Leg and off: Is RTM rule as "unfair" as Ravichandran Ashwin thinks it is?
The build-up to the 2025 Indian Premier League (IPL) is as uncertain as it gets with players and franchises still awaiting their respective fates during the off-season. With the previous three-year cycle coming to an end with the 2024 edition, there is a severe disparity as to how the franchise owners wish for the competition to proceed.
Some franchises are fed up with the mega auction concept, while some still want it to stay. Every little aspect ranging from the number of retentions to independent negotiations with players within a franchise, to the increase in the purse amount, has been addressed. The final decision now rests with the Board of Control for India (BCCI).
Amid the tense waiting period, several changes are being expected in the number of retentions and other aspects, but one thing is certain among those changes, which is the return of the 'Right to Match' Card. The provision, which was used in the past, gives a team the right to match the bid if another team gets hold of their player in the auction table.
The RTM was not in effect during the previous mega auction to make the auction a level playing field along with the new franchises, the Gujarat Titans (GT) and the Lucknow Super Giants (LSG).
However, now with the concept set to make a return, the Rajasthan Royals (RR) veteran bowler Ravichandran Ashwin has expressed strong reservations. He spoke about the demerits of the system from the players' perspective in detail on his YouTube channel recently.
"There is no rule more unfair for a player than RTM. Because how has the RTM rule been so far? For example, there is a player called X. He is on a team called, let us say, Sunrisers. His current value is around Rs five-six crores. He has gone into the auction. Now say Sunrisers want to buy the player back. So, the Sunrisers will bid for the player at a base price of 2 crore," Ashwin said.
"Then, let us say, KKR and the Mumbai Indians are bidding for the player. The bid goes up to 6 crores and finally, they say, 'The player is sold to the Mumbai Indians for 6 crores.' So, with RTM, the Sunrisers will then bid for and take the player at 6 crores. The problem here is that Sunrisers are happy. But KKR and MI are unhappy. The only person (party) happy is Sunrisers. Because, in the beginning, they gave attendance bid at base price," he added.
"After that, there is no fair value at all. There is a bidder. The KKR and Mumbai Indians are fighting. For one of those teams, it has gone up to six crores. What does SRH say? 'You bought the player, right? Return the player back."
"Very unfair. Because, at this time, SRH has to bid Rs 6.20 crores, the other team Rs 6.40 crores and they should reach the fair value of the player. The problem with RTM is that it is not fair value for the player. So, if you give three RTMs [to each team], the players will only go virtually empty-handed," he continued.
On that note, let us delve into the pros and cons of the RTM policy, and assess whether the cons are as severe as Ravichandran Ashwin outlines.
Is there even a right way to give a player a fair value in the auction?
The biggest difference between independent transfers and the auction system is determining the right value of players since the latter has so many uncontrollables. In the football transfer market or any other sport where independent negotiations reign supreme, there is a better chance of determining the fair price for a player (unless he is in his last year of contract), because the selling party holds the key and power, on most occasions.
However, in this case, the IPL franchises are forced to release one of their players because of the stringent retention restrictions, and from that point onwards, there is very little control in their grasp. They will have to outbid nine other teams just to get their player back, and also ensure that they have enough funds to plug the remaining holes.
With so many dynamics, even the time at which a player's name is drawn, affects how much money he gets compared to his 'fair value'. Sometimes a player does not get enough money because his name came too late at the auction, and teams did not have enough in their purse by that time.
There are hardly any instances of players being sold for exactly their worth in the auction, it is bound to be higher or lower, it is only the 'by how much' that is unknown.
If the question of 'fair value' is brought to the debate, then before the RTM, the concept of retention is in danger. For instance, Jasprit Bumrah, arguably the greatest bowler on the planet at the minute, is on an ₹12 crore salary, half of what 34-year-old Mitchell Starc manages to make. There are countless other examples where retention itself has not justified a player's fair value, so surely RTM cannot be any worse than that considering it is being conducted in an open forum.
Not long ago, Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) CEO Venky Mysore, had come up with a radical suggestion that included the concept of eight right-to-match (RTM) cards. That becomes a touch overboard since other teams can jack up the prices, and the prospect of releasing some of your biggest assets out in the open with a risk of losing them is tricky.
Now with an increased purse which potentially compensates for the increased number of signings teams have to make in the mega auction, there is hardly a chance for a player to be undervalued with RTM.
If the player is available for below his 'fair value', then the existing franchise will make a straightaway bid instead of wasting away an RTM.
Teams can use the RTM to match the highest bid on the auction floor, so from the players' perspective, they only have to gain. If they end up with a price tag lesser than their 'fair value' as the existing franchise uses their RTM, then it will be because of the auction dynamics and not the RTM.
The other franchises will also anticipate which franchises will be keen on using RTM against which players. So, they will surely drive the price up. As a result, the players will get at least their fair value through an RTM acquisition, if not more.
RTM does not make a huge difference financially from the players' perspective
Let us assume two scenarios at the auction floor. A player is sold for an 'X' amount (which is less than his 'fair value') after a bidding war between two franchises, and one of them acquires him. In the second instance, the same player is sold for an 'X' amount to a franchise, but the player's existing franchise uses the RTM to buy him back.
So, did the value change? No. So, a player can be undervalued even without RTM in place, so it is not an RTM problem, it is an auction problem.
The RTM only determines which franchise the player will go to, and not the player's value, which is entirely set by the auction dynamics.
The existing franchise can only use the RTM once the bidding process is entirely over. It is not as if they can intervene and use their card to rope in their player back midway through the bidding war. As a result, RTM does not have control over a player's value, it only determines the players' destination.
The point where Ashwin mentions that the teams that bid for the player will be upset is accurate though. Imagine going through a hellish bidding war, and beating five other franchises to secure a key player for the playing XI, only to find out that the RTM has been used, and the player is gone from their grasp just like that.
On the flip side, the existing franchise have the right to claim their player back because they are the ones who groomed him in the first place, so they are entitled to maintain their core and stability. As a result, from a team perspective, RTM is a gray area, and a bit unfair to a degree, but not from a player's point of view like Ashwin suggested.
To conclude, Ravichandran Ashwin has plenty of takes when it comes to modern-day cricket, which is certainly welcoming as the sport needs such a voice. The problem with having an opinion on everything is that you are bound to miss at times, this RTM debate certainly falls in that category.