Suzuki Australia 'ready' for new emissions regulations
Suzuki, like every other manufacturer operating in Australia, is now obliged to meet set average carbon emissions targets across its fleet each year, or be penalised $100 per g/km of CO2 for every vehicle that exceeds the target.
The brand's entire Australian fleet falls into the Type 1 passenger car category, which means each car is subject to a CO2 limit of 141g/km for 2025. This limit will drop to 117g/km in 2026, 92g/km in 2027, and eventually 58g/km in 2029.
Though Suzuki's Australian lineup currently features only two mild-hybrids and no EVs, general manager Michael Pachota maintains NVES is simply another regulatory hurdle for the brand to overcome.
"We've been here for a long time. We're not going anywhere," he told CarExpert.
CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal.
"NVES is just another thing that we have to adapt and evolve our product portfolio to meet. With that said, the Australian consumer will decide."
Suzuki's model range in Australia is currently undergoing a revamp after several vehicles fell victim to new safety regulations last year. With its up-to-date cars, Suzuki is, on average, in the clear for 2025 – the Swift Hybrid has maximum claimed emissions of 90g/km of CO2, while the Fronx Hybrid produces 113g/km.
Only the Jimny exceeds the target with a minimum of 146g/km across its lineup.
The defunct S-Cross, Vitara, and Swift Sport are all on the bubble of the current 141g/km target, while the Ignis is on par with the Fronx Hybrid. Only limited dealer stock of these models remains.
The emissions of these vehicles means Suzuki will likely exceed the average fleet-wide CO2 limit in three year's time, which means more efficient models will be required to offset the 'dirtier' ones.
These efforts will be bolstered by the Vitara Hybrid – albeit with mild-hybrid or 'strong' hybrid powertrains as-yet unconfirmed – and electric eVitara in early 2026, while Suzuki could look overseas for additional hybrid models.
In the UK, Suzuki sells the Across plug-in hybrid (PHEV) – a rebadged version of the outgoing Toyota RAV4 – that produces a claimed 26g/km of CO2. There's also the full-hybrid Swace – a rebadged Toyota Corolla Touring Sports wagon – with claimed emissions of 102g/km.
This, in theory, could provide Australian customers with more choice in Suzuki models than ever, and Mr Pachota maintains buyer attitudes will shape the brand's direction beyond its initial plans.
"Our plan is quite good, I've gotta say. We're ready for it," he told CarExpert. "As the market changes or there's different conditions in the market with competitors and so forth, and if that actual measurement of NVES changes because it's constantly up in the air, or whatever it may be, we'll adapt and evolve, and we're very prepared to do so."
Mr Pachota's confident sentiment is in contrast with recent comments made by Suzuki Queensland – a separate entity in charge of the Sunshine State and New South Wales' Northern Rivers region – general manager Paul Dillon.
In a separate CarExpert article published this week, Mr Dillon claimed NVES will boost Chinese brands, raise prices, punish makers of small cars, and end up forcing many buyers to shop for less efficient used cars.
"I would say, 'Would you consider a Suzuki to be a reasonably efficient car?'," Mr Dillon told CarExpert.
"And to consider that next year there will be penalties on cars like Fronx, for a 1.5-litre hybrid vehicle with [an integrated starter generator], there are still penalties on that car next year."
He continued by saying Suzuki Queensland would have to raise the prices of its vehicles if NVES fines begin to stack up – a fate he also expects to befall other non-Chinese carmakers – making cheaper Chinese cars look more appealing.
"The legislation's almost leaning towards [Chinese brands], isn't it?" Mr Dillon said.
Asked whether the eVitara would be able to offset Suzuki's average CO2 emissions, Mr Dillon says he believes "there will be a small market for EVs".
"Unfortunately, I don't think the government fully considered that. I think there's issues with the NVES they haven't fully considered, unless they specifically are out to raise more tax from the consumers."
MORE: Australia's new emissions regulations are poorly thought out, says local car brand boss
MORE: Suzuki Vitara electric, hybrid SUVs locked in for Australia
MORE: What the first federal emission standard means for Aussie car buyers
MORE: Everything Suzuki
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Despite Suzuki's relatively slow rollout of electrified vehicles, the brand's local arm says it's prepared to deal with Australia's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) as it readies additional mild-hybrids and its first electric vehicle (EV).
