As per Cricketnews.com, Wednesday 9th September:

Todd Greenberg, CEO Of Cricket Australia:-
“Let me be crystal clear on that in the details, centrally contracted Australian players’ primacy is Test cricket, and that is written in the rules and regulations that any buyer will know”

- Cricketnews went on to say:

“CA’s insistence on retaining control of the schedule and protecting Test cricket availability is exactly the right stance to take entering privatisation. The history of T20 leagues around the world is littered with examples of boards that ceded too much ground to franchise owners and then struggled to claw back authority over scheduling and player management.”

​

---

I think from a conceptual standpoint almost every cricket fan agrees. No Thanks to moving the Tests out of the way for cookie-cutter franchises down under. I believe, though, they have a real game theory problem.

In some ways, what I will discuss matches the Economic theory of reflexivity, although I don’t want to view cricket as strictly economic. For the sake of ease, I will use the broader term “Adverse Selection”, and it’s okay if you’ve not heard of this; it’s simple.

The problem is as such:

- Process 1:

When a prospective buyer is evaluating the true worth of a franchise in the BBL, they must decide whether or not they believe Todd Greenberg. Is the Test Summer really never going to be moved in Australia.

- Process 2:

Bids will be made by multiple interested groups. Those investors who believe Greenberg is rock-solid and not bluffing will give the franchises lower valuations than investors who foresee being able to claim the prime-time viewing in the future. Consequently, the highest and best bids will all be made by those who are hedging against CA being unyielding and steadfast.

- Process 3:

The group of owners, as a collective, are then all jointly invested on the premise that one day they will see a large financial return once they get the Boxing Day viewing, or Starc bowling to Head in the final. Jointly then, since this is the premise they all chose to bid on, they will push aggressively to make it happen. In the interest of those looking to make profits, it doesn’t have to be immediately. But if they have factored into their bid value the idea they will one day get CA to yield, it becomes imperative that they do get CA to yield.

The End Result

We see then that by stating that it won’t happen, they have unintentionally ‘selected’ for investors who are against, or adverse to the stated position. This adverse selection then develops, by financial necessity, into aggressive actions by owners to destabilise and collapse the initial position of Cricket Australia.

I’m not saying that Greenberg should’ve said “fine, you can have the test summer” to avoid this whole process. That would be one way to avoid the adverse selection chain. Better, though, perhaps will be not selling the franchises off to the highest bidder, as selected by the selling state. Instead, they should be ranking ownership proposals based on promised investments in the lower tiers and academies, on the ownership group sharing the vision for the future that Cricket Australia has publicly declared, and on trying to soften the barrage that CA has signed up for in the coming decade. That might come at a cost in the tens of millions, though, and someone is going to have to be the one who turns down that money. Right now, it seems every state may need that person, and I’m not sure where they will find them.

The game theory on its own also doesn’t “doom” Australian Cricket; this should be acknowledged. Even if all the BBL owners do apply heavy pressure to get every part of the primetime window, and every test player they can into the franchise squads, that doesn’t mean CA has to yield. It just means they’ve signed up for a mighty fight across the next decade. The question now is, are they ready for the fight?