From a Cricket Experiment to a US$17 Billion Sporting Empire: The IPL Has Changed the Business of Sport. What Comes Next for the Big Bash?

Seventeen billion dollars. Ten teams. One remarkable evolution.

The numbers are difficult to ignore.

Sportico's first valuation study of IPL franchises estimates the combined value of the ten teams at approximately US$17 billion. Mumbai Indians lead the rankings at US$2.1 billion, followed by Royal Challengers Bengaluru at US$1.85 billion and Chennai Super Kings at US$1.75 billion.

The estimated average franchise value is US$1.7 billion. Sportico also places the average franchise revenue multiple at 22.9 times annual revenue, a striking figure even when compared with established global sports competitions.

Yahoo Sports+1

These numbers deserve attention, but they need to be understood correctly.

The US$17 billion figure represents Sportico's estimated combined enterprise value of the ten franchises. It is not the same as the valuation of the IPL as a whole. Houlihan Lokey's separate 2026 assessment placed the IPL's business value at US$20.6 billion and its brand value at US$4.3 billion. These figures use different valuation approaches and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Houlihan Lokey+1

The important question is not simply how much the teams are worth.

It is how a cricket competition launched in 2008 became an asset class attracting the attention of global investors, broadcasters, sponsors and sports businesses.

To understand that, we need to go back to the beginning.

The idea that changed cricket

When the IPL began in 2008, it was not just another domestic cricket tournament.

It offered a different proposition. City-based franchises, a compact schedule, international players, a player auction, entertainment-led presentation and a format designed for television and digital audiences.

It brought cricket into a different commercial conversation.

The IPL understood something important: a sporting competition could be more than a series of matches. It could become a recognisable entertainment property with its own calendar, identity, commercial partners and loyal audience.

The format was short enough to fit into busy schedules, yet long enough to create rivalries, narratives and a sense of belonging. Supporters could follow a city-based team, not just a national side or a traditional domestic club.

The auction system created another layer of interest. Player recruitment became part of the public conversation. The teams became recognisable brands, with supporters following their players, owners, performances and identities.

But entertainment alone does not explain a US$17 billion valuation.

The real achievement was turning audience attention into a structured commercial model.

The business behind the boundary ropes

One of the IPL's greatest strengths is the way it combines central commercial power with individual franchise identities.

Sportico estimates that around 75 per cent of average franchise revenue comes from central distributions. Media rights are a major contributor to this pool. The BCCI retains half of the media-rights fees after production costs and distributes approximately 90 per cent of the remaining amount, alongside other league-level earnings, equally among the ten teams. The remaining 10 per cent is performance-based. Teams also earn through local sponsorships, ticketing and other commercial activity.

Yahoo Sports+1

This arrangement gives franchises a foundation that does not depend entirely on their own stadium attendance or local sponsorship performance.

A team benefits from the commercial strength of the entire competition. That creates a shared interest in making the league attractive to broadcasters, sponsors and supporters.

The 2023–27 media-rights auction demonstrated the scale of that opportunity. In June 2022, the BCCI announced that the rights had been sold for a combined ₹48,390.32 crore. The competition for television and digital rights reflected the commercial importance of the IPL audience.

BCCI

The IPL had become a premium media product.

Its value was no longer restricted to the matches played during the season. It was built around the rights to distribute those matches, the audience they attracted, the sponsorship opportunities they created and the commercial relationships that developed around the competition.

There is another important ingredient: scarcity.

There are only ten franchises. Entry into the competition is controlled. A new investor cannot simply establish another team and expect access to the same commercial platform.

This limited supply, combined with the league's reach and revenue model, helps explain why investors place such high values on the franchises.

The IPL has effectively created a system in which the success of the competition and the value of its teams reinforce each other.

From US$90 million to US$1.7 billion

The scale of the journey becomes clearer when the original franchise sales are considered.

The eight original IPL franchises were sold in 2008 for a combined amount of approximately US$723.6 million. That represented an average of roughly US$90 million per team.

Sportico's current estimated average of US$1.7 billion is an extraordinary change. The comparison needs context: the competition has expanded from eight to ten teams, and today's valuations reflect a much larger media and commercial market.