Suzuki, like every other manufacturer operating in Australia, is now obliged to meet set average carbon emissions targets across its fleet each year, or be penalised $100 per g/km of CO2 for every vehicle that exceeds the target.
The brand's entire Australian fleet falls into the Type 1 passenger car category, which means each car is subject to a CO2 limit of 141g/km for 2025. This limit will drop to 117g/km in 2026, 92g/km in 2027, and eventually 58g/km in 2029.
Though Suzuki's Australian lineup currently features only two mild-hybrids and no EVs, general manager Michael Pachota maintains NVES is simply another regulatory hurdle for the brand to overcome.
"We've been here for a long time. We're not going anywhere," he told CarExpert.
CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal.
"NVES is just another thing that we have to adapt and evolve our product portfolio to meet. With that said, the Australian consumer will decide."
Suzuki's model range in Australia is currently undergoing a revamp after several vehicles fell victim to new safety regulations last year. With its up-to-date cars, Suzuki is, on average, in the clear for 2025 – the Swift Hybrid has maximum claimed emissions of 90g/km of CO2, while the Fronx Hybrid produces 113g/km.
Only the Jimny exceeds the target with a minimum of 146g/km across its lineup.
The defunct S-Cross, Vitara, and Swift Sport are all on the bubble of the current 141g/km target, while the Ignis is on par with the Fronx Hybrid. Only limited dealer stock of these models remains.
The emissions of these vehicles means Suzuki will likely exceed the average fleet-wide CO2 limit in three year's time, which means more efficient models will be required to offset the 'dirtier' ones.
These efforts will be bolstered by the Vitara Hybrid – albeit with mild-hybrid or 'strong' hybrid powertrains as-yet unconfirmed – and electric eVitara in early 2026, while Suzuki could look overseas for additional hybrid models.
In the UK, Suzuki sells the Across plug-in hybrid (PHEV) – a rebadged version of the outgoing Toyota RAV4 – that produces a claimed 26g/km of CO2. There's also the full-hybrid Swace – a rebadged Toyota Corolla Touring Sports wagon – with claimed emissions of 102g/km.
This, in theory, could provide Australian customers with more choice in Suzuki models than ever, and Mr Pachota maintains buyer attitudes will shape the brand's direction beyond its initial plans.
"Our plan is quite good, I've gotta say. We're ready for it," he told CarExpert. "As the market changes or there's different conditions in the market with competitors and so forth, and if that actual measurement of NVES changes because it's constantly up in the air, or whatever it may be, we'll adapt and evolve, and we're very prepared to do so."
Mr Pachota's confident sentiment is in contrast with recent comments made by Suzuki Queensland – a separate entity in charge of the Sunshine State and New South Wales' Northern Rivers region – general manager Paul Dillon.
In a separate CarExpert article published this week, Mr Dillon claimed NVES will boost Chinese brands, raise prices, punish makers of small cars, and end up forcing many buyers to shop for less efficient used cars.
"I would say, 'Would you consider a Suzuki to be a reasonably efficient car?'," Mr Dillon told CarExpert.
"And to consider that next year there will be penalties on cars like Fronx, for a 1.5-litre hybrid vehicle with [an integrated starter generator], there are still penalties on that car next year."
He continued by saying Suzuki Queensland would have to raise the prices of its vehicles if NVES fines begin to stack up – a fate he also expects to befall other non-Chinese carmakers – making cheaper Chinese cars look more appealing.
"The legislation's almost leaning towards [Chinese brands], isn't it?" Mr Dillon said.
Asked whether the eVitara would be able to offset Suzuki's average CO2 emissions, Mr Dillon says he believes "there will be a small market for EVs".
"Unfortunately, I don't think the government fully considered that. I think there's issues with the NVES they haven't fully considered, unless they specifically are out to raise more tax from the consumers."
