Australian cricket is exploring significant revenue boosts, potentially mirroring the substantial earnings of the NRL and AFL from wagering product fees. This move aims to close the considerable financial gap between cricket and the rival football codes, which reportedly rake in between $40 and $50 million annually from these fees. Cricket Australia (CA) currently garners approximately $15 million, a figure decision-makers are increasingly keen to enhance.
The discussion around increasing wagering revenue is taking place at both national and state levels. This comes as Cricket Australia grapples with significant decisions regarding the future of the Big Bash League (BBL). A key point of contention is the potential sale of stakes in the eight BBL clubs, a proposal set to be a central topic at a crucial two-day meeting between CA chief executive Todd Greenberg and state cricket association chiefs in Melbourne.
Exploring New Revenue Streams: Wagering Product Fees
The prospect of substantially increasing revenue through wagering product fees is on the table. This option was discussed at a recent CA board meeting, chaired by former New South Wales premier Mike Baird. Furthermore, an alternative proposal for the BBL, put forward by Cricket NSW, includes this avenue as a way to bolster cricket’s financial standing.
Currently, the NRL and AFL benefit from wagering product fees calculated as a percentage of gambling turnover or total revenue. The explosion of in-play betting options has significantly contributed to these earnings, as it allows for a vast number of markets to be offered. Cricket, in contrast, has maintained a more conservative approach to the types of markets offered by its registered wagering partners.
The Integrity Tightrope: Balancing Revenue and Risk
Cricket’s cautious stance is partly due to historical concerns surrounding “spot-fixing” allegations. These allegations have often been linked to wagers on micro-outcomes within games, such as the likelihood of a no-ball or a scoreless over. These specific markets are common in the massive, and often unregulated, South Asian betting market. Cricket’s integrity units remain vigilant about these risks.
Beyond integrity concerns, cricket administrators have also hesitated to aggressively pursue wagering revenue due to broader considerations. These include worries about the impact of extensive gambling marketing on children and families who are core to the BBL and Women’s Big Bash League (WBBL) audiences.
While CA has a long-standing sponsorship with Bet365, prominently featured in boundary signage at international matches, this deal does not extend to the BBL and WBBL.
BBL Club Stakes: A Divisive Decision
The debate over selling stakes in BBL clubs is multifaceted and has generated various proposals. One alternative, reportedly from South Australia, suggests selling 100% of the Melbourne Renegades and Sydney Thunder, while allowing other states the discretion to decide on selling stakes in their respective clubs.
CA CEO Todd Greenberg has emphasised the need for the game’s leaders to consider future revenue models beyond traditional sources. He stated, “The impacts of saying no to privatisation are potentially just as big as saying yes. 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.”
State Associations’ Perspectives
Cricket NSW CEO Lee Germon has voiced his association’s preference for exploring all possible 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 explained.
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 stressed that a shared objective underpins the debate: the growth of Australian cricket. While parties may differ on the methods, the ultimate goal is aligned. “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? 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.”
The Broader Financial Landscape
The push for increased revenue is occurring against a backdrop of significant growth in sports wagering revenue for state governments. Over the past decade, this revenue has surged dramatically, from $215 million in 2017 to an estimated $1.13 billion in 2023-24, according to a Queensland government report.
The core of the current debate lies in whether cricket can adequately fund player salaries and grassroots programs through traditional commercial and broadcast avenues, or if it must embrace private capital by selling BBL club stakes. The exploration of wagering revenue streams is likely to continue, irrespective of the outcome of the BBL club stake discussions.
