Cricket Australia is considering BBL 16 opener in India

[sithb]

The point does remain that IPL generate far more views than PSL. Take that and multiply with the cost per 1k views and you'll arrive at the differential.

 

[sithb]

IPL probably has 5-7 times the number of views that PSL does. Multiply both the factors together and IPL bring 25-49 times bigger than PSL in terms of views arises.

Plus I'm assuming that the ad revenue is factored in your calculations. If its not , the number rises exponentially again.

 

[sithb]

An IPL revenue per season vs PSL revenue per season is probably the more apt way to look at this. Especially as IPL has more matches.

And at this point , the IPL franchises don't need to depend on majorly their own funds to buy the players as they are getting a share of the revenue which more than compensates for the huge player purchases etc. That and their alternate revenue streams.

 

[Hitman]

CA Eyes BBL Swap Deal With BCCI: Report​

A fresh proposal could see the Indian Premier League expand its footprint beyond traditional boundaries, with the iconic Adelaide Oval being considered as a potential venue for a single match in 2027. The initiative is being explored by the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA), which is keen to bring one of the world’s biggest T20 leagues to Australian soil. According to SEN Cricket, SACA President and Chairman Will Rayner, along with Adelaide Oval Chairman Jamie Briggs, has already engaged multiple stakeholders regarding the possibility of hosting an IPL fixture.

The move follows ongoing discussions between Cricket Australia (CA) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). Earlier this year, Cricket Australia (CA) had approached the Indian board with a proposal to stage the opening fixture of the 2026-27 Big Bash League (BBL) season in Chennai, indicating a possible exchange arrangement between the two cricketing bodies.

The concept is being positioned as a mutually beneficial agreement aimed at strengthening ties between the IPL and the BBL.

While the BCCI is yet to receive formal communication, discussions are expected to take shape in the near future. The idea was also reportedly shared with CA CEO Todd Greenberg during the 2025-26 Sheffield Shield final, which took place at Adelaide Oval in late March.

The IPL has previously ventured outside India, including a full season in South Africa in 2009, with editions staged in the UAE in 2020 and partially in 2021.

Adelaide Oval continues to strengthen its position as a premier global cricket venue. It has already secured hosting rights for the final of the ICC T20 World Cup 2028, which will be jointly organized by CA and New Zealand Cricket in October and November.

With a seating capacity of 53,500, the venue is expected to draw massive crowds if an IPL match is staged there. Interest is likely to surge, particularly if high-profile teams such as Chennai Super Kings (CSK) or Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) feature, especially alongside marquee players like Virat Kohli who has a remarkable record at the venue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: https://news.abplive.com/sports/ipl...a-eyes-bbl-swap-deal-with-bcci-report-1836529​

 

[Cric1234]

The point does remain that IPL generate far more views than PSL. Take that and multiply with the cost per 1k views and you'll arrive at the differential.

India population vs Pakistan population must play a part a huge difference in population.

 

[sweep_shot]

Australia have gone soft.

I couldn't imagine Australia selling out to India 20 years ago. Back when Aussies had backbones. The real Aussies under Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

 

[sithb]

India population vs Pakistan population must play a part a huge difference in population.

More monetization per person as well.

 

[Varun]

Australia have gone soft.

I couldn't imagine Australia selling out to India 20 years ago. Back when Aussies had backbones. The real Aussies under Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

Neither of whom won series in India. Ponting couldn't even captain a single test win.

 

[charlie007]

Australia have gone soft.

I couldn't imagine Australia selling out to India 20 years ago. Back when Aussies had backbones. The real Aussies under Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting.

Lol there was no IPL in Waugh’s time so you don’t know what he would have done, and Ponting was among the first ones to throw his name in the hat hoping to get picked up in IPL, and currently has been selling his services as a coach for over a decade.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

@Rajdeep seems like CA listen to our conversations, #1stWakeUpSlap among many to follow @sweep_shot

===


Cricket Australia will now look at alternative ways to inject private capital into the BBL after Queensland joined New South Wales (NSW) in rejecting the initial proposal to sell stakes of the eight BBL clubs to private investors.

