The 18th edition of the Indian Premier League begins on Sunday, March 23, with the final scheduled for May 25. This year, the Pakistan Super League will overlap with the IPL, because it had to make way for Pakistan’s hosting of the ICC Champions Trophy.

Compared with the IPL’s 74 matches, the 10th edition of the PSL will feature 44, opening on April 8 and ending on May 19. As further evidence of the expansion of T20 franchise cricket, this number is set to change in 2026.

The Pakistan Cricket Board hopes to expand the PSL from six teams to eight. The existing franchises operate under a 10-year agreement which ends after this season. Expansion outside of the current four cities — Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi and Multan — is under consideration whilst media and sponsorship rights will be up for sale with the aim of strengthening the PSL’s commercial appeal and competitiveness.

A part of this recalibration will need to focus on the optimal time to hold an expanded tournament. The previous window in January to February now faces competition from SA20 in South Africa and ILT20 in the UAE. In addition, an increasingly intense battle for the top overseas players is a corollary of expanded franchise leagues.

It remains the case that the IPL attracts the best of those players. It has shown its strength by imposing penalties on any overseas player who, having been picked for a franchise, withdraws before the start of the season for other than medical or family reasons. England’s Harry Brook, who has just done so, faces a ban from participating in the IPL for two seasons. The decision may have something to do with him being touted as England’s next white ball captain.

Despite having separate windows in previous years, there are few players who have participated in both the IPL and PSL in the same season. Indeed, there have been few who have played in both leagues in different seasons. Fears that a clash of dates for the first time might lead to some acrimony over player choices were not realized until this week. Then, South African all-rounder Corbin Bosch withdrew from the Peshawar Zalmi squad in the PSL to join the Mumbai Indians in the IPL to replace an injury withdrawal. Subsequently, the PCB has served Bosch with a legal notice for breaching his contractual obligations.

Pakistan’s poor showing in the Champions Trophy has reinforced concerns its players and administrators are being left behind in cricket’s ever-changing landscape. These have led to the non-selection of Pakistan players for The Hundred, which occupies August in England and Wales. Fifty of them — 45 men and five women — registered for the draft. It is the first time no Pakistani players have been selected. The purchase of equity in four of the franchises by Indian investors has prompted murmurings of a possible “soft ban.” Pakistan players have not played in the IPL since 2008 and the global spread of Indian franchise ownership has led to suspicions of tacit discrimination.

As far as The Hundred is concerned the reality is likely to be more prosaic, as the Pakistani players have overlapping international commitments. Pakistan is scheduled to play ODIs and T20Is in the West Indies from late July to mid-August and may play a T20I series against Afghanistan before the Asia Cup begins mid-September. Franchises are also likely to be worried about the PCB’s stance towards releasing players with domestically contracted obligations. There are already tensions. 

Another concern is the value which Pakistan’s players currently bring to the franchise. Recent performances have been disappointing and they may be caught in a vicious circle of not being able to improve because they are not getting picked. Additionally, they are not being exposed to the latest developments, coaching and analytical tools.

It is easy to assume franchise cricket is all about money; it is, to a large extent. Players cannot be blamed for cashing in, investors and sponsors require a return on their investments, whilst some administrators have regarded it as a lifesaving device for ailing domestic structures. However, the leagues should be more than that, acting as a platform to promote those structures and develop better talent. ILT20 in the UAE has been criticized for having too many overseas players but its long-term objective is to develop domestic cricket.

National boards have been able act unilaterally in setting up leagues, only requiring sanction from the ICC, which rarely refuses. Outside this largely unregulated market a new entrant is rumored to be at its gates. Cricket’s media machine is rife with the story that a new league is being discussed with the potential to produce a seismic twist to the game’s landscape.

The rumor appears to have emanated from Australia. It focuses on competitions for both men and women modelled on tennis and its Grand Slams, with eight new teams which assemble and play matches in four different locations during the year. Neither the proposed identity and composition of the teams, nor the times of year when the matches could be played, have been revealed. There are few vacant windows in an already crowded calendar. This has led to immediate pushback from several national boards, keen to protect their domestic franchises.

