Australian cricket is reportedly considering a significant increase in revenue generated from wagering product fees, aiming to bridge the substantial gap with the financial returns enjoyed by the NRL and AFL. This move comes as Cricket Australia (CA) grapples with decisions about the future of the Big Bash League (BBL) clubs, including the contentious prospect of selling stakes in them.
The discussion around enhancing wagering revenue is taking place at both national and state levels. CA’s board, under the chairmanship of former NSW premier Mike Baird, has reportedly discussed this possibility in a recent meeting. Concurrently, an alternative proposal for the BBL, put forward by Cricket NSW and circulated to CA and other state associations ahead of a crucial two-day meeting in Melbourne, also includes avenues for increased wagering income.
Sources familiar with confidential discussions have revealed that South Australia has put forth its own proposal. This proposal suggests a complete sale of the Melbourne Renegades and Sydney Thunder, while offering other state associations the discretion to decide whether to sell stakes in their remaining BBL clubs.
CA was approached for comment on these developments. In a previous statement, CA chief executive Todd Greenberg highlighted the need for the game’s leaders to evaluate their reliance on traditional revenue streams versus adopting global franchise models.
“The impacts of saying no to privatisation are potentially just as big as saying yes,” Greenberg stated. “We need to have an eye to the future, and we all know the global market is changing. Whether we can go against the global trend of privatised domestic leagues and continue to grow our Big Bash Leagues is an open question.”
The Wagering Revenue Divide
Currently, the NRL and AFL are understood to be collecting substantial annual product fees from wagering companies, estimated to be between $40 million and $50 million. These fees are typically calculated as a percentage of gambling turnover or total revenue, whichever figure is higher.
In contrast, CA’s revenue from similar sources is reportedly closer to $15 million, a significant disparity that decision-makers are increasingly acknowledging. This difference is largely attributed to the volume of betting markets offered by wagering companies on each sport. The surge in in-play betting options has particularly boosted product fees for the football codes.
Cricket’s Cautious Approach to Wagering
Cricket has historically taken a more conservative stance on the types of markets offered by its registered wagering partners. This caution stems from concerns related to the integrity of the game and its potential association with “spot-fixing” allegations. These allegations, which have surfaced periodically over the past 25 years, are often linked to wagers on specific, minor outcomes within matches, such as whether a no-ball will be bowled or a scoreless over will occur. These are areas that cricket’s integrity units must vigilantly monitor.
Beyond integrity concerns, cricket administrators have also been hesitant to pursue wagering revenue as aggressively as the NRL, AFL, and racing bodies due to worries about the marketing of the BBL and WBBL to younger audiences and families.
Separately, CA has an existing sponsorship deal with Bet365, which is visible through boundary signage at international matches. However, this sponsorship does not extend to the BBL and WBBL.
Navigating Financial Futures
Over the years, numerous proposals aimed at increasing revenue from product fees have been presented to CA, but many have been rejected due to concerns about the game’s image.
Recent years have also seen a growing apprehension about potential government crackdowns on sports wagering as a revenue source. This is occurring at a time when state governments have seen a dramatic increase in revenue from sports wagering, soaring from $215 million in 2017 to an estimated $1.13 billion in 2023-24, according to a Queensland government report.
However, the ongoing push for greater financial resources for CA and the state associations has propelled wagering back into the spotlight. A key point of contention is whether Australian cricket can adequately fund player payments and grassroots development through traditional commercial and broadcast avenues, or if it must embrace private capital by selling BBL club stakes. The exploration of wagering revenue streams may proceed irrespective of whether BBL clubs are sold.
Diverse Perspectives on BBL’s Future
Cricket NSW chief executive Lee Germon emphasised on Wednesday morning that his organisation is committed to exploring all viable alternatives before considering the sale of BBL clubs.
“Cricket NSW believe we owe our members, our fans, our cricket family that we can look them in the eye and say we’ve gone through every aspect of this decision, we’ve done our due diligence, in terms of coming to the right decision,” Germon stated. “That is the point we’re at now.”
He added, “We believe there need to be alternative proposals considered. We may well end up at the first proposal, which is selling all the clubs, but we need to do the due diligence. The more we have dug into this, the more complex it has become in terms of understanding the unknown and known flow-on effects of it.”
“The more we’ve got our heads around it, the more complicated it has become. There are different opinions around the table, but there’s a big responsibility to make the right decision for cricket, and we want to ensure we go through the process to enable us to do that.”
Germon highlighted that the underlying motivation for this debate is a shared desire for Australian cricket to flourish, even if there are differing views on the best path to achieve that growth.
“It’s a very positive thing to have the debate about what do we do? What are the consequences? Is there another way of doing it?” he remarked. “So, yes there’s different positions, but we’re not diametrically opposed to the fact we want cricket to prosper. We want the BBL to be the best competition it can ever be, we want the best players playing, [and] we want Australian cricket to be strong.”
