The onward march of T20

[swanny1234]

if it supports the financial sustainability of the traditional first class setup and Test matches into the future, I am not fussed at all if there are BBL games played in India or on the moon or anywhere else for that matter. If team name changes help in that regard as well (again - providing it supports Test cricket moving forward) then I say go for it.

This isn't what will happen though - they'll window dress this up as helping fund test cricket, but it'll eventually replace it. The goal for these franchises is that in 10 years time there won't be a boxing day test - instead there will be a boxing day t20 game between MI Sydney and Sunrisers Melbourne. This is the future that these Indian (and middle eastern) backers want. They don't care about Test Cricket, or First Class cricket or the grassroots, all they want is a global T20 league with their franchises in all the main countries, and the best players playing in them, instead of playing international cricket.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

This isn't what will happen though - they'll window dress this up as helping fund test cricket, but it'll eventually replace it. The goal for these franchises is that in 10 years time there won't be a boxing day test - instead there will be a boxing day t20 game between MI Sydney and Sunrisers Melbourne. This is the future that these Indian (and middle eastern) backers want. They don't care about Test Cricket, or First Class cricket or the grassroots, all they want is a global T20 league with their franchises in all the main countries, and the best players playing in them, instead of playing international cricket.

Not going to happen. For T20 to sustain its attraction, it needs something to be "shorter than". Take away Test cricket, and you kill the goose that lays the gold egg. The general cricketing public wouldn't be the least bit interested in a poxy T20 event involving 2 states only. They want Australia.

 

[eltrain]

This isn't what will happen though - they'll window dress this up as helping fund test cricket, but it'll eventually replace it. The goal for these franchises is that in 10 years time there won't be a boxing day test - instead there will be a boxing day t20 game between MI Sydney and Sunrisers Melbourne. This is the future that these Indian (and middle eastern) backers want. They don't care about Test Cricket, or First Class cricket or the grassroots, all they want is a global T20 league with their franchises in all the main countries, and the best players playing in them, instead of playing international cricket.

There is a fundamental financial issue that has to be addressed though, and we can't just ignore it. With the way the cost structure of cricket is going at the moment, the BBL (while a money spinner) is just not making enough to fund the rest of the operation. If CA can't turn a profit in a freaking Border Gavaskar Trophy summer (which had record breaking crowds across the country) then there is a serious issue.

CA as a not for profit are always going to be the custodians of the game in this country - but money needs to come from somewhere. CA's reason for being is to look after the long term health of the game, but whoever provides capital is obviously going to have profits (and egos) front of mind. There is obviously a balancing act here that needs to be very carefully managed by CA but other avenues for $$$ need to be looked at, which is why things like BBL games played overseas, privatisation and team name changes will eventually become inevitable.

When (not if) IPL owners come to the party with the big bucks, the BBL (or whatever it will be renamed to) could well also be moved to whatever slot in the calendar works best for the Indian TV audience, potentially earlier in the summer to avoid clashing with SA20 and ILT20.

 

[swanny1234]

Not going to happen. For T20 to sustain its attraction, it needs something to be "shorter than". Take away Test cricket, and you kill the goose that lays the gold egg. The general cricketing public wouldn't be the least bit interested in a poxy T20 event involving 2 states only. They want Australia.

It's already happening in every other country - NZ had only 3 tests last summer, and have 3 next summer - they're also bringing in a franchise league. South Africa have gotten rid of their Boxing Day test and replaced it with SA20. This is the future the IPL backers want in Australia too, they want to have a global roster of players floating between the different leagues. Boxing Day test will eventually fall by the wayside just like everything else to accommodate this.

 

[swanny1234]

There is a fundamental financial issue that has to be addressed though, and we can't just ignore it. With the way the cost structure of cricket is going at the moment, the BBL (while a money spinner) is just not making enough to fund the rest of the operation. If CA can't turn a profit in a freaking Border Gavaskar Trophy summer (which had record breaking crowds across the country) then there is a serious issue.

