During the analysis and discussion in the last two columns relating to player auctions in The Hundred and the Pakistan Super League, a recurring question was present — is an auction the best or optimal way to acquire players?
At the possible risk of overegging the subject, this column will explore the advantages and disadvantages of the auction system. This is especially pertinent as the auction is becoming the preferred method of player selection in T20 franchise leagues.
It all started with the Indian Premier League in February 2008. Richard Madley, the auctioneer, told me in an interview before the ITL20 auction last October that nobody quite knew what they were doing at the first IPL auction. However, he realized that cricket had changed for ever when M.S. Dhoni was bought for $1.5 million, regarding it as one of the most significant moments in the history of cricket. Sixteen years later, it is hard to disagree.
At the same auction, Tom Moody, who was coach of the Kings X1 Punjab, said that he stressed to the owners that they needed more than just superstars. He obtained three of those — Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene, and Brett Lee — but also wanted “good characters, people with leadership skills, rounded cricketers.” This philosophy has served Moody well in the intervening years. Most recently, he has guided the Oval Invincibles to the men’s title in the last three years and the Desert Vipers to the ILT20 title in January 2026. Following the acquisition of equity in the Oval Invincibles franchise by the owners of Mumbai Indians, Moody moved on to become global director of cricket for the RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group, which owns the IPL franchise, Lucknow Super Giants, Durban’s Super Giants in the SA20 and 70 percent of Manchester Super Giants in The Hundred.
Moody’s approach embraces one of the perceived benefits of an auction system which allows franchises to have more flexibility and control over their squad composition and strategy. They can choose to bid for the players they want based on their needs, preferences and budget. Another obvious benefit falls on those players who are bought for a valuation well in excess of their base price. The bidding is transparent and public, which is said to prevent behind the scenes negotiations and tacit agreements. There are times, however, when I have wondered why a franchise has opted not to bid for a player who is already contracted to them in other formats and has performed well.
One explanation may lie in the way in which franchises value individual players. Analysts consider such variables as T20 performance statistics, recent form, experience in other franchise leagues, versatility, character and leadership qualities, potential for improvement, especially with younger players. It was clear when listening to some of the bidders at The Hundred that they had set a maximum value for the top players beyond which they were not willing to go. The secrecy around these valuations generates unpredictable dynamics in auctions.
It is said that a player auction creates excitement and drama for the fans and the media, being a spectacle in its own right and providing a base to promote the league to a wider audience. In my experience, while there can be a frisson around a bidding war, a player auction is not a spectator sport. An auction creates winners and losers, with the benefits lying firmly with the successful players, who are provided with an opportunity to showcase their skills and talent to a wider audience, gaining exposure and recognition.
There is, of course, another side to this coin. The auction system carries high risk for both the franchises and the players. Several players have opened up about their experiences and views. In November 2025, former Indian cricketer Robin Uthappa, who was twice part of an IPL-winning team, proposed that the IPL should move away from the auction system to a draft system. He argued that an auction can be unfair to players because it leaves their careers and earnings heavily dependent on a single bidding event, creating instability and unnecessary pressure. In a separate post, he said: “You don’t want to sell humans like commodities or have them go under the hammer.”
The counter-argument is that the players are not forced to register. This is rather disingenuous since they do not decide on the system which is adopted. Lauren Winfield-Hill made her international debut for England in 2013 and was part of the England team that won the 2017 World Cup. She has played extensively in franchise cricket in Australia and in The Hundred. In the auction for the latter, she was bought by Sunrisers Leeds for her base price of $36,000 (£27,500), having gone unsold in the “Hero” stage. This was a reduction on the $67,000 price she attracted in the previous draft system, representing a fall in income for her, offset by being based closer to her home.
In an interview with Wisden after the auction, Winfield-Hill revealed that it is a system which the players did not want, with the women wanting it even less. She suggested that “there is just a little bit more insecurity and self-doubt in the women’s game” and that, because there are more men’s franchise leagues, they have greater experience of auctions and more opportunities to enter them. However, Sam Billings, who has significant experience, posted: “Auction will always only benefit a few. The disparity (in price paid) is too much. The draft structure was clearly far better from an overall player standpoint. As players, we did feed this back.”
Winfield-Hill described the experience of being in the auction as “awful,” adding: “I don’t think anybody really enjoys somebody else having the power to pick your value.” She also raised the issue of comparing one player who has played 100 games for his or her country with someone who has played far fewer, but who is valued at six or seven times more. There is then great pressure placed on the latter.
There have been occasions when the performance of big-money acquisitions has been disappointing. It is a risk that franchises take. There will be some nervousness in the Kolkata Knight Riders camp over Cameron Green, who was bought at auction for $2.77 million, but whose recent form and fitness have fallen below previous standards. In 2025, Rishabh Pant struggled to justify his $3 million valuation, scoring only 151 runs in the first 13 matches of the season for Lucknow Super Giants, which he captained to a disappointing seventh place. In a dazzling 13-year IPL career, Glenn Maxwell disappointed more than once. In 2018, the Delhi Daredevils bought him for around $1 million. He averaged 16 with the bat. In 2020, the Punjab Kings paid $1.1 million. His performance with the bat was marginally worse. However, he followed this up with his three best years in 2021, 2022 and 2023 for Royal Challengers Bengaluru. Maxwell is in the late stages of his career and provided an example of player autonomy by not entering the 2026 IPL auction.
A corollary of the player auction system is that it leads to a loss of their autonomy. If any player withdraws from the IPL, as England’s Ben Duckett did this week, a two- or three-year ban is imposed. Players have limited collective representation. In India, it is outlawed. There is a Professional Cricketers Association in England and Wales, but it has been silent on the loss of autonomy and potential mental health issues created by The Hundred auction. There is a fear that gender equality initiatives introduced by the England and Wales Cricket Board are at risk of being diluted now that the board has sold its equity shares in The Hundred.
Power rests squarely with the owners, who are wedded to market forces and a player selection system of questionable ethical dimensions. However, it is one that looks set to stay in the foreseeable future. Indeed, its use may increase in future if Australia’s Big Bash League is privatized, although, to date, no decisions on this have been officially announced.
