Big Bash audit: What is the future of the BBL?

The 2022 off-season looms as a pivotal one in the history of the men’s Big Bash League.

After two COVID-hit seasons where average crowd numbers and broadcast ratings dropped, Cricket Australia will conduct a thorough review of the competition to map out its future, with tournament chief Alistair Dobson labelling the 2022-23 season "probably one of the most important we've ever had".

A key question to resolve will be one that officials have grappled with for more than a decade – is the BBL primarily an elite cricket tournament, or an entertainment product designed to attract new fans to the sport?

To help better understand the issues confronting the league, cricket.com.au provided confidentiality to senior voices in the playing and coaching ranks as well as administration, allowing them to speak freely about what they believe the drawbacks of the competition are, and what can be done to address them.

Season length

One of the main discussion points about the BBL in recent years has been whether the 61-game season is too long, both in terms of the tournament's duration and the quantity of matches.

From its inaugural 31-game season, the Big Bash's footprint has expanded significantly, most notably when the $1.182 billion, six-year broadcast deal signed in 2018 pushed the tournament out to a full home-and-away competition.

But to look deeper at the season length, it is important to consider what the broadcast deal means for Australian cricket.

Bringing in $197m annually, up from the $118m per year under the previous deal, the 2018 agreement has allowed CA to accelerate its investment in women's cricket and at a grassroots level, plus fund other domestic competitions like the Sheffield Shield as well as indoor cricket, under-age cricket, Indigenous pathways, all-abilities cricket and the Cricket Blast junior program.

These are all important programs for the sport, and some will ultimately yield a commercial return, but they currently rely heavily on the cash injection from broadcast agreements and commercial deals to survive financially.

A shorter BBL season would mean less content for broadcasters, which would likely mean a reduction in value of the broadcast rights, which would result in less funding for these programs.

It needs to be acknowledged that a 61-game BBL season and the money it has helped generate has been hugely important for the sport and the impact of a shorter tournament would be felt right through the game.

So, is the season too long? It depends on who you ask.

Respected player voices like Adam Zampa and Peter Siddle believe so, Matthew Wade says it is fine the way it is, while Aussie legend Ricky Ponting and Melbourne Stars coach David Hussey say 14 games per team is OK, but they need to be played in a shorter timeframe. One senior player told cricket.com.au the length of tournament should be increased by a week or so to allow more time between home games, which would make them more marketable for clubs and attractive to fans to attend.

---

T20 tournament lengths around the world

2021 IPL: 60 games in 51 days

2021-22 BBL: 61 games in 54 days

2022 PSL: 34 games in 32 days

2021 Hundred: 34 games in 31 days

2021 CPL: 33 games in 21 days

---

The conflicting views were illustrated by two highly respected figures in the lead up to the BBL finals last month. Just days after Siddle said more games could be squeezed into a shorter space of time, Sixers coach Greg Shipperd lamented that his side had to take five flights in eight days and play six times in less than two weeks, which he says contributed to their injury-plagued finish to the season.

A full home-and-away season is the most equitable schedule for clubs and allows each (when state borders are open) to play a home game against all seven opposing teams. However, it’s worth noting that Australia’s two biggest winter sporting leagues, the AFL and NRL, do not have this model.

Those who say the season should be shortened often point to declining average crowd numbers and television ratings as proof that people are losing interest. The past two years of pandemic have had a dramatic impact on crowd numbers, and while it's true before that the average number of people at games and watching at home per match was trending down, the total crowd numbers steadily increased up to 2019-20, chiefly due to there being more matches, which brings more opportunities for people to watch.

Accurate broadcast figures are notoriously difficult to pin down given the ultra-competitive market, but industry sources are confident the BBL remains the most-watched Australian domestic sporting competition across TV and streaming platforms on a per-game basis.

A longer season also allows the league to take matches to regional centres like Coffs Harbour, Moe, Alice Springs, Launceston and Geelong, exposing even more people to the competition. 

---

Total and average BBL attendance since 2015-16

BBL|05: 1,029,285 | Avg per game: 29,408 (35 games)

BBL|06: 1,053,997 | Avg: 30,114 (35)

BBL|07: 1,143,763 | Avg: 26,599 (43)

BBL|08: 1,214,965 | Avg: 20,592 (59)

BBL|09: 1,133,114 | Avg: 18,575 (61)

*BBL|10: 473,770 | Avg: 7,766 (61)

*BBL|11: 412,547 | Avg: 6,763 (61)

*Seasons played during COVID-19 pandemic amid public health orders. Closed venues and neutral grounds significantly impacted attendance

---

This summer's tournament saw 61 games played in 54 days – a period that included five Ashes Tests, of which two were day-night matches – and was actually a week shorter than the 61-day tournament in 2018-19 and only 10 days longer than the inaugural, 31-game season.

However, reducing the number of games is among the options under consideration for BBL|12.