NSW, who control Sydney Sixers and Sydney Thunder, had been firmly against the privatisation model that was presented by CA to the six state chief executives at a meeting in Melbourne in late March. Queensland, who operate Brisbane Heat, had initially asked for more time and clarity on a number of points in the proposal following a Queensland Cricket board meeting a fortnight ago.

Following discussions with CA, Queensland have decided to join NSW in rejecting the proposal in its entirety.

New South Wales calls for Cricket Australia to pause BBL privatisation push
Andrew McGlashan

Going where the money is - Cummins voices the danger facing Australian cricket
Alex Malcolm

Queensland Cricket informed CA chief executive Todd Greenberg and chair Mike Baird on Wednesday of their position before releasing a statement on Thursday. "The Board and Management of Queensland Cricket have carefully considered the proposal to participate in the privatisation of Big Bash League (BBL) Teams, including the Brisbane Heat," the statement said. "Cricket Australia and Queensland Cricket have maintained a productive and respectful relationship over the past twelve months as we've worked together to determine the best outcome for both parties and the game.

"Today, 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.

"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."

Speaking to media on Thursday, Greenberg said CA will now look at alternative models of how to progress but explained it would be difficult given each state's position. "New South Wales and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital," he said. "New South Wales have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland don't have an alternative model, but they don't believe that private capital is something for them.

"South Australia, I would suggest they're 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 in later at their choice. And 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 state. So if you're sitting in my shoes, with a federated model and six members, that's why it's difficult."

Greenberg said that there was a distinct difference between Queensland's objection to privatisation and NSW's view.

"There's difference between the two nos," he said. "Queensland are not supportive of a growth in player payments. And New South Wales are definitely of the view that we need to invest more into the Big Bash and the players. But they don't think that should be done through private capital. They prefer to find ways of self-funding that, doing that through additional incremental revenue that we would generate. So they are different."

Part of NSW's proposal to self-fund the game is to increase wagering revenue through legal mechanisms as there is a belief that CA and the BBL are not extracting the same value that other Australian sports leagues are from the wagering industry via product fees, which are fees paid by licensed wagering operators to sporting bodies in Australia for the right to use their data and offer betting markets.

CA is steadfast in its stance that it will not raise revenue via those means. "Our view is that that's not a step that the sport would accept," Greenberg said. "To back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game. It's been very clear from the CA board."

One of the key reasons CA is pursuing private investment for the BBL, aside from increasing overall revenue for the competition and for CA more broadly, is to ensure that player payments can keep pace with the global market.

There were two South African players, Dewald Brevis and Aiden Markram, who earned more than AU$1 million to play in the SA20 last season. At present, no Australian player earns more than AU$400,000 for a single season in the BBL and most of Australia's best T20 players earn under AU$300,000 given the men's BBL salary cap is currently AU$3,121,200 spread across 18 players. Yet, quite a few Australian players earn more than Brevis and Markram in the IPL and Tim David will also earn well over double his BBL contract in this year's Hundred after being bought for AU$658,000 at the auction.

The concern from CA is that Australian players may opt to play franchise cricket overseas and not play for Australia or in the BBL if the gulf between local earnings and overseas earnings becomes too great to pass up.

"Without an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time," Greenberg said. "That's been one of the risks that we've been assessing is can we keep pace with the global market and the global demands, and can we do that without private capital? That is a real challenge for us."

There are grave concerns around Australian cricket broadly, even among the states that have supported the move to privatise the BBL, about the cost of allowing overseas investors into the league in terms of losing control of Australian cricket to foreign owners who do not have its best interests at heart.

Greenberg articulated how CA's proposal would mitigate against that risk and that CA would attempt to retain complete control of the BBL, the home international schedule and its players.

"What we have put in this project is that the capital comes into the clubs, not into the league, not into the governing body, so not into the decision-making of the sport as such," Greenberg said. "The capital goes into clubs to better run clubs, to try to assist clubs. But it's not coming into the sport, it's not coming to the league. And I think that's a really important distinction.

