The BBL clubs are owned by Cricket Australia and leased out to the states they are in.
Recently, the Cricket Australia board asked the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) to provide recommendations on the future of the BBL and WBBL.
One of the propositions was for Cricket Australia to seek out private investment and potential ownership of the franchises.
BCG has been embroiled in controversy having been accused of supporting the set up the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
The GHF is the Israeli- and US-backed food distribution site where hundreds of Palestinians were killed attempting to access food, to which the company’s leadership apologised and stopped involvement with the GHF.
Nonetheless, Cricket Australia sought out the controversial Sydney-based consulting agency for advice.
While there are potential benefits: players could be paid more, elite overseas talent signed, and increased investment in marketing and fan engagement could increase – the potential issues and risks are plentiful and arguably stronger: a focus on profit over development, conflicts of interest, the erosion of the notion of public ownership, the current flow of profit to grassroots could cease, and opening to corruption.
As a lover of the longer formats of the game, it is hard to resist the sense of doom of Test cricket.
We live in a time of short-form content domination; it feels like a matter of time until we lose the art of a forward defence, or heaven forbid, a leave.
The IPL is a league of privately owned teams; however, the league itself is owned by the Board of Control for Cricket in India. It is likely privatisation of the BBL would take a similar model, with Cricket Australia keeping ownership of the league and the selling of 49% of the clubs, or even complete ownership to private investors.
The Hundred in England was recently opened to private investment, with multiple franchises being bought by owners of IPL clubs.
Mitch Owen celebrates scoring a century. (Photo by Steve Bell/Getty Images)
The difference is, The Hundred has only been around of a couple of years; the rebranding of clubs is unlikely to change the fans perspective or support for their team.
In contrast, the BBL has been going for over 15 years, there is attachment to these teams.
Could we be seeing the Sydney Thunder rebranded to the Sydney Knight Riders or the Hobart Hurricanes becoming the Hobart Sunrisers?
At a time where rich folk feel the need to own everything, does the BBL need to be pulled into the web of never-ending capitalistic endeavour on the recommendation of a consulting group that has an alleged role in the genocide in Gaza?