Analysis of the new IPL rules
How will they impact the teams and the marketplace?
Last night, the BCCI announced the new retention rules and auction structure ahead of the 2025 season mega auction, ending months of speculation about the opportunities teams will have to retain their existing talent before the major recruitment event.
Instinctively, my view is that the rules are pretty fair. A number of teams asked for the ability to retain more of their core, and they can do that, albeit at a serious cost. Other teams wanted more of a reset, and there’s nothing stopping them doing that and having a big purse at auction with which to bully their rival teams at auction.
This was a strategy which I felt was extremely appropriate in the 2022 mega auction. As a team which didn’t retain as many players as the other teams, PBKS were left with a bigger budget pre-auction. I advocated keeping quiet in the first couple of rounds, where I felt there were a number of ‘trap’ players and letting other teams drain their budgets further before wielding that ‘big stack’ in line with what would happen in a poker tournament - a concept that my background means I was well versed in.
Before getting excited about working out a strategy to combat any future involvement I have at auctions, note that the mega auction list in 2022 was perfect for such a concept. It may, or may not be, in the future - there could be a number of more enticing purchases in round one or two in the next auction.
At the moment, I am not working with a team for the 2025 mega auction. If anyone would like to discuss a role, please get in touch via email at sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com.
Increase in maximum retentions - at a cost
Onto those rules. Teams can retain up to 6 players, either by retaining 5 players and having one right to match card to play, or purely 6 players with no right to match being available. A maximum of five capped players (domestic or overseas) and a maximum of two uncapped domestic players must fit into these retained players. As far as I can see, there’s no obligation for a team to retain any players if they want to adopt that strategy.
The ability to retain six is an increase on the maximum of four retentions (and no right to match) ahead of the 2022 mega auction, so teams can opt for that little bit of extra security on the players that they have already invested in - assuming that the player also wants to be retained, which isn’t always a given.
In 2022, teams had a 90 Cr (around £9m) budget to spend on players. If they retained four capped players then they would spend 42 Cr of the 90 (46.7% of their budget), with a 2 Cr discount if one player was uncapped (40 Cr = 44.4% of budget).. I’ve never understood why whether a player is capped should have any impact on a domestic tournament, but those are the rules. More on this later.
The eight existing teams ahead of the 2022 mega auction could retain 32 players combined, and actually retained 27 - CSK/DC/KKR/MI all retained their maximum four. The high uptake in retentions isn’t hugely surprising - marquee players are scarce and there’s a lot of risk aversion and the prevalence of the sunk cost fallacy in cricket recruitment. Teams don’t want to lose players they have an emotional, time or financial investment in.
High priced retentions hugely restricts auction budget
Ahead of the auction for the 2025 season and beyond, the cost of five capped players and one uncapped player is 79 Cr out of a total purse of 120 Cr (65.8% of budget), so teams will need to be aware that to retain the maximum amount of players, they will severely restrict the amount they can spend in the auction after retentions.
The retention values are 18/14/11 Crore for the first three players, then 18 Cr and 14 Cr. Based on this, I’d expect teams to be keener to retain three players than four or five, given the high extra cost for that 4th and 5th retention. 43 Cr on three retentions plus 4 Cr on an uncapped retention = 47 Cr out of 120 Cr (39.2%) which makes more sense to me in terms of teams structuring up a roster with a degree of flexibility at auction, plus giving the opportunity to be that big stack bully. Three capped retentions and two uncapped retentions (51 Cr) also could be a good strategy.
However, as with in 2022, I would anticipate many teams to go for more retentions than three capped and one uncapped player. I’d be very surprised if some teams at least didn’t go for five or six retentions.
The ultra-marquee players, though, are relatively cheaper than in 2022. In that auction, the top retention was 16 Cr out of 90 Cr budget (17.8%) while 18 Cr out of 120 in the upcoming cycle is just 15% of a team’s budget for their most expensive retention. So, the Jasprit Bumrah’s and Virat Kohli’s of this world are now relatively better value for teams than they were before (17.8% of 120 Cr is 21.36 Cr which would be the equivalent value) but it will be interesting to see if players react to that and look to take their chances in the auction as opposed to agree to relatively weaker retention offers.
I’d like to see players take this approach but I have my doubts that they will. On the flip side, the next tier of marquee players are going to be better rewarded if they are retained - the structure goes from 16/12/8/6 Crore in 2022 for four capped players, while in 2025, it will be 18/14/11/18/14 Crore. So, capped players can no longer be retained on the cheap.
Expect around 50 players to cost 11+ Cr across retentions and the auction
Capped retained players in this upcoming cycle will cost a minimum of 11 Crore out of that 120 Cr budget (9.2% of budget) which is the equivalent of 8.25 Crore in the 2022 mega auction. 46 players in that auction event (retentions and purchases at auction) went for 8Cr or more (4.6 per team) which gives some insight into how many players are likely to cost 11 Cr or more in 2025.
