The ink had barely dried on last week’s column when fresh tensions between Australia’s top cricketers and Cricket Australia emerged, reminding us that mischief-making in elite sport takes various forms.
On May 14, The Sydney Herald, part of the Nine Group, reported that “a group of senior players, including captain Pat Cummins, will seriously consider asking Cricket Australia for no-objection certificates to play in SA20 in 2028, if they cannot be assured of what they see as fair market value for their services.” A figure of 1 million Australian dollars ($714,145) was quoted as that fair market value.
This is incendiary material, especially as the previous week it had been widely reported in Australia that CA has offered Cummins a three-year contract extension worth A$4 million annually. In effect, the offer is inviting him to prioritize Test cricket until 2029, something that he has subsequently confirmed, alongside his commitment to Sunrisers Hyderabad. At least two other players are thought to be in line for improved offers, as CA attempts to reduce the poaching of Australia’s top players by T20 franchise leagues.
The furore gathered further momentum when Cummins posted on X that “Everything … written about me (re) SA20 and The Hundred offer is made up.” This is an extraordinary rebuttal and begs the question about the identity of the mischief-maker at the heart of these revelations.
All of this comes hard on the heels of CA’s failure to gather the support of all state cricket associations for its proposal to privatize the Big Bash Leagues, as discussed in this column on April 1. Despite the opposition, it is understood that CA’s executives are pushing ahead with feasibility studies and investor discussions. Rumors of player dissatisfaction over remuneration serve to help CA’s argument that the BBL needs to compete with the returns available to players from other franchise leagues. The only solution for CA is privatization.
There is also a strong rumor that Cummins and two other players were approached to play in the forthcoming edition of The Hundred for pre-auction signing fees of around A$800,000. The Hundred clashes with an Australian Test series against Bangladesh in August.
In a separate interview on the Business of Sport podcast, Cummins said: “Some of our guys are saying no to half a million pounds for 20 days’ work to go and play those two Test matches against Bangladesh.”
He continued: “At the moment, our guys are so keen to play for Australia that they’re happy to forgo that, but I don’t think we can accept that that is going to be the case forever.”
The sliding door moment between playing for one’s country and falling for the lucre of franchise cricket, clearly, is getting closer.
Another mischief-making factor for Australia’s leading cricketers is the salaries which some overseas players have been earning in the BBL. In 2025-26, teams were allowed to sign overseas players under a structured draft system, under a A$3 million pay cap. The highest band was the Platinum category, which carried an upper limit of A$420,000. This was followed by Gold, with an upper limit of A$200,000, Silver at A$127,000 and Bronze, up to A$70,000.
It is reported that domestic Australian players earn by retainers, averaging A$167,000. There were 24 overseas players, largely from Pakistan, England and New Zealand, all but two of whom were acquired for A$270,000. None of the English players were regulars for the England national team yet earned more than some Australian national team players, whose ire is understandable.
Whether any changes will be made to the BBL pay structures for 2026-27 remains to be seen. Multiple changes would have occurred had the privatization proposal been in place for the next edition. The fact that it will not be is vexing some of the Australian players. Twenty-one central contracts have been issued by CA ahead of a busy 2026-27 season, during which 17 Tests are due to be played. These include a three-Test away series in South Africa, a four-Test home series against New Zealand in December and early January, followed by a five-Test series in India between mid-January and early March. During the same time, Australia has only nine ODIs and five T20Is. All of these will be played between September and the end of November.
Clearly, those contracted players involved in the Test matches will not be available for the BBL, which is likely to run between mid-December and the end of January 2027. Those contracted players who are not playing Test cricket will have a decision to make about where their preferences lie, as will the non-contracted players. The ILT20 will run between Nov. 22 and Dec. 20, 2026, whilst SA20 is rumored to open in mid-January.
There is the distinct possibility of some players featuring in both the BBL and/or ILT20/SA20, or even missing the BBL to play in both ILT20 and SA20. The toing and froing of players at the beginning and end of leagues, depending on whether their team makes the finals, could become more pronounced. It can be assumed that CA will be concerned about how attractive the 2026-27 BBL is going to be to its domestic players.
Prior to that conundrum, a pressing matter has emerged this week for CA. An anonymous, internal, whistleblower has brought a serious matter to light by alleging irregularities in the awarding of IT contracts. CA is under pressure from state associations to reduce costs, especially in the IT department.
It is understood that the allegations center on the awarding of a contract to a company which had only recently been registered in Australia and has links to organizations registered in Tamil Nadu, south India. Its capital is Chennai, surprisingly rumored to be the potential host venue of the opening match of the 2026-27 BBL season.
It is further understood that, when concerns were raised by CA employees about the integrity of the IT contract, around twenty members of staff were dismissed. CA says that an external review has been conducted, without revealing its findings.
As has been discussed frequently in this column, the governance of cricket leaves an awful lot to be desired. This week, the International Cricket Council suspended its funding to Cricket Canada over governance related issues. Cricket USA is also suspended by the ICC, which has temporarily taken over the management and administration of the US national teams. CA’s issues are of a different nature, but there is little doubt that it has some mighty decisions and concerns on its plate: not all of these have been caused by the external mischief-making relating to player’s contracts.
