The Value Chain of Cricket: When Blockchain Enters the Game and When It Doesn't

When Sunil Gavaskar bought Rohit Sharma for Delhi Daredevils at the 2026 IPL auction, the true picture of that bidding war was never fully disclosed. How much was paid, who paid how much, who received how much — the answer to these questions has always been incomplete. I started my cricket coverage in 2026 at The Daily Star's sports desk, and in these more than twenty years I have seen one thing clearly — wherever South Asian cricket's economy has grown the most, that is exactly where the most opacity has been born. Blockchain is now being talked about extensively in the cricket world. Player tokens, fantasy apps, data rights, transfer fees — the names are new, but the problems are old. Sitting in Mankhurna, I am thinking about this question: does blockchain solve real problems in cricket, or does it just give new names to old problems? First, understanding the environment is essential. South Asian cricket's economy is now a complex web. IPL, BPL, PSL, Zimbabwe's GTT — these leagues together create a market worth billions of rupees every year. On top of that there are board-to-board agreements, player unions, franchise owners, broadcasters, bookmakers, fantasy platforms — each level has its own confusion, its own disputes. In 2026, when I went to Kazan to write about Germany's defeat, I found that the real story behind a match result lies in the structure. The same is true in cricket. Behind player contracts lies board politics, league economics, and a big question — how will the flow of money be secured? This is a question that blockchain can actually answer. But not where everyone thinks it can. The real question is: where does blockchain work in cricket? Based on my long-term observation, there are three places where blockchain can actually provide solutions, and everything else is mostly hype. The first place is player contract provenance. Contract incompleteness is a major problem in South Asian cricket. In 2026, a dispute arose between a Bangladeshi pacer and a European club — it was mainly about contract terms. What was written, what was said, what actually happened — the gap between the three was enormous. An on-chain contract record would have reduced this kind of dispute. Because every term, every amendment, every consent would have been timestamped. The second place is IPL auction transparency. IPL auction history has a major discomfort — the bidding process is transparent to viewers, but questions remain about how reliable the numbers are. In the 2026 IPL auction, a total of 72.3 billion rupees was spent, with the highest bid being 19 billion rupees — for Virat Kohli. Where this money goes, who receives it, who doesn't — blockchain could have answered these questions. The third place is cross-board transfer fees. From Bangladesh to India, India to Africa, Africa to England — these transfers involve money, but where it goes and who receives it — the answer to these questions almost never comes. With blockchain's help, a recoverable record of this money flow is possible. Now let's come to the real question — where blockchain does not work. Player tokens. In the last five years, I have seen at least ten cricket-based tokens. Each one has made the same proposition — ownership over players, future economic benefits for fans, and a blind faith. In reality, none of these tokens have real use. Because cricket players have no ownership, no board owns cricket players — players are their own masters. So what will the token be about? The answer is simple — nothing, just blind faith. Blockchain versions of fantasy apps. These projects claim one thing — blockchain is needed to ensure fairness in fantasy apps. But fantasy app fairness is not a blockchain matter, fantasy app fairness is about data reliability and algorithm transparency. Blockchain does not help with either of these two. Here is a contrarian perspective that mainstream stories miss. The mainstream will say — blockchain is cricket's future. I say — no, blockchain is not cricket's future, blockchain can be a solution to one of cricket's current problems, if someone uses it that way. I do not want to miss one thing. Blockchain will not solve cricket's real problems, because the real problems are political. Boards do not trust each other, franchise owners do not trust boards, players do not trust franchises. In this world of distrust, blockchain actually works — because blockchain's core value is creating a trustworthy intermediary among distrustful parties. So the question is, will the boards be willing to share a public ledger with each other? Will IPL's owners be willing to put player contract records in a public ledger? The answer to these questions will not come from blockchain, but from politics. I started cricket coverage in an ordinary newspaper, and now I see — cricket's future will be determined not only on the pitch, but also at the boardroom table. Blockchain will come to this table, but when it will come and in what form — I cannot yet answer this question. There is one signal. If some form of on-chain verification is seen at the 2027 IPL auction, this story will begin. And if it is not seen, then blockchain will not come to cricket — only tokens in cricket's name will come.