"So we think the risks and controls are about who you partner with, the types of people that you want to bring into those partnerships, and what you're looking to achieve from them.

"And again, the six states have completely opposing views of the type of partners they want to bring in. Some are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership, some have the complete opposite [view]. I don't know who's right or wrong but they have differing views, and they have a risk appetite that they will obviously look through, and we've been helping them understand and mitigate what those risks look like."

Greenberg said CA will now look at a hybrid model of privatisation, similar to what South Australia have proposed, but admitted it will need time to analyse all aspects of how that would work.

CA had always planned to have the BBL remain in its current form for the 2026-27 season with a view to progressing to a league with private investment by 2027-28. The current broadcast agreement with Channel Seven and Foxtel runs until 2031.

Espn

 

[sweep_shot]

@Rajdeep seems like CA listen to our conversations, #1stWakeUpSlap among many to follow @sweep_shot

===

View attachment 164014
Cricket Australia will now look at alternative ways to inject private capital into the BBL after Queensland joined New South Wales (NSW) in rejecting the initial proposal to sell stakes of the eight BBL clubs to private investors.

NSW, who control Sydney Sixers and Sydney Thunder, had been firmly against the privatisation model that was presented by CA to the six state chief executives at a meeting in Melbourne in late March. Queensland, who operate Brisbane Heat, had initially asked for more time and clarity on a number of points in the proposal following a Queensland Cricket board meeting a fortnight ago.

Following discussions with CA, Queensland have decided to join NSW in rejecting the proposal in its entirety.

New South Wales calls for Cricket Australia to pause BBL privatisation push
Andrew McGlashan

Going where the money is - Cummins voices the danger facing Australian cricket
Alex Malcolm

Queensland Cricket informed CA chief executive Todd Greenberg and chair Mike Baird on Wednesday of their position before releasing a statement on Thursday. "The Board and Management of Queensland Cricket have carefully considered the proposal to participate in the privatisation of Big Bash League (BBL) Teams, including the Brisbane Heat," the statement said. "Cricket Australia and Queensland Cricket have maintained a productive and respectful relationship over the past twelve months as we've worked together to determine the best outcome for both parties and the game.

"Today, 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.

"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."

Speaking to media on Thursday, Greenberg said CA will now look at alternative models of how to progress but explained it would be difficult given each state's position. "New South Wales and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital," he said. "New South Wales have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland don't have an alternative model, but they don't believe that private capital is something for them.

"South Australia, I would suggest they're 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 in later at their choice. And 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 state. So if you're sitting in my shoes, with a federated model and six members, that's why it's difficult."

Greenberg said that there was a distinct difference between Queensland's objection to privatisation and NSW's view.

"There's difference between the two nos," he said. "Queensland are not supportive of a growth in player payments. And New South Wales are definitely of the view that we need to invest more into the Big Bash and the players. But they don't think that should be done through private capital. They prefer to find ways of self-funding that, doing that through additional incremental revenue that we would generate. So they are different."

Part of NSW's proposal to self-fund the game is to increase wagering revenue through legal mechanisms as there is a belief that CA and the BBL are not extracting the same value that other Australian sports leagues are from the wagering industry via product fees, which are fees paid by licensed wagering operators to sporting bodies in Australia for the right to use their data and offer betting markets.

CA is steadfast in its stance that it will not raise revenue via those means. "Our view is that that's not a step that the sport would accept," Greenberg said. "To back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game. It's been very clear from the CA board."

One of the key reasons CA is pursuing private investment for the BBL, aside from increasing overall revenue for the competition and for CA more broadly, is to ensure that player payments can keep pace with the global market.

There were two South African players, Dewald Brevis and Aiden Markram, who earned more than AU$1 million to play in the SA20 last season. At present, no Australian player earns more than AU$400,000 for a single season in the BBL and most of Australia's best T20 players earn under AU$300,000 given the men's BBL salary cap is currently AU$3,121,200 spread across 18 players. Yet, quite a few Australian players earn more than Brevis and Markram in the IPL and Tim David will also earn well over double his BBL contract in this year's Hundred after being bought for AU$658,000 at the auction.