CA as a not for profit are always going to be the custodians of the game in this country - but money needs to come from somewhere. CA's reason for being is to look after the long term health of the game, but whoever provides capital is obviously going to have profits (and egos) front of mind. There is obviously a balancing act here that needs to be very carefully managed by CA but other avenues for $$$ need to be looked at, which is why things like BBL games played overseas, privatisation and team name changes will eventually become inevitable.

When (not if) IPL owners come to the party with the big bucks, the BBL (or whatever it will be renamed to) could well also be moved to whatever slot in the calendar works best for the Indian TV audience, potentially earlier in the summer to avoid clashing with SA20 and ILT20.

I acknowledge this, which is why CA needs to look at alternative backers to Indians, that aren't going to rip up the Australian summer and sell it to the highest bidder - maybe that is selling off a team to Twiggy Forrest or to the Packers or to other people with business interests that aren't part of the BCCI foothold. If we go down the path of selling to IPL owners, then it will mean having to sing their tune, which is one that most Australian cricket fans are not keen on.

I don't know a single Australian person that watches or cares about the IPL btw, do you?

 

[happy_eagle]

I don't know a single Australian person that watches or cares about the IPL btw, do you?

I think this is primarily because the IPL is in a bad timezone for us, in fact most of the sub-continent leagues are on at a bad time for there to be any following over here.

 

[eltrain]

I acknowledge this, which is why CA needs to look at alternative backers to Indians, that aren't going to rip up the Australian summer and sell it to the highest bidder - maybe that is selling off a team to Twiggy Forrest or to the Packers or to other people with business interests that aren't part of the BCCI foothold. If we go down the path of selling to IPL owners, then it will mean having to sing their tune, which is one that most Australian cricket fans are not keen on.

I don't know a single Australian person that watches or cares about the IPL btw, do you?

Look fair enough, I’m not against local owners at all – there’s a perfectly good case for Twiggy, Packer, Stokes, Gina ‑style money being part of the mix. But if the strategic challenge is how the game in Australia can sustain itself long term, the BBL needs to survive in a T20 world dominated by IPL‑linked multi‑club groups, and having no IPL capital or know‑how in the tent feels like deliberately playing with one hand tied behind your back. SA20 and ILT20 have both shown how quickly IPL ownership can turn a domestic league into a serious cash cow that dwarfs the BBL.

In terms of dancing to the tune of the IPL owners, this is ultimately an issue that is going to have be addressed by what terms CA write into the shareholding and licence agreements. CA is already talking about selling only minority stakes, keeping state/CA equity in every club, and deliberately diversifying ownership so not all eight teams are owned overseas. If they set hard guardrails around the calendar, playing conditions and national‑team priorities, an IPL group can’t just march in and rewrite Australian cricket.

My view is, by all means bring in Twiggy‑type investors, but don’t reflexively shut out IPL owners. The sensible middle ground is a diversified capital structure where CA and the states retain control, local investors keep the league rooted in Australian culture, and selected IPL groups provide capital and access to Indian fans and sponsors that domestic money simply can’t deliver.

 

[swanny1234]

Look fair enough, I’m not against local owners at all – there’s a perfectly good case for Twiggy, Packer, Stokes, Gina ‑style money being part of the mix. But if the strategic challenge is how the game in Australia can sustain itself long term, the BBL needs to survive in a T20 world dominated by IPL‑linked multi‑club groups, and having no IPL capital or know‑how in the tent feels like deliberately playing with one hand tied behind your back. SA20 and ILT20 have both shown how quickly IPL ownership can turn a domestic league into a serious cash cow that dwarfs the BBL.

In terms of dancing to the tune of the IPL owners, this is ultimately an issue that is going to have be addressed by what terms CA write into the shareholding and licence agreements. CA is already talking about selling only minority stakes, keeping state/CA equity in every club, and deliberately diversifying ownership so not all eight teams are owned overseas. If they set hard guardrails around the calendar, playing conditions and national‑team priorities, an IPL group can’t just march in and rewrite Australian cricket.