Currently, the cricket economy is based largely on income received from broadcasters and distributions from ICC events. It is weighted heavily in favor of India, followed by Australia and England. Smaller nations struggle financially, a situation which will worsen if sales of broadcasting rights in the next cycle generate less than the current one, a possibility given concerns over value provided during the 2024 World Cup. Boards may be attracted by an alternative revenue source.

If the rumors are true, a major backer of the proposed league — to the tune of $500m — could be SRJ Sports Investments, a subsidiary of the Public Investment Fund. Clearly, there is much that needs to be fleshed out — not least player availability, especially those from India; the economic model to be adopted; and the impact on existing structures, both spatial and temporal. It is questionable if those structures can cope with even more pressure.

RIYADH: Saudi Exchange has approved Merrill Lynch Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to act as market maker for 20 listed securities across the main trading platform and the parallel index.

This decision allows the company to enhance market liquidity and improve price efficiency in accordance with regulations and procedures.

Merrill Lynch Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s participation in market making is expected to contribute to greater liquidity and a more efficient trading environment, reinforcing the development of the country’s capital market.

This move aligns with the Kingdom’s ongoing efforts to attract global financial institutions and strengthen its capital markets by promoting transparency, efficiency, and investor confidence.

Tadawul’s recent initiatives, such as the introduction of the Fixed Income Market Making Framework, underscore the commitment to bolster market liquidity and efficiency. 

These developments are integral to attracting both domestic and international investors, fostering a more dynamic and robust capital market environment in the Kingdom. ​

Among the securities listed on the main index, Merrill Lynch Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will act as a market maker for Naseej International Trading Co., ensuring a minimum presence of orders at 70 percent, maintaining a size of SR75,000 ($19,995), and adhering to a maximum spread of 0.75 percent, with a minimum value traded of 5 percent.

Similarly, it will provide services for the National Co. for Glass Industries under the same trading obligations as Naseej International Trading Co.

The National Co. for Learning and Education will have a minimum order presence of 70 percent, a minimum size of SR50,000, a maximum spread of 0.75 percent, and a minimum value traded of 5 percent.

Meanwhile, Al Hassan Ghazi Ibrahim Shaker Co. will adhere to the same market-making requirements as Naseej International Trading Co. and the National Co. for Glass Industries.

Sustained Infrastructure Holding Co. and Theeb Rent a Car Co. will also be covered under similar obligations, ensuring a minimum presence of orders at 70 percent, a minimum size of SR75,000, a maximum spread of 0.75 percent, and a minimum value traded of 5 percent.

Saudia Dairy and Foodstuff Co. will have a minimum order presence of 80 percent, a minimum size of SR75,000, a maximum spread of 0.65 percent, and a minimum value traded of 5 percent.

Dallah Healthcare Co. will operate under the same market-making conditions as Naseej International Trading Co., while Gulf Insurance Group will have a minimum order presence of 60 percent, a minimum size of SR50,000, a maximum spread of 1 percent, and a minimum value traded of 5 percent.

Aldawaa Medical Services Co. will be subject to a minimum order presence of 80 percent, a minimum size of SR75,000, a maximum spread of 0.65 percent, and a minimum value traded of 5 percent.

Meanwhile, Tourism Enterprise Co. will ensure a minimum order presence of 50 percent, a minimum size of SR250,000, and a maximum spread of 3 percent, with no specified minimum value traded.

On Nomu, Merrill Lynch Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was approved as a market maker for Atlas Elevators General Trading and Contracting Co., Riyadh Steel Co., Sure Global Tech Co., and Ladun Investment Co.

Additionally, the firm will provide market-making services for MOBI Industry Co., Molan Steel Co., and Fesh Fash Snack Food Production, as well as Yaqeen Capital Co. and Lana Medical Co.

For each of these securities, the firm will ensure a minimum presence of orders at 50 percent, maintain a minimum size of SR50,000, and adhere to a maximum spread of 5 percent, with no minimum value traded requirement.