The concern from CA is that Australian players may opt to play franchise cricket overseas and not play for Australia or in the BBL if the gulf between local earnings and overseas earnings becomes too great to pass up.

"Without an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time," Greenberg said. "That's been one of the risks that we've been assessing is can we keep pace with the global market and the global demands, and can we do that without private capital? That is a real challenge for us."

There are grave concerns around Australian cricket broadly, even among the states that have supported the move to privatise the BBL, about the cost of allowing overseas investors into the league in terms of losing control of Australian cricket to foreign owners who do not have its best interests at heart.

Greenberg articulated how CA's proposal would mitigate against that risk and that CA would attempt to retain complete control of the BBL, the home international schedule and its players.

"What we have put in this project is that the capital comes into the clubs, not into the league, not into the governing body, so not into the decision-making of the sport as such," Greenberg said. "The capital goes into clubs to better run clubs, to try to assist clubs. But it's not coming into the sport, it's not coming to the league. And I think that's a really important distinction.

"So we think the risks and controls are about who you partner with, the types of people that you want to bring into those partnerships, and what you're looking to achieve from them.

"And again, the six states have completely opposing views of the type of partners they want to bring in. Some are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership, some have the complete opposite [view]. I don't know who's right or wrong but they have differing views, and they have a risk appetite that they will obviously look through, and we've been helping them understand and mitigate what those risks look like."

Greenberg said CA will now look at a hybrid model of privatisation, similar to what South Australia have proposed, but admitted it will need time to analyse all aspects of how that would work.

CA had always planned to have the BBL remain in its current form for the 2026-27 season with a view to progressing to a league with private investment by 2027-28. The current broadcast agreement with Channel Seven and Foxtel runs until 2031.

Espn

Awesome.

Australia have self-respect. They don't sell their dignity like South Africans.

 

[RidiculousMan]

@Rajdeep seems like CA listen to our conversations, #1stWakeUpSlap among many to follow @sweep_shot

===

View attachment 164014
Cricket Australia will now look at alternative ways to inject private capital into the BBL after Queensland joined New South Wales (NSW) in rejecting the initial proposal to sell stakes of the eight BBL clubs to private investors.

NSW, who control Sydney Sixers and Sydney Thunder, had been firmly against the privatisation model that was presented by CA to the six state chief executives at a meeting in Melbourne in late March. Queensland, who operate Brisbane Heat, had initially asked for more time and clarity on a number of points in the proposal following a Queensland Cricket board meeting a fortnight ago.

Following discussions with CA, Queensland have decided to join NSW in rejecting the proposal in its entirety.

New South Wales calls for Cricket Australia to pause BBL privatisation push
Andrew McGlashan

Going where the money is - Cummins voices the danger facing Australian cricket
Alex Malcolm

Queensland Cricket informed CA chief executive Todd Greenberg and chair Mike Baird on Wednesday of their position before releasing a statement on Thursday. "The Board and Management of Queensland Cricket have carefully considered the proposal to participate in the privatisation of Big Bash League (BBL) Teams, including the Brisbane Heat," the statement said. "Cricket Australia and Queensland Cricket have maintained a productive and respectful relationship over the past twelve months as we've worked together to determine the best outcome for both parties and the game.

"Today, 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.

"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."

Speaking to media on Thursday, Greenberg said CA will now look at alternative models of how to progress but explained it would be difficult given each state's position. "New South Wales and Queensland are certainly not supportive of private capital," he said. "New South Wales have an alternative model to self-fund it. Queensland don't have an alternative model, but they don't believe that private capital is something for them.

"South Australia, I would suggest they're 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 in later at their choice. And 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 state. So if you're sitting in my shoes, with a federated model and six members, that's why it's difficult."

Greenberg said that there was a distinct difference between Queensland's objection to privatisation and NSW's view.

