Prepare yourself: IPL’s bewildering player auction looms

The IPL isn’t to everyone’s taste, either the game or the business. For the unconverted, the latest piece of news from the world dominating domestic league may be of interest.

Next year is the next “mega auction in which every team is compelled to do away with most of their most prized assets and put”them up for sale. It happens every three years.

Most followers of sporting leagues and competitions outside India are bewildered by the concept of disbanding all of the teams every three years and putting the players up for sale to all of the other teams. It’s bizarre.

Most of the leading Indian players have already played for three or four different franchises in the last dozen years of the IPL. It doesn’t appear to matter to Indian fans, but it’s confusing to the rest of the world which the IPL regards as important.

For the last couple of “mega auctions” teams have been permitted to retain four players. Four out of a squad of 25+. They have also had a “right to match” (RTM) option — in which case they could keep another player provided they matched the price of the highest bidder.

The proposal for next year is that there is just one retained player but that the number of RTMs is increased to eight. Proponents of this move suggest that it will determine a more accurate “market price” for the best and most sought after players, but there is also an element of deep cynicism to it.

‘GOLDEN BOY’

Though they are accustomed to rebuilding the majority of their squad every three years, the successful franchises also know that a stable core of players is vital to continued success. At least, the coaches do. For the team owners, it’s only about prestige and winning, which they believe can be bought. And if it can’t be, then at least ensure that your opposition can’t buy it either.

So, once each team has retained their “golden boy”, as much for their off-field commercial value as for their on-field performances, they will have to pay whatever their rivals believe their next best players are worth to keep them.

Each team’s coaching staff will know exactly which players are most important to the others. Phoney bidding wars will inevitably occur to destabilise the overall wage cap of the franchise desperate to use one of its RTM options.

Let’s say Mumbai Indians decide to retain only Rohit Sharma next year, or their captain, Hardik Pandya. That would leave the world’s best bowler, Jasprit Bumrah, on the “open market”. Mumbai would break the bank to keep him. The other teams know that so a game of “chicken” develops with bids soaring towards $5m. Then they all stop, leaving Mumbai with their player and at least $3m less to spend on other players.

Heinrich Klaasen is the most sought-after middle-overs batsman in the competition, but Sunrisers Hyderabad would be unlikely to use their single retention for him. The bidding war for him could be monstrous. He’d be keen to stay in Hyderabad, but a couple of million dollars would soften the blow of a move elsewhere.

Two years ago, Chennai Super Kings gambled on “releasing” Faf du Plessis into the mega auction and buying him back. He was part of the yellow furniture after a decade and would be a tough “fit” for another team. But Bangalore needed a badass captain to take over from Virat Kohli and would not be deterred. So Faf was on his way to the perennial underachievers.

CAPITALIST

The question being asked frequently in the global, professional game is: “If you’re not making as much money as possible, what the hell are you doing?” That’s fair enough. It applies in capitalist markets everywhere, and there is a human cost, but when stockbrokers and traders have breakdowns it is seen as inevitable collateral damage.

Given the natural vicissitudes and unfairnesses of cricket, I’m not sure the industry will be as robust in coping with its major employees working only for money and being treated primarily as commodities. Not everyone who paints or writes poems does so for money. Not everybody who sings, dances or acts does so to maximise their earning potential above the quality of their craft and the satisfaction they derive from delivering it to an audience. And from being able to deliver it.

This might be an outdated philosophy. Perhaps the professional sport and its players will prove themselves to be impervious to the trading. Maybe the game will move closer to the model of American sports where the majority of careers last only a few years and players left on the mental and physical scrapheap have the consolation of being millionaires. We’ll see.