By Aadityan Ganesh and Hari Ramasubramanian

The Indian Premier League (IPL) auction is more than just a bidding war—it’s a spectacle where strategy meets high drama, where fortunes of both players and franchises can change in a matter of seconds. Each auction cycle sets the stage for teams to build their dream squads, but behind the glitz and glamour lies a complex web of tactics, decisions, and dilemmas that go far beyond the hammer falling on the final bid.

As the cricketing world gears up for the next mega-auction, the buzz around player retentions and right-to-match (RTM) cards is palpable. These mechanisms are designed to give franchises the power to retain their star performers, but are they really fair? How do they impact the players, who might find themselves sold below their true market value, or the teams that might lose out on valuable talent due to budget constraints? The auction process, while exhilarating, is fraught with challenges that demand a deeper examination.

Franchises pour significant resources into scouting and grooming talent. Gone are the days when scouts only watched first-class and domestic T20 matches to spot talent. Now, they’re everywhere—be it in the Tamil Nadu Premier League (TNPL) or the UP T20 league. After investing years in a player’s development, it’s only fair that teams expect a first crack at retaining their stars. This is where retentions and RTM cards come in, giving franchises the luxury of continuity and allowing them to earn higher returns on their investments.

However, there’s a flip side to this retention game. When a franchise retains a player at a discounted price, that player often ends up earning less than their market value. Take the 2022 mega-auction, for instance, where franchises could retain up to four players at 16 crores, 12 crores, 8 crores and 6 crores respectively. Mumbai Indians retained Suryakumar Yadav and Kieron Pollard for 8 and 6 crores, respectively—well below their true worth. Similarly, bowlers like Mohammad Siraj and Anrich Nortje were retained for under 7 crores, while many other premium international pacers fetched over 10 crores in the auction.

This begs the question: Is it fair to optimize returns for franchises at the expense of player earnings?

One way to address this imbalance is by separating the connection between the retained player’s salary and the team’s budget. Currently, player salaries directly impact a team’s budget. But what if we allowed teams to negotiate higher salaries with their retained players while slashing their auction budgets only at slab rates? For example, if this system had been in place, RCB could have retained Yuzvendra Chaha as their fourth retention after Kohli, Maxwell and Siraj. While he could have been contracted at a much higher price, RCB would have lost only the slab rate of 6 crores from the budget for the fourth retention.

However, introducing private contracts comes with its own challenges, such as the risk of coercion. To prevent this, we could implement guidelines to ensure fair retention salaries.

Another intriguing idea is to release all players into the auction pool, letting the open market determine their worth. If a team wins the bid for their player and decides to use a retention card, they will only lose the budget equivalent to the retention slab — regardless of the player’s final selling price. For instance, if Delhi Capitals win Rishabh Pant in the auction at 19 crores and he is the first player they use their retention card on, then they would lose only 16 crores from their budget, even though Pant earns the full 19 crores.

However, if implemented naively, the above solution could be quite a disaster. Teams could be penalized by the order in which their players are put on the block. Continuing on the Rishabh Pant example, if Nortje is sold to Delhi next at 11 crores, Delhi would not want to use a retention card on Nortje, since he is sold at a price less than the slab rate for the second player. If Axar Patel also gets sold to Delhi at 11 crores again, Delhi would have been better off using their retention cards for both Axar and Nortje. They would have been slashed 20 crores combined for the two players, while now they have lost 22 crores from their budget. To fix this, teams should be allowed to use the highest available retention slab below the player’s auction price, even if higher slabs remain unused. This way, Delhi can use the 8 crore slab on Nortje, without having used the 12 crore slab already.

Our suggestion also applies to RTM cards. Currently, a team need not participate in the bidding contest for a player to use their RTM card. They can match the bid of the winner once the bidding ends to purchase the player. We recommend teams bid all the way through and win the auction, but lose the third highest bid from their budget if they use their RTM card (or the base price, if there is no third bidder). For example, suppose SRH outbids RR at 18 crores for Heinrich Klaasen, and use their RTM card. Then, SRH would be deducted only 12 crores from the budget, the point where the third highest bidder, say CSK dropped out. Klaasen would be paid his deserved 18 crores. Observe that the effect on the budget is identical to the current RTM rule. If SRH did not participate at all, the auction would have ended at 12 crores with CSK dropping out. SRH would have matched RR’s bid to procure Klaasen at 12 crores as per the current rule.

In the end, the auction budget is a tool to level the playing field amongst franchises, but it shouldn’t restrict fair pay for players. By separating budgets from salaries in retentions and RTM cards, we can ensure teams remain competitive without shortchanging the stars that make the IPL the spectacle it is.