BBL privatisation in jeopardy after rejection from key states

The future of BBL privatisation is again in jeopardy after Tasmania, Western Australia and Victoria rejected NSW and Queensland’s latest proposition.

On Friday NSW and QLD wrote to Cricket Australia chairman Mike Baird and chief executive Todd Greenberg to “pause” the process until four conditions were met.

NSW’s view was the “pause” was the status quo following high powered meetings in Melbourne between the states in mid-June.

But in an email seen by 7 Cricket and SEN, this was flat-batted by the chairs of WA, Tasmania and Victoria.

The varying interpretations of what transpired on June 15 has drawn a greater wedge between the states, with South Australia stuck in the middle having first orchestrated the self-determination model.

“In our view, that is not what was agreed,” wrote Gail McGowan (WA), Tim Scott (Tas) and Ross Hepburn (Vic) in a jointly signed memo.

A pause would mean no further work occurs until other issues are resolved; the members’ discussion instead contemplated those issues being progressed as part of, and in parallel with, the Nazare process.”

WA, Tasmania and Victoria are pushing for a self-determination model to be adopted by Cricket Australia and urged the game’s governing body to push on despite opposition from NSW and QLD.

The three-state alliance is not concerned if NSW and QLD are not ready to privatise their BBL franchises, but believes they shouldn’t be standing in the way of other states ‘opting in’ to a lucrative sales process.

“The distinction is not semantic,” the email continued.

“The 15 June 2026 media release, drafted and agreed by attendees, recorded in-principle support for a self-determination model for private investment, subject to four requirements being resolved before any final agreement or market process. That was a step forward in the process, not a suspension of it.”

The email, which was sent to Baird and Greenberg and forwarded to Cricket Australia’s board, also made the point that pushing forwards with an ‘opt in’ model would not preclude officials from exploring other options, nor lock them into agreeing to any sale.

“The current work on possible CA governance reform was agreed as part of the Nazare process. If Nazare were paused, that governance work would logically be paused as well. No Member sought, and the meeting did not agree, that all Nazare work should stop until governance reform is resolved.

“While views differ among States, no State should be able to prevent CA or willing States from progressing the opportunity to the point where its merits, risks and trade-offs can be accurately assessed.”

It’s the view of QLD, Tasmania and Victoria that “pausing now risks losing momentum, narrowing competitive tension, reducing optionality and ultimately impairing value for the game.”

The email continued: “We consider that CA has both the right and responsibility to continue finalising a model for market engagement that each State can consider and, if it chooses, use to determine whether and how to participate in respect of its team.”

The email also made a comment on each of the four conditions laid out by NSW and Queensland last week.

1. Cricket Australia governance reform

We support continued discussion on governance reform and agree Members should have an appropriate voice. However, this work was agreed as part of progressing Nazare, not as a reason to pause it.

2. Big Bash League governance

We acknowledge the need for clarity on future league governance and support CA continuing this work, including testing governance settings with prospective investors before final recommendations are put to Members.

3. Player agreement / MOU

We agree player arrangements must be understood before any final decision. However, any agreement should not confer a share of transaction proceeds or materially increase the effective player share of revenue as a condition of progressing Nazare.

4. State funding and distribution of proceeds

We support long-term funding certainty for CA and the States. If the process proceeds to sale, CA’s proposed approach appears to provide a balanced basis to address that issue while minimising adverse impacts on States, whether they elect to sell or not.

We also accept that proceeds from initial sales may be applied for the benefit of all States, with an appropriate incentive for first-moving States to balance risk, reward, and timing.

EXCERPT FROM THE REST OF THE EMAIL:

“Australian cricket has an opportunity to assess its options from a position of strength. Delay would weaken that position and risk allowing a strategic window to close.

For these reasons, WA Cricket, Cricket Tasmania, and Cricket Victoria wish to clarify that they did not understand the recent members’ meeting to have agreed to pause Project Nazare pending governance reform, MOU negotiations, funding agreements, or changes to Big Bash governance. The four matters are important, but they should be progressed in parallel and inform any final decision, not prevent market engagement from proceeding.

Accordingly, we support CA proceeding now by:

• continuing Project Nazare to engage with the market and better understand pricing variables;

• advancing CA and league governance discussions in parallel;

• continuing negotiations on State funding, distributions and player arrangements;

• preserving each shareholder’s right to assess any final transaction once the details are known; and

• ensuring no individual State’s current position prevents willing parties from progressing the opportunity to the point where an informed decision can be made.

• as a collective, seeking formal approval from CA to authorise any State that wishes to do so to move to the EOI stage as part of the BBL privatisation and self-determination process already agreed by the CEOs and confirmed by the CA Board on 15 May.

This approach best serves Australian cricket’s long-term interests by maintaining momentum, preserving flexibility, protecting Member approval rights, and allowing the game to assess a material strategic opportunity without prematurely closing down its options.

Cricket Australia had been hoping for all six states to agree on a privatisation model before negotiating the next steps with the Australian Cricketers’ Association.

But developments since Friday have further complicated negotiations which are already incredibly nuanced.