MORE: Australia's new emissions regulations are poorly thought out, says local car brand boss
MORE: Suzuki Vitara electric, hybrid SUVs locked in for Australia
MORE: What the first federal emission standard means for Aussie car buyers
MORE: Everything Suzuki
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Despite Suzuki's relatively slow rollout of electrified vehicles, the brand's local arm says it's prepared to deal with Australia's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) as it readies additional mild-hybrids and its first electric vehicle (EV).
Suzuki, like every other manufacturer operating in Australia, is now obliged to meet set average carbon emissions targets across its fleet each year, or be penalised $100 per g/km of CO2 for every vehicle that exceeds the target.
The brand's entire Australian fleet falls into the Type 1 passenger car category, which means each car is subject to a CO2 limit of 141g/km for 2025. This limit will drop to 117g/km in 2026, 92g/km in 2027, and eventually 58g/km in 2029.
Though Suzuki's Australian lineup currently features only two mild-hybrids and no EVs, general manager Michael Pachota maintains NVES is simply another regulatory hurdle for the brand to overcome.
"We've been here for a long time. We're not going anywhere," he told CarExpert.
CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal.
"NVES is just another thing that we have to adapt and evolve our product portfolio to meet. With that said, the Australian consumer will decide."
Suzuki's model range in Australia is currently undergoing a revamp after several vehicles fell victim to new safety regulations last year. With its up-to-date cars, Suzuki is, on average, in the clear for 2025 – the Swift Hybrid has maximum claimed emissions of 90g/km of CO2, while the Fronx Hybrid produces 113g/km.
Only the Jimny exceeds the target with a minimum of 146g/km across its lineup.
The defunct S-Cross, Vitara, and Swift Sport are all on the bubble of the current 141g/km target, while the Ignis is on par with the Fronx Hybrid. Only limited dealer stock of these models remains.
The emissions of these vehicles means Suzuki will likely exceed the average fleet-wide CO2 limit in three year's time, which means more efficient models will be required to offset the 'dirtier' ones.
These efforts will be bolstered by the Vitara Hybrid – albeit with mild-hybrid or 'strong' hybrid powertrains as-yet unconfirmed – and electric eVitara in early 2026, while Suzuki could look overseas for additional hybrid models.
In the UK, Suzuki sells the Across plug-in hybrid (PHEV) – a rebadged version of the outgoing Toyota RAV4 – that produces a claimed 26g/km of CO2. There's also the full-hybrid Swace – a rebadged Toyota Corolla Touring Sports wagon – with claimed emissions of 102g/km.
This, in theory, could provide Australian customers with more choice in Suzuki models than ever, and Mr Pachota maintains buyer attitudes will shape the brand's direction beyond its initial plans.
"Our plan is quite good, I've gotta say. We're ready for it," he told CarExpert. "As the market changes or there's different conditions in the market with competitors and so forth, and if that actual measurement of NVES changes because it's constantly up in the air, or whatever it may be, we'll adapt and evolve, and we're very prepared to do so."
Mr Pachota's confident sentiment is in contrast with recent comments made by Suzuki Queensland – a separate entity in charge of the Sunshine State and New South Wales' Northern Rivers region – general manager Paul Dillon.
In a separate CarExpert article published this week, Mr Dillon claimed NVES will boost Chinese brands, raise prices, punish makers of small cars, and end up forcing many buyers to shop for less efficient used cars.
"I would say, 'Would you consider a Suzuki to be a reasonably efficient car?'," Mr Dillon told CarExpert.
"And to consider that next year there will be penalties on cars like Fronx, for a 1.5-litre hybrid vehicle with [an integrated starter generator], there are still penalties on that car next year."
He continued by saying Suzuki Queensland would have to raise the prices of its vehicles if NVES fines begin to stack up – a fate he also expects to befall other non-Chinese carmakers – making cheaper Chinese cars look more appealing.
"The legislation's almost leaning towards [Chinese brands], isn't it?" Mr Dillon said.
Asked whether the eVitara would be able to offset Suzuki's average CO2 emissions, Mr Dillon says he believes "there will be a small market for EVs".
"Unfortunately, I don't think the government fully considered that. I think there's issues with the NVES they haven't fully considered, unless they specifically are out to raise more tax from the consumers."
