Whether to retain or discontinue the Impact Player rule, as well as possibly increasing the number of uncapped players on each IPL team’s retention list feature on the agenda of a meeting between the IPL and the ten franchises, to take place on Wednesday. The closed-door meeting will take place at the BCCI headquarters in Mumbai with the franchises represented by members of their ownership teams.
Other significant points up for discussion are: have the mega auction every five years instead of the existing three; reinstating the right-to-match (RTM) card option at auctions; the availability (or lack thereof) of overseas players; and a fix on the total number of retentions.
All these points have been framed by the IPL after its chief operating officer, Hemang Amin, met various franchises over the past few months seeking feedback ahead of finalising next year’s mega auction.
Impact Player – abolish or retain?
There were eight 250-plus totals in IPL 2024 including the highest in the tournament’s history – 287, which Sunrisers Hyderabad plundered against Royal Challengers Bengaluru. Pundits and team officials agreed the six-hitting spree, especially in the powerplay segment, was a consequence of the Impact Player rule, introduced in IPL 2023, which allowed teams to pick an extra specialist batter or bowler based on the game situation. Nine of the ten highest totals in IPL history have been recorded since the Impact Player rule was introduced.
The original motive of this rule was to allow more Indian players, especially the uncapped ones, to get exposure. However, Rohit Sharma, India’s Test and ODI captain, said he was not a big fan of the rule because it would hold back the “development” of allrounders, a skillset that is not easily available in Indian T20 cricket. This view is also shared by a few franchises and one of them told ESPNcricinfo that it had informed the IPL it would be in favour of scrapping the rule.
The question for the IPL, though, is whether the bigger totals are contributing to the overall enhancement of their product and whether the fans like it. Or not.
Increase uncapped retentions
Ahead of the 2022 mega auction, the IPL allowed the eight original franchises to retain a maximum of two uncapped Indian players and the two new teams – Gujarat Titans and Lucknow Super Giants – could have one each. However, with these players putting in consistent performances, and with the franchises devoting a lot of resources to scout them and develop their game, a change may be coming.
It is learned that the franchises have put forward some suggestions to Amin, one of which is to either create a special allowance within the main retention pool for uncapped talent or increase the number of RTM cards, with which a team can match the winning bid at the auction for a player they had on their rolls till the previous season and bring him back in.
Incremental performance pay
During discussions, the IPL is understood to have told the franchises about the need to incentivise players financially considering the teams were getting bigger money than before. One of the reasons behind the IPL’s proposal could be that it wants to better the salary of a player who was bought at his base price at the auction and was then retained at the same price even though his stature has grown since.
The IPL is believed to have recommended paying players a match fee, but an immediate counter came from several franchises: what about the players who sit on the bench? Currently, as part of their contract, a player gets a discretionary fee from the franchise’s overall auction purse based on where the team finished the previous season. This number is set by the IPL. One of the suggestions given to the IPL is that instead of a match fee it would be better to finalise the amount to be put in the incentive pot, which the franchise could use at its discretion to reward their performers.
Overseas players
There are various proposals franchises have put forth concerning the overseas players. At least one franchise has told the IPL that there should be no restriction on the number of overseas players it can retain so long as it is within the retention cap. So, if the IPL allows five overall retentions, then the franchise said it should be able to fill all the slots with overseas players if they want.
Franchises have also told the IPL that they believe overseas players have been exploiting mini auctions to get record sums of money. Some of these players, the franchises believe, have avoided mega auctions where the purse is evenly spread with various teams looking to build from the ground up and therefore be more mindful about how much money they spend on a single player. At mini auctions, since teams usually have a core already in place, they are able to go all guns blazing for that one player who will complete the make-up of the side. One suggestion on the table is whether the IPL should make it mandatory for overseas players to register for mega auctions.
According to a franchise head, the IPL is also looking to impose a bidding cap at mini auctions. This will be based on the amount that a franchise will set aside for its No. 1 retention pick ahead of the mega auctions. Bidding at mini auctions cannot go past that number.
For example, if INR 20 crore is what the IPL decides a franchise must pay its highest retained player before a mega auction, then at the mini auction the highest bid cannot exceed that. If there are teams still willing to bid more for that player, then, the franchises have suggested, the option of a silent tie-breaker should come into play.
The silent tie-breaker was a method utilised in earlier IPL auctions. Devised in 2010, the tie-breaker was designed to be used in smaller auctions, where there is a smaller purse, to break a deadlock. In the IPL’s history, three players have been bought via the tie-breaker rule: Kieron Pollard (Mumbai Indians) and Shane Bond (Kolkata Knight Riders) in 2010, and Ravindra Jadeja (Chennai Super Kings) in 2012.
Those privy to Wednesday’s meeting point out that while all the recommendations and proposals are likely to be put forth at the meeting, there is no confirmation on whether IPL will announce its final decision on these matters right away.
