After a year-long push to raise money via private capital, Cricket Australia (CA) has announced it will not sell some or all of its Big Bash League (BBL) franchises.

The news comes after Queensland Cricket told CA it would join Cricket NSW in rejecting the private ownership idea first presented by CA in mid-2025.

So, why was CA looking at private equity, why did the two powerful states reject the idea, and are there any alternatives?

Why did CA pursue private equity?

The BBL was established in 2011 and consists of eight city-based franchises: two each in Melbourne and Sydney, plus teams in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart. CA owns the league and its franchises, while the state associations manage the teams.

In its early years, the competition was a breath of fresh air for cricket fans, with games regularly attracting healthy attendances and prime-time television audiences.

Despite the BBL’s success, CA has struggled financially: it has made annual losses in five of the past ten years and reached what CA described as a low point with the loss of A$31.9 million in 2023–24, before recovering to a smaller loss of $11.3 million in 2024–25.

The governing body has had to cut significant costs in areas such as administration, pathways and community cricket.

There is obvious appeal in a massive cash injection that would boost the bottom line.

As rumours of a possible selloff swirled, CA engaged the Boston Consulting Group to develop a two-tier privatisation model:

a 49% partial sale of six BBL clubs, and

a 49% partial sale of six BBL clubs, and

a full sale of one club in each of Sydney and........

© The Conversation