Cricket Australia’s plan to bring private investors into the Big Bash League has hit a significant wall. Queensland Cricket has officially rejected the proposal to sell minority stakes in BBL clubs, joining New South Wales in standing against the move. With two of six states now firmly opposed, CA chief executive Todd Greenberg admits the situation is “difficult” and the organisation must now look at alternative approaches.
Queensland had initially asked for more time after a board meeting in late March to consider the proposal more carefully. After completing what it described as an “exhaustive due diligence process,” the state’s cricket body informed Greenberg and CA chair Mike Baird on Wednesday that it would not move to the next phase of the sales process.
Why Queensland and NSW Said No
The two states have rejected the privatisation proposal for different reasons, and Greenberg was clear about the distinction between them.
New South Wales believes more money needs to flow into the BBL and its players, but insists that funding should come from within — not from outside investors. NSW has floated the idea of increasing revenue through wagering product fees, arguing that CA and the BBL are not extracting the same value from the gambling industry that other Australian sports leagues currently do.
Queensland’s objection sits elsewhere. The state is not supportive of increasing player payments at all, making its opposition more fundamental than NSW’s. Neither state, however, is willing to hand over a stake of their club to private buyers.
CA has firmly ruled out backing itself on wagering revenue. Greenberg said that the position is clear from the CA board and “not a way to fund the game.”
What the Remaining States Think
The split among the six states reflects how divided Australian cricket is on this issue. Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania are strongly in favour of bringing private capital into their clubs. South Australia sits in the middle, preferring a hybrid model where some states can opt in while others hold back.
That leaves CA managing six members pulling in completely different directions. Some states want IPL-style ownership groups. Others want nothing to do with that model.
Greenberg said CA will now examine whether a hybrid approach — allowing willing states to proceed while others stay out — is workable. However, he acknowledged that analysing all aspects of such a model will take time.
The Player Payment Problem Driving All of This
At the heart of the debate is money — specifically, what Australian players earn compared to what they can make overseas.
No Australian player currently earns more than $400,000 for a BBL season. Meanwhile, South African players like Dewald Brevis and Aiden Markram earned over $1 million each in SA20 last season. Tim David will earn more than double his BBL contract value playing in The Hundred this year.
CA’s concern is straightforward: if the earnings gap keeps widening, Australian players will choose overseas franchise cricket over the BBL or even national duties. Greenberg said the risk of falling behind the global market is real and cannot be ignored without a new funding solution.
CA had planned to keep the BBL in its current structure for the 2026-27 season, with private investment potentially entering by 2027-28. The broadcast deal with Channel Seven and Foxtel runs until 2031, giving CA some time — but not unlimited time — to find a workable solution.
For the latest cricket news and updates, follow JeetWin Sports.