"There's difference between the two nos," he said. "Queensland are not supportive of a growth in player payments. And New South Wales are definitely of the view that we need to invest more into the Big Bash and the players. But they don't think that should be done through private capital. They prefer to find ways of self-funding that, doing that through additional incremental revenue that we would generate. So they are different."

Part of NSW's proposal to self-fund the game is to increase wagering revenue through legal mechanisms as there is a belief that CA and the BBL are not extracting the same value that other Australian sports leagues are from the wagering industry via product fees, which are fees paid by licensed wagering operators to sporting bodies in Australia for the right to use their data and offer betting markets.

CA is steadfast in its stance that it will not raise revenue via those means. "Our view is that that's not a step that the sport would accept," Greenberg said. "To back itself on wagering is not a way to fund the game. It's been very clear from the CA board."

One of the key reasons CA is pursuing private investment for the BBL, aside from increasing overall revenue for the competition and for CA more broadly, is to ensure that player payments can keep pace with the global market.

There were two South African players, Dewald Brevis and Aiden Markram, who earned more than AU$1 million to play in the SA20 last season. At present, no Australian player earns more than AU$400,000 for a single season in the BBL and most of Australia's best T20 players earn under AU$300,000 given the men's BBL salary cap is currently AU$3,121,200 spread across 18 players. Yet, quite a few Australian players earn more than Brevis and Markram in the IPL and Tim David will also earn well over double his BBL contract in this year's Hundred after being bought for AU$658,000 at the auction.

The concern from CA is that Australian players may opt to play franchise cricket overseas and not play for Australia or in the BBL if the gulf between local earnings and overseas earnings becomes too great to pass up.

"Without an increase in player payments, we are at risk over time," Greenberg said. "That's been one of the risks that we've been assessing is can we keep pace with the global market and the global demands, and can we do that without private capital? That is a real challenge for us."

There are grave concerns around Australian cricket broadly, even among the states that have supported the move to privatise the BBL, about the cost of allowing overseas investors into the league in terms of losing control of Australian cricket to foreign owners who do not have its best interests at heart.

Greenberg articulated how CA's proposal would mitigate against that risk and that CA would attempt to retain complete control of the BBL, the home international schedule and its players.

"What we have put in this project is that the capital comes into the clubs, not into the league, not into the governing body, so not into the decision-making of the sport as such," Greenberg said. "The capital goes into clubs to better run clubs, to try to assist clubs. But it's not coming into the sport, it's not coming to the league. And I think that's a really important distinction.

"So we think the risks and controls are about who you partner with, the types of people that you want to bring into those partnerships, and what you're looking to achieve from them.

"And again, the six states have completely opposing views of the type of partners they want to bring in. Some are absolutely very interested in IPL ownership, some have the complete opposite [view]. I don't know who's right or wrong but they have differing views, and they have a risk appetite that they will obviously look through, and we've been helping them understand and mitigate what those risks look like."

Greenberg said CA will now look at a hybrid model of privatisation, similar to what South Australia have proposed, but admitted it will need time to analyse all aspects of how that would work.

CA had always planned to have the BBL remain in its current form for the 2026-27 season with a view to progressing to a league with private investment by 2027-28. The current broadcast agreement with Channel Seven and Foxtel runs until 2031.

Espn

A very welcomed news.

World Cricket needs more leagues like PSL and BBL to stand up against Indian monopoly.

 

[charlie007]

Awesome.

Australia have self-respect. They don't sell their dignity like South Africans.

Lol 2 weeks ago you said Australia have gone soft!

The party has just started and this is not the end of it. In the end they need to become profitable and earn more money. I suspect they will revisit this in a few years.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Lol 2 weeks ago you said Australia have gone soft!

The party has just started and this is not the end of it. In the end they need to become profitable and earn more money. I suspect they will revisit this in a few years.

It really depends on the Indians. I saw Lalit Modi interview and he predicted Hundred will flop. I kind of think the same. Who knows in a few years the appetite from Indians may not be the same towards overseas league purchases and they may go all in on IPL. As much as I don't like the Indian monopoly because it makes cricket boring, if I was wearing the commercial hat or a BBL team, I'd look to cash in now while the market is still hot.