Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
2 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Giteau Law ‘redundant' as Wallabies look to build on Lions success
Rugby Australia director of high performance Peter Horne says the controversial Giteau Law is 'kind of redundant,' leaving Wallabies coach Joe Schmidt free to pick his strongest squad for The Rugby Championship. Schmidt is expected to name his squad on Thursday before the Wallabies fly to South Africa on Saturday to take on the Springboks in Johannesburg and Cape Town on August 16 and 23. Schmidt has consistently favoured players who ply their trade in Australia, unless an overseas-based player is considered demonstrably stronger than the domestic alternative. The so-called 'Giteau Law' was last tweaked in 2022. Players need to have 30 Test caps or five years' service to Australian rugby to be eligible to be picked while playing overseas, with a limit of three picks a series. Former Wallabies winger Drew Mitchell was a beneficiary of the first iteration of the law in 2015 when he was selected for Australia in the World Cup while playing for Toulon in France. Horne said hypothetically that there was now nothing to stop Schmidt picking an overseas international rookie, such as Northampton star Josh Kemeny, who has played just two Tests for the Wallabies, giving the New Zealander further flexibility in his selections. 'I think we've been pretty open. Joe [Schmidt] has got no impediment to select whoever he wants; that's always been the case,' Horne said. 'The Giteau Law, it's kind of redundant, right? Though the reality is, if he wants to pick, I don't know, Josh Kemeny from Northampton, that's his call.
The Age
2 minutes ago
- The Age
Giteau Law ‘redundant' as Wallabies look to build on Lions success
Rugby Australia director of high performance Peter Horne says the controversial Giteau Law is 'kind of redundant,' leaving Wallabies coach Joe Schmidt free to pick his strongest squad for The Rugby Championship. Schmidt is expected to name his squad on Thursday before the Wallabies fly to South Africa on Saturday to take on the Springboks in Johannesburg and Cape Town on August 16 and 23. Schmidt has consistently favoured players who ply their trade in Australia, unless an overseas-based player is considered demonstrably stronger than the domestic alternative. The so-called 'Giteau Law' was last tweaked in 2022. Players need to have 30 Test caps or five years' service to Australian rugby to be eligible to be picked while playing overseas, with a limit of three picks a series. Former Wallabies winger Drew Mitchell was a beneficiary of the first iteration of the law in 2015 when he was selected for Australia in the World Cup while playing for Toulon in France. Horne said hypothetically that there was now nothing to stop Schmidt picking an overseas international rookie, such as Northampton star Josh Kemeny, who has played just two Tests for the Wallabies, giving the New Zealander further flexibility in his selections. 'I think we've been pretty open. Joe [Schmidt] has got no impediment to select whoever he wants; that's always been the case,' Horne said. 'The Giteau Law, it's kind of redundant, right? Though the reality is, if he wants to pick, I don't know, Josh Kemeny from Northampton, that's his call.
The Advertiser
2 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