MORE: Australia's new emissions regulations are poorly thought out, says local car brand boss
MORE: Suzuki Vitara electric, hybrid SUVs locked in for Australia
MORE: What the first federal emission standard means for Aussie car buyers
MORE: Everything Suzuki
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Despite Suzuki's relatively slow rollout of electrified vehicles, the brand's local arm says it's prepared to deal with Australia's New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) as it readies additional mild-hybrids and its first electric vehicle (EV).
Suzuki, like every other manufacturer operating in Australia, is now obliged to meet set average carbon emissions targets across its fleet each year, or be penalised $100 per g/km of CO2 for every vehicle that exceeds the target.
The brand's entire Australian fleet falls into the Type 1 passenger car category, which means each car is subject to a CO2 limit of 141g/km for 2025. This limit will drop to 117g/km in 2026, 92g/km in 2027, and eventually 58g/km in 2029.
Though Suzuki's Australian lineup currently features only two mild-hybrids and no EVs, general manager Michael Pachota maintains NVES is simply another regulatory hurdle for the brand to overcome.
"We've been here for a long time. We're not going anywhere," he told CarExpert.
CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal.
"NVES is just another thing that we have to adapt and evolve our product portfolio to meet. With that said, the Australian consumer will decide."
Suzuki's model range in Australia is currently undergoing a revamp after several vehicles fell victim to new safety regulations last year. With its up-to-date cars, Suzuki is, on average, in the clear for 2025 – the Swift Hybrid has maximum claimed emissions of 90g/km of CO2, while the Fronx Hybrid produces 113g/km.
Only the Jimny exceeds the target with a minimum of 146g/km across its lineup.
The defunct S-Cross, Vitara, and Swift Sport are all on the bubble of the current 141g/km target, while the Ignis is on par with the Fronx Hybrid. Only limited dealer stock of these models remains.
The emissions of these vehicles means Suzuki will likely exceed the average fleet-wide CO2 limit in three year's time, which means more efficient models will be required to offset the 'dirtier' ones.
These efforts will be bolstered by the Vitara Hybrid – albeit with mild-hybrid or 'strong' hybrid powertrains as-yet unconfirmed – and electric eVitara in early 2026, while Suzuki could look overseas for additional hybrid models.
In the UK, Suzuki sells the Across plug-in hybrid (PHEV) – a rebadged version of the outgoing Toyota RAV4 – that produces a claimed 26g/km of CO2. There's also the full-hybrid Swace – a rebadged Toyota Corolla Touring Sports wagon – with claimed emissions of 102g/km.
This, in theory, could provide Australian customers with more choice in Suzuki models than ever, and Mr Pachota maintains buyer attitudes will shape the brand's direction beyond its initial plans.
"Our plan is quite good, I've gotta say. We're ready for it," he told CarExpert. "As the market changes or there's different conditions in the market with competitors and so forth, and if that actual measurement of NVES changes because it's constantly up in the air, or whatever it may be, we'll adapt and evolve, and we're very prepared to do so."
Mr Pachota's confident sentiment is in contrast with recent comments made by Suzuki Queensland – a separate entity in charge of the Sunshine State and New South Wales' Northern Rivers region – general manager Paul Dillon.
In a separate CarExpert article published this week, Mr Dillon claimed NVES will boost Chinese brands, raise prices, punish makers of small cars, and end up forcing many buyers to shop for less efficient used cars.
"I would say, 'Would you consider a Suzuki to be a reasonably efficient car?'," Mr Dillon told CarExpert.
"And to consider that next year there will be penalties on cars like Fronx, for a 1.5-litre hybrid vehicle with [an integrated starter generator], there are still penalties on that car next year."
He continued by saying Suzuki Queensland would have to raise the prices of its vehicles if NVES fines begin to stack up – a fate he also expects to befall other non-Chinese carmakers – making cheaper Chinese cars look more appealing.
"The legislation's almost leaning towards [Chinese brands], isn't it?" Mr Dillon said.
Asked whether the eVitara would be able to offset Suzuki's average CO2 emissions, Mr Dillon says he believes "there will be a small market for EVs".
"Unfortunately, I don't think the government fully considered that. I think there's issues with the NVES they haven't fully considered, unless they specifically are out to raise more tax from the consumers."