Given loss aversion and sunk cost mentality, plus the punchy cost of retentions, I’d expect around 50-55 players to cost 11+ Cr between retentions and auction purchases. Even a team retaining five capped players will have spent relatively more as a percentage on their most expensive five picks than the average team in 2022, which illustrates nicely what I said earlier - teams can keep more players but they’ll definitely have to pay for the privilege.
Do teams have enough players that they’d want to retain at 11+ Cr? Or indeed, four players at 14+ Cr? As said, it’s a pretty costly retention strategy. The next discussion focuses on the players which I would pay that figure for at a mega auction/retentions ahead of it? Plus, which players will teams consider paying that for?
Ahead of the auction, I’ll build a model with expected prices for each player at the auction, and if I’m not working with a team I’ll publish it in advance. I also have an expected performance model ready for use. However, at the moment, this is a rough guide to my thoughts.
Bear in mind that I’m very cautious about recruiting older players at the start of a three-year cycle. As mentioned, I also like having a big stack at auction in a lot of cases. So, what I would do (DW - the two left columns) may or may not reflect what a franchise will do.
So, I’d consider 11 players at 14+ Cr and a further 10 at 11+ Cr (21 total). I’ve also listed 29 additional players that I think the marketplace will be keen on which takes the total up to 50 players - broadly in line with the amount of players which will likely be priced at 11+ Cr across the retentions and purchases.
The problem is, there could be a few players who are currently uncapped who will be capped between now and the auction. Mayank Yadav, Nitish Kumar Reddy and Harshit Rana are all in the India squad for the upcoming T20 series with Bangladesh and this could affect their franchises plans to retain them at 4 Cr - if they win a cap in that series, they will cost 11 Cr or more to retain.
Return of Right to Match
Moving on, now to the new rules for right to match (RTM). I’m not a fan of the concept of right to match because I think that any team should be able to buy any player in an auction environment. Once a player gets to auction, they should be totally available to all teams - particularly with these current retention rules which allow six retentions if a team doesn't want the ability to RTM at auction.
At least the new rules allow a team without the RTM to bid higher on a player once they’ve been RTM’d. That does act as a potential deterrent for teams to use their RTM - and because of this and the ability to retain six players, I don’t expect RTM to have a major impact on the auction.
New rules covering overseas players withdrawing and also capping salaries in mini auctions
I am fully in support of banning overseas players if they withdraw on a whim, and actually would go further and stipulate that all players who register for auction are available for the entire IPL. In my view, a player withdrawing on a whim is disrespectful for a player to do that and messes up teams plans. It would have been even more of a threat considering that the PSL is going to take place at a similar time in the calendar - if an overseas player got base price at the IPL Auction and then got offered more to play PSL instead, you can see how it might play out. However, I do hope that there is some leeway given to a player’s personal circumstances if they have some family issues.
The only issue with this is that the system could still possibly be gamed by players because to avoid suspension, they only need certification from their own national board that they are injured. And of course, their national board will probably be very happy that they can verify that their player is injured so that their workload can be managed. I think it would have been better for the BCCI to hire independent medical professionals to do the injury assessments.
This rule also has the potential to clash with national boards who will be keen for players to withdraw from the tournament to manage their workloads. Their pressure on a player to do so might cost that player considerable loss of earnings over a three year cycle (e.g. they withdraw ahead of 2025 and then are suspended for 2026 and 2027) and cause difficulties between player and board, and also make players think twice before signing a central contract. There will be scope for England and Australia players potentially being impacted in particular.
It is also now mandatory for overseas players to register for mega auctions, so they cannot exploit the low supply/high demand dynamic in mini auctions. A player now cannot register for a mini auction if they didn’t register for the preceding mega auction - so I’m sure agents will be registering vast quantities of their players, just in case. Quite how this works with young players with high potential is not specified - I’m thinking of players who might not be ready in 2025 or 2026 but could be ready in 2027 (the last year of the three year cycle).
In addition, in subsequent mini auctions, an overseas player cannot earn more than the highest retention price (18 Cr) or the highest auction price of the mega auction. They can sell for more than that but the difference will go back to the BCCI (e.g. a player selling for 22 Cr in a mini auction gets 18 Cr and 4 Cr goes to the BCCI).
In-season loans
Player loans have also been introduced but I’d be highly surprised if teams use this options much, given the differences between the cricket transfer market and football, where teams can benefit from other teams paying their wages for loan players, loan fees and obligations to buy following the end of the loan.
The Dhoni rule
This rule allows domestic players who have been absent from international cricket for at least five years to be considered uncapped as a retention. Out of all the players who could be retained, MS Dhoni is the only player I can think of who this realistically applies to. He can now be kept on by CSK for 4 Cr instead of 11+ Cr, and I fully expect this to happen in 2025.
Match fees
Any player playing gets 7.5 lakh (around £7500) per match. This is a huge help to players who were picked up at base price and then are undervalued across the cycle when they improve.
The impact sub
This stays with no changes. I am fine with this although would prefer it if the teams were named ahead of the toss to make the in-match decisions about impact subs less formulaic. In my view, this creates more close matches and boundaries, and fans like seeing these.
Anyone interested in discussing how I can help their team with strategic management and data-driven analysis, or contribute to any media work, can get in touch at sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com.