Indian corporates, which already own teams in T20 franchise leagues of South Africa, UAE, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, West Indies, and USA as well as The Hundred in England appear hesitant to get into Australia and the Big Bash League which has decided to sell stakes in their teams too. This might just be a strategic reluctance in order to drive the prices down.
Cricket Australia is hoping that privatisation will bring in a billion dollars, a nice round figure but one which might remain a pipe dream if Indian corporates show no interest.
Gradually, inexorably, cricket, which is already in the command of the Indian cricket board might be moving beyond official administrative control of such elected bodies to become a plaything of billionaires with huge cash reserves and egos to match. The current Indian monopoly other cricket boards complain about will be nothing compared to the corporate oligarchy that might follow.
“Owners in the 21st century are destroying what took more than a hundred years to build,” wrote Dave Zirin of US sport a decade ago. The subtitle of his book Bad Sports is: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love. It can be read as a cautionary tale.
ICC committee
The International Cricket Council has formed a committee to assess the growing power of the franchises, with Bangladesh’s Tamim Iqbal as chairman. It is looking to align franchise leagues with the Future Tours Programme and planning a World Club T20 tournament.
And what will the ICC do if the committee decides that monopoly is not good for the game, as indeed it isn’t? Giving in to India’s demands was in the DNA of the sport’s governing body long before the current Chairman Jay Shah took over. Will the ICC create sensible rules to prevent too much power resting in the hands of too few?
For Indian corporates, Australia is the final frontier. Last year they boosted English cricket by half a billion pounds by investing in The Hundred.
There are 16 leagues around the world. There were 87 teams in this year’s T20 World Cup cycle. And cricket (T20) returns to the Olympics at Los Angeles in 2028. The game appears to be thriving, which accounts for the huge corporate interest. Cricket boards around the world for all their faults have a default job description — develop the game at the grassroots, retain its character and distinctiveness through the red ball game, spread it across the world, and ensure a clear-cut path from the schools to the international level. There is corruption (and not just financial), th—re is political interference, sometimes even outright laziness, but the game has prospered.
Corporates don’t have confusing goals. Theirs is a single-point programme involving just the bottom line, or return on investment. In recent decades cricket has become huge business, but to hand over the game to businessmen might not be in its best interests.
Monopoly is unhealthy in business or sport or in the business of sport. It ruins competition, encourages manipulation of rules and results, ignores what is important for the sport if it doesn’t add to the profits.
Relaxing the rules
How long before the Board of Control for Cricket in India eases its rule of not allowing active Indian players to play in other leagues? Reliance (Mumbai Indians) and GMR (Delhi Capitals) own or have stakes in four other franchises, in England, South Africa, UAE and the US. Players cannot serve two masters, and it is possible that club contracts might come into conflict with those with the board.
Possibilities abound. Players might be forced to choose. Franchise cricket, or T20 itself might be governed by a body which has little to do with the ICC. Compromises might affect the FTP and Test cricket. Forget the rampant six-hitting or struggling bowlers, T20 has bigger problems off the field.
The Big Three — India, England, Australia — are also the teams keenest on Test cricket, but for how long? The domestic franchises belong to the cricket boards, only the teams have different owners. True. You could also argue that franchise cricket will keep Test cricket alive, and that’s a good argument.
But it assumes a level of enlightenment in those controlling the game that might not always be available.
Published – September 16, 2026 12:30 am IST