Cricket+1

Mumbai Indians provide a particularly striking example.

Reliance Industries acquired the franchise in 2008 for a reported US$111.9 million. Sportico now estimates its value at US$2.1 billion.

That is a remarkable increase, but an estimated enterprise value is not the same as a realised investment return. Ownership costs, further investment, financing and distributions all matter.

Cricket+1

The wider point is that franchise value is not determined by trophies alone.

A team's commercial strength can reflect its supporter base, history, market, sponsorship relationships, brand recognition and future potential.

The franchise is now much more than a cricket team. It is a media identity, a sponsorship platform, an entertainment property and a relationship with supporters that continues between seasons.

That is what makes the IPL's evolution so significant.

The Big Bash reaches its own turning point

Australia's Big Bash League began in 2011, three years after the IPL.

It was created for a different market and a different sporting environment. Australian cricket operates in a crowded summer calendar, competing for attention with the AFL, NRL, tennis, football and other major events.

The BBL has nevertheless established a valuable place in Australian sport.

Its city-based teams, family-friendly match experience and summer scheduling have helped build a recognisable competition. It has attracted younger audiences and given domestic T20 cricket a strong public profile.

The figures from BBL|15, the 2025–26 season, show that the competition continues to attract substantial audiences.

Cricket Australia reported total attendance of 1,089,043 across 44 matches, up 12 per cent year on year. Average attendance reached 24,751 per match. Average national television audiences were approximately 808,000 per game, up five per cent, while 13 matches averaged more than one million viewers. The final attracted an average audience of 1.45 million.

Cricket Australia+1

These are meaningful results for an Australian domestic competition.

The BBL should not be judged simply by comparing its numbers with the IPL. The markets are different, the audience bases are different and the commercial structures are not the same.

Historically, BBL teams have operated within Cricket Australia's member structure, including state cricket associations. The IPL, by contrast, has operated through privately owned franchises.

That difference has shaped the way capital, ownership and commercial risk work in the two competitions.

Now the BBL is beginning to explore a different approach.

On 8 September 2026, Cricket Australia confirmed it had approved a process to invite bids for a 100 per cent stake in the Melbourne Renegades licence, covering both its BBL and WBBL teams. The intention is for new ownership to be in place for the 2027–28 seasons.

Cricket Australia also confirmed it would retain control over important central matters, including international scheduling, player availability, salary caps and media rights, as well as approval powers over prospective investors.

Cricket Australia

This is not a sale of the entire Big Bash League. It is a proposed ownership change involving one franchise licence, with the possibility of other state associations exploring investment in their teams.

It is a significant development because it introduces a new question into Australian cricket: can private investment bring fresh capital and commercial expertise while protecting the interests of the wider game?

The BBL should not try to become the IPL

The temptation to copy the IPL would be understandable, but it would be the wrong strategy.

India has a vast domestic cricket audience and a media market that gives the IPL a distinctive commercial position. Australia has a smaller population and a more fragmented sporting audience. Its cricket calendar also has a different relationship with international fixtures and traditional formats.

The BBL needs to build on its own strengths.

Its family audience, local team identities, Australian summer setting and relationship with the WBBL are important assets. There is an opportunity to strengthen memberships, develop year-round supporter relationships, attract new commercial partners and improve digital engagement.

Private ownership could bring expertise in marketing, technology, sponsorship, data, fan experience and international business development.

But capital alone will not solve the challenge.

A successful investor must understand the sport, the local market and the responsibilities that come with owning a team. The test should be whether a franchise becomes stronger, more connected to its supporters and more valuable to Australian cricket.

A high sale price may attract headlines. A well-run club with a sustainable commercial model and a positive contribution to the game would be a much stronger measure of success.

What other sports have understood

The IPL's evolution is part of a broader story across global sport.

The NFL demonstrates the power of centralised commercial arrangements and shared revenue. Individual teams compete fiercely, but the value of each franchise is supported by the strength of the league.

Formula One shows how a sporting property can build international commercial value through a global calendar, media rights, teams, sponsorship and destination events.