My view is, by all means bring in Twiggy‑type investors, but don’t reflexively shut out IPL owners. The sensible middle ground is a diversified capital structure where CA and the states retain control, local investors keep the league rooted in Australian culture, and selected IPL groups provide capital and access to Indian fans and sponsors that domestic money simply can’t deliver.

And that would be great, if you could guarantee the states retaining control, but I cannot see this eventuality actually happening. Maybe initially, as all parties at least at first work amongst the tightly controlled confines that CA set, but it won't remain like that, not when the other global leagues aren't operating under the same restrictions.

You sell to the MI consortium, or to the Sunrisers etc, they're going to want to bring a hell of a lot of their own branding, ideas and views to the table, and given they were footing the bill, they'd have every right to. They would want the BBL not to clash with SA20 - that will mean moving the comp outside school holidays (not good for kids), it could also mean clashing, or indeed replacing the Boxing Day Test, it will mean bringing more overseas players on big money instead of having spots for developing state cricketers (one of my favourite aspects of the BBL - i'm far more interested in watching a kid like Mahli Beardman develop, than some Indian or English bloke take his spot). It will also likely, and most concerningly mean an end to Pakistani and potentially Bangladeshi import players in the BBL, at least at Indian owned Franchises.

I just do not see a scenario where privatisation doesn't result in the IPLification of the Big Bash, and the BCCI ultimately taking a stronger foothold in Australian cricket than they already do, which isn't good for the health of the game locally.

 

[eltrain]

And that would be great, if you could guarantee the states retaining control, but I cannot see this eventuality actually happening. Maybe initially, as all parties at least at first work amongst the tightly controlled confines that CA set, but it won't remain like that, not when the other global leagues aren't operating under the same restrictions.

You sell to the MI consortium, or to the Sunrisers etc, they're going to want to bring a hell of a lot of their own branding, ideas and views to the table, and given they were footing the bill, they'd have every right to. They would want the BBL not to clash with SA20 - that will mean moving the comp outside school holidays (not good for kids), it could also mean clashing, or indeed replacing the Boxing Day Test, it will mean bringing more overseas players on big money instead of having spots for developing state cricketers (one of my favourite aspects of the BBL - i'm far more interested in watching a kid like Mahli Beardman develop, than some Indian or English bloke take his spot). It will also likely, and most concerningly mean an end to Pakistani and potentially Bangladeshi import players in the BBL, at least at Indian owned Franchises.

I just do not see a scenario where privatisation doesn't result in the IPLification of the Big Bash, and the BCCI ultimately taking a stronger foothold in Australian cricket than they already do, which isn't good for the health of the game locally.

I agree with most of the things you don’t want to happen. Nobody wants to see Boxing Day or any of our other Tests sacrificed, local kids squeezed out or Pakistan/Bangladesh players frozen out (personally less phased about the BBL getting moved to an earlier slot in the summer outside the school holiday window). But I don’t think those are automatic consequences of letting IPL money in, they would be the consequences of CA writing a weak deal.

All six SA20 teams for example are IPL owned but CSA still controls the calendar and caps overseas players, and uses SA20 profits to stabilise its finances. It hasn’t stopped them playing home Tests or producing local talent (home tests are squeezed over there to be fair, but that would have happened regardless of IPL investment because Test matches are definitively loss making in that market).

When privatisation does eventually come around, you would need to have three things locked in up front:
- CA/states retain majority control and set the calendar, with Boxing Day/New Year Tests protected. (BBL games are already played on every night of the Boxing Day Test tbf, and you wouldn't have a situation where BBL games are played during the day during Test windows because those time slots don't work for subcontinent TV viewers)
– Hard caps on overseas players and mandated rookie spots
– Eligibility rules that stop any owner, Indian or otherwise, excluding whole countries, and a mix of local and foreign investors so no single bloc can dictate terms

SO you can still benefit from what IPL owners are uniquely good at, which is access to capital, players, Indian audience and sponsor access without handing them the keys to Australian cricket.

