century and have known nothing but the BBL in its current form and have grown up supporting either Stars or Renegades passionately over 15 years. How they will react if Victoria's vision for the two teams is fulfilled this year remains to be seen.
There appears to be a general malaise more broadly among Australia cricket fans about how poorly the privatisation push has been explained and handled publicly by both CA and the states.
What is the next step?
The crucial decision comes on 15 June when the state chairs meet to vote on the hybrid privatisation proposal, which is set to allow each state to make its own decision whether to go ahead with pursuing private investment. That vote will follow four days of meetings between state executives and CA in the previous week, where the various details and current frustrations will be thrashed out in person.
It is understood that only four states would need to vote yes to move ahead to the next phase, although there is a desire to ensure that any dissenting states were not vehemently opposed to the model of self-determination. If it is passed, the states that do wish to pursue private investment immediately, which currently are Victoria, WA and Tasmania, will undertake a testing of the market jointly with CA and their consultant, the Raine Group.
Cricket Tasmania (CT) remains supportive of a pro-privatisation push that would see stakes in the eight Big Bash League clubs sold off to big money investors, as the split between cricket's stakeholder states deepens.
Not only does Tasmania remain committed to the privatisation process but it believes it could be one of the biggest players at the table as officials eye a potential deal for the Hobart Hurricanes centred on a planned fixed-roof stadium at Macquarie Point.
CT chief executive officer, Dominic Baker, was part of a recent mission to India where prospective team buyers mingled with state bosses at a meet-and-greet facilitated by the Raine Group — the firm that oversaw the sale of England's 'Hundred' teams, which yielded almost $1 billion.
It was a chance for Australian state chief executives to canvas interested Indian investors ahead of the next stage of privatisation which, if green-lit, includes market testing and valuations of the teams.
The process will be the same as that of the Hundred franchise sales, with potential buyers to be sounded out and valuations of each club offered before moving to the sales process further down the track. The timelines for that remain unclear despite Victoria's insistence that it can happen within a matter of months.
Cricket Tasmania (CT) remains supportive of a pro-privatisation push that would see stakes in the eight Big Bash League clubs sold off to big money investors, as the split between cricket's stakeholder states deepens.
Not only does Tasmania remain committed to the privatisation process, but it believes it could be one of the biggest players at the table as officials eye a potential deal for the Hobart Hurricanes centred on a planned fixed-roof stadium at Macquarie Point.
At the top of the agenda amongst the more than 50 potential buyers was the planned $1.13 billion fixed-roof stadium, which will be the home ground of the Hobart Hurricanes from 2031.
"The chance to be involved in the first roofed cricket stadium in the world that potentially has all three formats played in it at an international level is something I think will be very attractive to some of our Indian friends," Baker said.
in the world that potentially has all three formats played in it at an international level is something I think will be very attractive to some of our Indian friends," Baker said.
Baker believes Tasmania can leverage the new 23 000-seat stadium which, pending successful tests, will become the world's first fixed-roof arena able to stage all three formats of the game, in all weather conditions.
He says a 49 per cent share of the Hurricanes could theoretically be packaged up with a significant private investment opportunity in the stadium precinct, as part of a wider pro-sport and property play.
It could mirror a similar deal struck in the UK, where Indian infrastructure conglomerate GMR Group bought a 49% share in the English Hundred team, the Southern Brave, that was bundled in with an acquisition of the Hampshire County Cricket Club, their home stadium, a golf course and a hotel.
"We would like to think we can bring a partner into Tasmania that is not only involved in our cricket team but is also investing in the community," Baker said.
Melbourne Rangers is the leading option for the new name of Melbourne Stars should approval be reached over the coming weeks for the next stage of the troubled privatisation process of the BBL.
CV has applied to trademark Rangers with the application available to view on the IP Australia website - the government agency that manages intellectual property rights. The paperwork was filed on 4 June; two days after the news broke of Stars and Melbourne Renegades being merged with CV's second BBL license set to be sold off in its entirety to a new owner.
The application is currently stated as "waiting for examination", with an expected response date of 3 September. Any renaming also has to be approved by CA.
The trademark would cover a host of uses including playing kit, branded material, digital content and apps.
The Rangers option is a nod to the Bushrangers name that Victoria's men used to play under in state cricket before it was dropped in 2018. Bushrangers was strongly considered for a return but CV had concerns about how it would sit now that there is also a WBBL side. The re-branded club will also play in Victoria's navy blue colours.
News Corp was first to report that there are two other names in play - Magic and Blazers.
Research carried out by CV suggested that a full rebranding of the BBL side they will own was required with current fans of Renegades unlikely to support an existing Stars team, but supporters of both more likely to get behind a Victoria-centric outfit.
There remains a chance that Renegades will still exist for the 2026-27 season in caretaker mode should either the license not be sold in time for the start of the WBBL in October or new owners not be ready for a full takeover - although all options still rely on states voting to proceed.
Australian cricket was plunged into chaos last week when news of the Melbourne merger broke on Tuesday evening following a CV meeting where staff were informed of the plans. It led to damage-limitation from both CV and CA over the next 72 hours.
Since CV, who were initially uncertain about privatisation, turned in favour of the model, it had always been expected they would offload Renegades. CA was aware of the plans, but it had been hoped that major announcements would be on hold until the next stage of process had been approved.
A hastily arranged meeting of the other states was convened on Thursday where CA was asked to explain how much it knew of CV's intentions. CEO Todd Greenberg admitted the timing of the announcement had not been ideal.
Nick Cummins defended his decisions saying he was looking after his staff at a time of significant uncertainty and wanted to get his organisation into a position where it could progress effectively when, or if, a hybrid privatisation model were given the green light.
There will be meetings this week in Melbourne involving state CEOs with the next key date being June 15, when the chairs will meet to vote on whether to proceed with allowing those states which are in favour to seek investment in their BBL teams.
CA had initially planned for the entire tournament to go into privatisation but NSW's objections to the proposal - along with varying degrees of concerns from Queensland and South Australia - halted that process and led CA to work on a model whereby individual states could decide what they do.
I believe this will only be beneficial. A lot of money will be injected and that will allow CA to put to other features and projects. I'm sure everyone opposed to it wil soon see the bright side to it.