India spinner R Ashwin has spoken out against the right-to-match (RTM) option available to teams during the IPL auction, claiming that players often do not earn a fair market rate because of it.
The IPL is all set to conduct a mega-auction ahead of the league's 18th season in 2025. There has been much speculation over whether the auction is required, and what the rules and regulations will be. Among these are the retention and right-to-match (RTM) rules.
Retentions allow teams to keep hold of players who played for them in the previous season at pre-determined salary slots. For those players who are not retained and enter the auction, the IPL has had the RTM system in place for a while now.
With an RTM card, the last team a player represented can secure the player as long as they register a bid equivalent to the highest one the player commanded in the auction. In such a case, the player will then join their old team. Teams have been given two or three of these cards per auction in the past, but this was removed from the mega-auction in 2021 in order to provide the two new franchises, Gujarat Titans and Lucknow Super Giants, with a larger pool of players to recruit from.
Who should India's wicketkeeper be for the 2025 Champions Trophy - KL Rahul or Rishabh Pant? pic.twitter.com/LOdBeQHixj
— Wisden India (@WisdenIndia) August 10, 2024
Ashwin: The problem with RTM is that it is not fair value for the player
Speaking on his YouTube channel, India and Rajasthan Royals spinner R Ashwin voiced his thoughts against the rule.
"There is no rule more unfair for a player than RTM," he said. "Because how has the RTM rule been so far? For example, there is a player called X. He is on a team called, let's say, Sunrisers. His current value is around 5–6 crores. He's 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.
"Then, let's 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].
Read more: IPL 2025 auction: New retention and RTM rules – what we know so far
"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 6 crores. What does SRH say? 'You bought the player, right? Return the player back.'
"Very unfair. Because, at this time, SRH has to bid 6.20, the other team 6.40 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. Already, they don't get fair value in the auction."
The RTM option: Arguments for and against
Retention discussions often entail conversations between players and franchises over whether or not the player wants to remain with their current team, and for what price. However, with the RTM option available, teams can buy players back even if they are not keen to remain with their current side.
Read more: IPL 2025 news and latest updates: Ponting keen on IPL re-entry, Dravid to join RR?
However, the argument in favour of the RTM option is that is allows players to remain with their current team if they wish, while earning a higher amount (decided by the market) than any potential retention. There have also reportedly been radical suggestions from IPL owners, of zero retentions and eight RTM options for each team. In all likelihood, there will be an intermediate number of retentions and RTM options.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