 

[swanny1234]

I agree with most of the things you don’t want to happen. Nobody wants to see Boxing Day or any of our other Tests sacrificed, local kids squeezed out or Pakistan/Bangladesh players frozen out (personally less phased about the BBL getting moved to an earlier slot in the summer outside the school holiday window). But I don’t think those are automatic consequences of letting IPL money in, they would be the consequences of CA writing a weak deal.

All six SA20 teams for example are IPL owned but CSA still controls the calendar and caps overseas players, and uses SA20 profits to stabilise its finances. It hasn’t stopped them playing home Tests or producing local talent (home tests are squeezed over there to be fair, but that would have happened regardless of IPL investment because Test matches are definitively loss making in that market).

When privatisation does eventually come around, you would need to have three things locked in up front:
- CA/states retain majority control and set the calendar, with Boxing Day/New Year Tests protected. (BBL games are already played on every night of the Boxing Day Test tbf, and you wouldn't have a situation where BBL games are played during the day during Test windows because those time slots don't work for subcontinent TV viewers)
– Hard caps on overseas players and mandated rookie spots
– Eligibility rules that stop any owner, Indian or otherwise, excluding whole countries, and a mix of local and foreign investors so no single bloc can dictate terms

SO you can still benefit from what IPL owners are uniquely good at, which is access to capital, players, Indian audience and sponsor access without handing them the keys to Australian cricket.

I think SA20 is the exact model we want to avoid - they've literally sold their soul to the IPL investors with all 6 teams owned by IPL teams - it's IPL lite in every sense of the word.
The Hundred (even though I hate the format) has been a little bit smarter selling off only 3 of their teams to IPL.
Ideally - I'd like a BBL that retains the same 8 teams (and names) it has always had, with no name changes, no sale of games to India, and in a similar (if not slightly shorter) summer window which is friendly to school holidays, as that really is it's main purpose.
It's the only T20 league I have any interest in, and if it starts mimicking the others, I'd probably be one of many who would completely lose interest in it.

 

[eltrain]

I think SA20 is the exact model we want to avoid - they've literally sold their soul to the IPL investors with all 6 teams owned by IPL teams - it's IPL lite in every sense of the word.
The Hundred (even though I hate the format) has been a little bit smarter selling off only 3 of their teams to IPL.
Ideally - I'd like a BBL that retains the same 8 teams (and names) it has always had, with no name changes, no sale of games to India, and in a similar (if not slightly shorter) summer window which is friendly to school holidays, as that really is it's main purpose.
It's the only T20 league I have any interest in, and if it starts mimicking the others, I'd probably be one of many who would completely lose interest in it.

The arrangement that CA have floated would entail diversification and limits on foreign ownership, so you likely wouldn't have a situation where all teams are IPL owned. Worth noting though - SA20 is a hell of a lot more popular with South African fans than their previous T20 comp was though and it brings in much needed revenue for CSA. I'm pretty confident that IPL team names in the BBL wouldn't make a lot of difference to the crowds and TV ratings here either (although I'd make an exception for the Scorchers, that's probably the one franchise that would absolutely need to remain as is given the strength of the brand in WA).

Some concessions around team names, overseas games and the scheduling window to another stage in the summer will likely come along with the deal, but again if it can absolutely guarantee the sustainability of the Test and first class structure of our summer, then in my view it should be given consideration

 

[010203]

It's already happening in every other country - NZ had only 3 tests last summer, and have 3 next summer - they're also bringing in a franchise league. South Africa have gotten rid of their Boxing Day test and replaced it with SA20. This is the future the IPL backers want in Australia too, they want to have a global roster of players floating between the different leagues. Boxing Day test will eventually fall by the wayside just like everything else to accommodate this.

South Africa is playing in a home Boxing Day Test this year just as they did every year bar last summer.

 

[010203]

I like the first 2 ideas, not so much the third. I'd consider getting rid of the powerplay or reducing it down to 4 overs.

 

[Gough]

T20 to become a cricket shaped object.