Test Cap vs Market Cap

ISSUE No 5

In the evolving landscape of elite cricket, a striking financial transformation is underway. While international cricket remains the traditional heartbeat of the sport, franchise cricket has emerged as a financial powerhouse, reshaping influence, control and commercial success. We touched this topic in a previous article, FANG to the IPL: When Big Business Bats for Itself . A closer look at market cap across key cricket stakeholders reveals a new world order.

Before diving into the numbers, let’s clarify two essential terms. A salary cap is a limit placed on the amount a team can spend on player salaries in a given season. It exists to ensure competitive balance and financial sustainability. Meanwhile, market capitalization (market cap), often used in finance, refers to the total value of an entity based on earnings, assets, or share prices. In cricket terms, we can adapt this concept to measure the overall financial value and standing of stakeholders.

To assess the financial influence of cricket’s biggest players, we calculated market cap for:

Franchise Cricket Leagues now boast enormous salary caps and as a result, substantial market caps based on our calculation. The Indian Premier League (IPL) alone holds a market cap of $175 million, other rising leagues like SA20 ($15.9M), ILT20 ($15M), and The Hundred ($12M) add to the growing commercial footprint of franchise leagues.

The real muscle however, lies with franchise team owners. These private stakeholders operate across multiple leagues, often owning teams in 3 to 5 different competitions globally. Based off our calculations above, the leading franchise owners by market cap are; The Ambani Family (Reliance): $23.8 million, GMR & JSW Sports: $22.7 million, Knight Riders Group: $21.9 million and Chennai Super Kings Ltd: $20.2 million.

International boards have long been the lifeblood of professional cricket, from investing in grassroots development, running domestic and regional competitions, to organizing bilateral series and preparing national teams for ICC events. They are the custodians of tradition and infrastructure.

Yet when viewed through the lens of financial valuation, their market caps tell a different story. Despite their foundational role, even the most prominent boards, Cricket Australia (11.9M), the Board of Cricket Control in India most commonly known as BCCI ($9.2M), and the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) ($9.1M), trail behind the financial might of franchise leagues and owners.

From these figures, it’s clear: franchise owners dominate the top tier, followed by franchise leagues . Only two international boards crack the top 10, signalling a major realignment in cricket’s financial structure.

The Top 10 Stakeholders by Market Cap

In this battle between franchise owners, franchise leagues and international boards, I myself was at a crossroads early in my international career. In 2015, I was a member of the West Indies squad across all formats yet wasn’t awarded a central contract. I made my Test debut on Boxing Day 2015 at the MCG, earned an IPL contract worth USD $650,000 in February 2016, and only afterward was offered a West Indies central contract.

What would you have done?

I declined the central contract. There was no way I could justify risking a $650,000 IPL opportunity for 6 weeks work in favor of a $80,000 West Indies annual retainer. And that’s the dilemma more and more players face today as the financial chasm between franchise opportunities and international commitments continues to widen.

This financial dominance translates to influence. Players now shape careers around franchise opportunities, often prioritizing them over international duty. Sponsors follow the money, and fans are increasingly drawn to the year-round entertainment of leagues.

Still, international cricket holds heritage, context, and prestige. But in today’s cricket economy, franchise stakeholders are setting the pace, not just commercially, but culturally too.

The balance of power has shifted and the numbers prove it.

Is market cap the right lens for cricket? Is using market cap a fair and complete way to measure the influence and value of cricket stakeholders? Or does it miss key intangibles like legacy, fan loyalty, and cultural relevance?