Doing so would first require a renegotiation of contracts with not only the domestic rights holders Seven West Media and Foxtel, but also international broadcasters and every other stakeholder in the game. Commercial partners, venues and every sponsor at the eight clubs have all signed deals based on the current 61-game season. While redoing all these contracts is possible, it would require a significant amount of work and further reduce the revenue the competition currently generates.

Players' pay would also be affected. Under the revenue-sharing agreement between CA and the players – many of whom are currently calling for fewer games – less revenue means their share of it would be reduced.

Ultimately, a shorter tournament would mean less money for everyone in Australian cricket, at least in the short-term.

There is a long-term argument that a shorter, more dynamic season for just six weeks in the summer holidays that is better able to attract star players (more on that later) would be a more valuable proposition for broadcasters.

One administrator added that given one of CA's motivations for expanding the season in the first place was an anticipated decline in the broadcast value of international cricket, which has seemingly not materialised, there is even further cause to re-assess the length of the competition.

International superstars

Another common complaint about the BBL is that the quality of international players has declined compared to the early years of the competition. But is that true?

The Big Bash has long celebrated the input of journeyman imports and emerging international stars alongside big-name recruits such as Kevin Pietersen, Lasith Malinga and Sunil Narine. The likes of Luke Wright, Yasir Arafat and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan were hugely popular in the early years of the competition, while Jofra Archer was almost unknown when he first appeared in the BBL.

Equally, today's Big Bash internationals are a mix of some of the leading T20 players in the world and lesser-known imports. Superstars like Rashid Khan, Andre Russell, Nicholas Pooran, AB de Villiers, Dale Steyn and Alex Hales have all appeared in the Big Bash in recent seasons, while uncapped players like Joe Clarke and Laurie Evans have also made an impact.

In the early years, the BBL was also blessed by timing. The end of a golden era of Australian cricket meant a group of iconic players were still young enough to extend their careers in the new domestic T20 competition; the likes of Shane Warne, Matthew Hayden, Brett Lee, Mike Hussey and Stuart MacGill were all incredibly popular in the early years of the tournament, and then made way for retired stars like Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson.

Similarly, retired internationals like Pietersen, Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Brendon McCullum and Kumar Sangakkara all took advantage of a chance for a late-career payday and made a huge impact on the tournament in its early years.

What has changed is the introduction of other domestic T20 leagues around the world which has provided more choice for international players, both current and retired. Domestic leagues in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the UAE have all popped up in the December-January window that the BBL used to own exclusively.

Current salaries for internationals in the BBL are no match for those offered in these other leagues, which are up to two weeks shorter than the BBL but can pay players almost twice as much due to lower tax rates and payment in US dollars.

"Paying an overseas player $100,000 or $120,000, which may have worked in BBL|03 or BBL|04, that's not going to cut it now," Cricket Victoria CEO Nick Cummins said recently.

"Players are professionals and their time is perishable. They've got a certain number of games in them, and they're going to try and play where they can realise their full commercial value."

The Big Bash's appeal to international players has also been hit hard by the pandemic. Where players had been willing to accept less money to play in world-famous venues in front of big crowds while enjoying an Australian summer off the field, COVID-19 restrictions in the past two seasons have largely denied them that opportunity. The requirement to quarantine for two weeks upon arrival in Australia has also been a turn off for many players.

Internationals say a shorter tournament would make it a more attractive proposition, but that is a Catch-22 for the league because less games would likely lead to less broadcast revenue, which would mean less money to pay these players.

Another drawback of a longer tournament is the big-name imports are often unable to stay for the duration of the season due to other commitments. In BBL|11, players from Afghanistan, England and Pakistan were called back early by their home boards, meaning clubs had fewer big-name players at the business end of the season. While it's long been the case that international players have been called home partway through a tournament, the chaos the pandemic has created with the already crowded international schedule has exacerbated the problem.

So while the Big Bash is still able to attract the superstar talent it always has, keeping them for the whole tournament has become much more challenging.

The introduction of a third international in 2020 was designed to help alleviate this problem – the Stars used it this summer to sign Andre Russell for five games – but its success is hard to gauge as its two seasons have coincided with the pandemic.

The league remains hopeful an international player draft, which has twice been kyboshed by the pandemic, could help enliven the competition's chase for big-name stars, similar to the drafts and auctions held in other T20 leagues around the world.

Currently, discussions between clubs and overseas players are done privately, meaning interest from star players only becomes public if a deal gets done.

It's hoped players nominating themselves for the draft and the public bidding from clubs on draft night – in a made-for-television event – would, at the very least, underline the depth of talent interested in the competition and create debate in the off-season.

A draft would also be a cleaner way for the league to provide extra money to attract overseas players, with the intention that internationals would sit outside the club’s salary cap.

However, many players and coaches are resistant to the concept of a draft. Players like Rashid Khan, Alex Hales and James Vince have long-standing relationships with BBL clubs and many internationals have indicated they would only return to the BBL if they can be guaranteed they will land at the club of their choice.

