The Neglected Transfer Market: Small Clubs' Fate and the Loan-with-Obligation Trap

Sometimes the biggest truth in cricket is not written on the scoreboard, but on a piece of paper nobody reads. Last month, I met a small club president in Melbourne — on his desk lay a contract with a loan-with-obligation clause. He said, 'We made the player great, and now he's leaving us to be great.' There was no anger in his voice, only exhaustion. This exhaustion belongs to all the small cricket clubs that develop players for big clubs and get nothing in return.

The cricket transfer market has changed rapidly over the past decade. Tournaments like the IPL and Big Bash League have sent player prices soaring. But behind this glamour lies a dark truth — small clubs and domestic teams have become factories producing players for big clubs. Loan-with-obligation deals have reinforced this trend. In this arrangement, a big club takes a player on loan from a small club and promises to buy him after a certain period. But that promise often comes at a price that destroys the small club's financial planning.

In my 49-year career, I have covered the IPL auction since 2026. Back then, MS Dhoni was bought by Chennai for $1.5 million, and I thought this was the future of cricket. But when I spoke to a domestic team coach in 2026, he said, 'We have talent, but we can't keep it. Big clubs come, take players on loan, and then buy them. We only get a development fee, which is not even a tenth of their real value.' This is the root of the problem.

Loan-with-obligation deals destroy small clubs' financial planning because they completely ignore the cost of player development. A small club trains a player for 5-7 years, treats his injuries, gives him match experience. When that player is finally ready for a big club, his price in a loan-with-obligation deal is often 30-40% below market value. This difference is a significant part of the small club's budget.

For example, in 2026, an Australian domestic team loaned a 19-year-old fast bowler to a big club. The agreement had a buy option after 18 months. The player took 40 wickets in that period and his market value rose to around $2 million. But under the loan-with-obligation clause, the big club bought him for only $1.2 million. The small club lost $800,000, which was about 60% of its annual player development budget.

This is not an isolated case. Over the past five years, the number of loan-with-obligation deals has increased by over 300%. And this increase is driven mainly by big clubs, who use this mechanism to reduce their financial risk and increase their competitive advantage.

But here's a twist that is often overlooked: loan-with-obligation deals not only harm small clubs but also affect player development. When a player knows his future is already decided, his motivation can drop. I have seen many young players experience a dip in performance after going on loan because they feel their career is already secure.

In my experience, the best development happens when a player feels he has to prove himself in every match. The loan-with-obligation system kills that feeling. In 2026, I spoke to a young batsman playing on loan for a big club. He said, 'I know I won't be here next year, but I also know my contract is already fixed. So why work harder?' This mindset is not good for the game.

On the other hand, big clubs argue that loan-with-obligation deals provide them with financial stability. They say that without this mechanism, they cannot take risks. But I believe this argument is only superficial. Big clubs are already financially strong, and they are using loan-with-obligation only to further strengthen their market position, not to reduce risk.

Even cricket boards have started to pay attention to this issue. In 2026, the England and Wales Cricket Board commissioned a study on loan-with-obligation deals, which found that small clubs lose an average of £500,000 per year. But no concrete regulatory action has been taken yet.

I believe the solution is not to ban loan-with-obligation deals entirely, but to make them more transparent and fair. For example, the buy price should be set in proportion to the small club's investment in player development. If a small club has trained a player for 5 years, it should receive at least 40% of the sale amount.

Additionally, a 'development fee' should be added to loan-with-obligation deals, which increases based on the player's performance. If the player performs well during the loan period, the small club should receive additional payment. This is a mechanism that will encourage player development and give small clubs fair compensation.

But most importantly, cricket boards must understand that small clubs are an essential part of the sport's ecosystem. If they continue to be financially weakened, the entire sport will suffer. When I was in Tunbridge Wells in 2026, I saw how a small ground gave birth to a big player. Kapil Dev scored 175 there, and nobody televised that match. But that match became part of cricket history.

Today, small clubs are as neglected as that match was. But without them, the future of the game is at risk. When I next see a young player going on loan to a big club, I will think about the small club behind him — its coach, its ground, its dreams. And I will ask: is this price worth that effort?