The English Premier League demonstrates how a competition can become a worldwide product, with clubs developing their own identities while benefiting from the collective strength of the league.

Cricket has its own expanding franchise landscape. South Africa's SA20, the United States' Major League Cricket and England's The Hundred are examples of competitions pursuing different approaches to the short-format sports market.

None of these models can simply be copied and transferred into another country.

Their audiences, ownership structures, broadcast markets and sporting responsibilities are different.

The lesson is more fundamental: a successful sports property needs a compelling product, a sustainable commercial structure, strong audience relationships and credible governance.

The best business models do not simply extract value from the sport. They help build the conditions for the sport to remain attractive and competitive.

The moral question: who benefits from the money?

There is a danger in treating valuations as the ultimate measure of sporting success.

A US$17 billion estimate does not tell us whether more children are playing cricket, whether girls have access to quality facilities, whether community clubs are thriving or whether young athletes have fair opportunities to progress.

A sport is not just an investment asset.

Its value depends on the trust of supporters, the commitment of players, the work of coaches and officials, the contribution of volunteers and the communities that sustain it.

Commercial success creates responsibility.

The IPL's financial strength should help support the wider development of Indian cricket. The BBL's ownership changes should strengthen, rather than weaken, Australia's cricket system.

Player welfare, integrity, fair competition, grassroots participation and women's cricket must remain central to that conversation.

The question is not whether sport should make money. It should.

The question is whether the money helps build a stronger sport.

The Australia–India opportunity beyond cricket

The IPL and BBL developments also point to a much larger opportunity between Australia and India.

The next stage of the relationship does not have to be limited to bilateral matches, touring teams or player exchanges.

Behind every successful sports competition is a network of capabilities: sports technology, stadium operations, broadcasting, ticketing, high-performance systems, coaching, sports science, athlete welfare, sponsorship, data analytics and event management.

Australia and India have different strengths and experiences in these areas.

Australian organisations may bring expertise in high-performance sport, sports science, major events, infrastructure and community participation. Indian organisations have developed significant experience in franchise cricket, media scale, sponsorship and digital audience engagement.

There are potential opportunities for universities, technology businesses, sporting organisations and event operators to exchange knowledge and explore practical collaboration.

These are areas worth investigating, not claims that specific partnerships already exist.

That distinction matters. Real international collaboration begins with evidence, relevant expertise and a clear purpose, not simply a headline about two countries sharing an interest in sport.

What this means for PlayForward

For PlayForward Australia–India, the IPL's valuation and the BBL's changing ownership landscape are important developments because they reveal where the global sports business is heading.

Our role is to connect the dots between developments in India and Australia and the practical capabilities that organisations in both countries can bring to the table.

That means looking beyond cricket results to identify opportunities in sports technology, high performance, coaching, sports science, venue management, major events, education and commercial partnerships.

It means making developments understandable, linking claims to reliable sources and clearly separating confirmed activity from future possibilities.

The IPL does not need to become an Australian model. The BBL does not need to imitate India. But both offer valuable lessons about the commercial future of sport.

For Australian businesses and sporting organisations, understanding India's sports economy is increasingly important. For Indian organisations, Australia's experience in sports science, event capability, infrastructure and high-performance systems can create useful areas for exchange.

The opportunity is not to manufacture partnerships. It is to identify where there is a genuine reason to work together.

The real value of a sporting league

In 2008, the IPL was a bold experiment. In 2026, Sportico estimates its ten franchises are collectively worth US$17 billion.

That journey was built on more than exciting cricket. It required a clear product, a powerful media strategy, central revenue sharing, strong team identities and a commercial structure that investors believe can endure.

The Big Bash is now considering its own next chapter. Its audience remains significant, its place in the Australian summer is established and private investment could change how its clubs develop.

But the biggest lesson is not about reaching the highest valuation.

It is about building something people care about, creating a credible reason for businesses to invest and ensuring that commercial success strengthens the sport itself.

A valuation tells us what the market thinks a competition is worth today.

What matters more is what that competition builds for tomorrow.