Two prominent BBL figures told cricket.com.au the clubs should have the right to retain at least two international players before the draft, and it's understood the option to retain players or match bids will be considered by the league if the draft is introduced.

How a draft would handle a club's need to replace an injured or suddenly unavailable international after the draft has taken place remains another sticking point.

Availability of Australia's best players

The Big Bash is an anomaly on the global T20 circuit in that there isn't, and has never been, a clear window in the calendar for the tournament to be played.

It's a dilemma the competition has faced since its inception, with no clear solution. It's accepted that the BBL thrives during the school holidays and over the Christmas period but cancelling the annual Boxing Day and New Year's Tests to free up Australia's best players to play in the BBL seems unthinkable.

One possible solution that has been floated is arranging a BBL window for the last three weeks of January, after the annual Sydney Test, which could open the door for the likes of David Warner, Mitchell Starc and Pat Cummins to play the latter stages of the tournament.

Cricket Australia has, in recent years, tried hard to avoid scheduling white-ball internationals during the BBL, meaning players like Glenn Maxwell, Aaron Finch, Marcus Stoinis and Adam Zampa have been free to play the whole Big Bash.

However, manipulating the schedule is easier said than done as the structure of the international summer relies upon agreements with other countries and is not entirely in CA's hands. Like when Australia played three ODIs in India in mid-January 2020, or last November's T20 World Cup that saw, after quarantine requirements, the Ashes start two weeks later than in the past, meaning the Test summer finished in mid-January, by which time the Big Bash was almost over.

A new Future Tours Program for bilateral international cricket between 2024-31 is yet to be finalised.

Another complication is how Australia's biggest names are contracted and linked to BBL clubs. The controversy this summer surrounding Steve Smith highlighted the fact he did not have a contract with the Sydney Sixers, in the understanding that he would not be available for most of the tournament.

But the unpredictability of international selection means clubs often carry players on their list who aren't available for most of the tournament. This summer, Scott Boland played just two games for the Hobart Hurricanes due to his unexpected Test call-up, while the likes of Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Travis Head and Alex Carey were all contracted by Big Bash clubs despite being largely unavailable due to the Ashes.

This creates a situation where a significant chuck of a club’s salary cap is taken up by a player who may not play a single game due to international commitments.

One possible solution that has been floated would be to remove CA contracted players from BBL club lists. This would free up significant space in the salary cap, which could instead be used on big-name internationals, and also mean more local players – who would be available for the entire tournament – would earn BBL deals.

Those with CA contracts would instead be linked to a BBL club but sit outside its contract list and salary cap – not unlike the process for state teams – and be paid instead through (substantial) match payments whenever they are free to play, or by an increase to their central contract. It would then be up to these players to make themselves available to their club where possible in order to be paid. A solution for what happens to injured players, and those elevated to a CA contract during the year, would need to be negotiated.

There could even be a draft of CA contracted players, or a reverse draft, where players choose which club they are affiliated to.

The main stumbling block to this proposal would be getting the CA contracted players to essentially give up the guarantee of a lucrative Big Bash deal and take their chance on the international schedule allowing them to play and be paid.

One senior figure at the Australian Cricketers' Association, the players' union, conceded it would take a re-think of the current central contract agreement, but added senior players should be willing to make personal financial sacrifices for the betterment of the competition.

And with the current Memorandum of Understanding between CA and the ACA set to expire in July, there is a chance on the horizon to negotiate a change.

The scars of two COVID-hit seasons

In canvassing views across the league, there is an undoubted commitment to reinvigorate the Big Bash. However, heightened frustrations after two difficult seasons where the realities of the pandemic have hit hard may need to be addressed before a collaborative approach to the competition's future can be reached.

All eight clubs had players test positive to COVID-19 this summer and games largely continued as scheduled. And while that was a logistical triumph for the league, it meant some of the harder-hit teams were forced to pluck players from club ranks to field a side.

Some club senior figures felt player welfare was put secondary to logistics and there has been growing annoyance from clubs who feel that their voices are not heard during off-season consultations.

The continued absence of the Decision Review System (which would have been introduced in BBL|11 if not for the issues navigating state borders) or a challenge process of any kind remains a major frustration. That is expected to be resolved for next season, although its introduction will be another hefty cost to the league, while the introduction of three new rules two seasons ago also divided players and coaches.

The Power Surge has been well received as a good innovation but the Bash Boost point and rarely-used X-Factor sub have been heavily criticised, and club figures say their feedback has fallen on deaf ears.

Dobson says all three rules will be assessed in the off-season and conceded the Bash Boost and X-Factor have not had the desired impact.

Dobson added the time taken to play matches remains something he is keen to address, with a push to get play under three hours, but one senior player says the current rules around over rates are confusing and lead to inconsistencies, especially when matches are impacted by rain.

However, the consensus is sacrifices need to be made by everyone to help the league return to its peak.

As one senior figure said: "There should be more doing what's best for the competition, and not always just what is self-serving."