MORE: Australia's new emissions regulations are poorly thought out, says local car brand boss
MORE: Suzuki Vitara electric, hybrid SUVs locked in for Australia
MORE: What the first federal emission standard means for Aussie car buyers
MORE: Everything Suzuki
Content originally sourced from: CarExpert.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
2025 MG IM5 price and specs
MG has added a pair of premium electric vehicles (EVs) to local showrooms. Supplied Credit: CarExpert The MG IM5 liftback and IM6 SUV are borrowed from IM Motors, parent company SAIC Motor's premium brand, and slot between more mainstream EVs like the MG 4 hatchback and MG S5 EV small SUV, and the Chinese brand's flagship Cyberster sports car These new EVs wear an MG Motor badge on their tailgate, but feature IM's logo throughout. Though it's larger, the IM5 is arguably MG's rival for the Tesla Model 3. The base IM5 Premium RWD uses a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery and a 400V electrical architecture, resulting in slower charging speeds than the others which use a nickel manganese cobalt (NCM) battery and an 800V electrical architecture. Supplied Credit: CarExpert MG quotes 20 minutes to charge the IM5 Premium RWD from 30 to 80 per cent using a DC fast-charger, against 15.2 minutes for the Platinum and Performance variants. All IM5s feature vehicle-to-load (V2L) functionality, with a maximum output of 6.6kW. MG doesn't quote total system power and torque outputs for the flagship Performance AWD, which is the only variant with two electric motors. It's also the only variant with air suspension and Continuously Controlled Damping. All IM5s feature double-wishbone front and multi-link rear suspension, as well as four-wheel steering. All IM5s ride on staggered wheels, and feature four-piston front brake calipers with ventilated discs at all four wheels. The IM5 has a drag coefficient of 0.226Cd in base Premium RWD trim, and 0.237 in the others. MG's IM models are covered by a seven-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty, though if you don't service within MG's network this drops down to a five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty (or five years/160,000km if the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes). Supplied Credit: CarExpert The battery warranty is eight years, 160,000km no matter how you use it. The air suspension and four-wheel steering systems are backed by a five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty. There's a capped-price servicing program that spans five years/100,000km, with servicing required every 12 months or 20,000km. The IM5 has yet to be tested by ANCAP or Euro NCAP. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Standard safety equipment across the range includes: Adaptive cruise control Autonomous emergency braking Blind-spot monitoring Driver attention monitoring Lane-keep assist Emergency lane-keep assist Intelligent Lane Change Lane centring Rear cross-traffic assist Safe exit warning Front and rear parking sensors Surround-view camera Tyre pressure monitoring Front, side and curtain airbags Far-side airbag Its suite of active safety and driver assist technology is powered by 12 ultrasonic sensors, nine high-definition cameras, three millimetre-wave radar, one positioning unit and one inertial measurement unit. There are three variants in the MG IM5 lineup. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert The Premium RWD comes standard with the following equipment: 19-inch alloy wheels Tyre repair kit Automatic LED headlights Rain-sensing wipers Heated, power-folding exterior mirrors Electronic park brake with auto hold Semi-autonomous parking assist Hands-free power tailgate Proximity entry and start Panoramic glass roof Rear privacy glass 26.3-inch touchscreen 10.5-inch touchscreen Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto DAB digital radio Leatherette upholstery Heated and ventilated front seats Heated rear seats 12-way power driver's seat 6-way power passenger seat 60:40 split/fold rear seats with adjustable backrest 3 x ISOFIX child-seat anchor points 256-colour ambient lighting 50W ventilated wireless phone charger 20-speaker sound system Road Noise Control 3 x USB-C outlets (2 x front, 1 x rear) Dual-zone climate control Heat pump The Platinum RWD adds: 20-inch alloy wheels Hankook iOn high-performance EV tyres Air suspension is optional on the Platinum. The Performance AWD adds: Pirelli P-Zero tyres Air suspension Continuously Controlled Damping A Highland Grey interior is standard, with a Dover Beige interior available on all IM5 models for an extra $990. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Athena White is the standard exterior finish, with the following costing an extra $1000: Rembrant Grey Nevis Blue Ares Black Raphael Beige MORE: Explore the MG IM5 showroom
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
