The ECB controls The Hundred competition, while private investors hold stakes in its teams under a separate, evolving ownership structure.
The ECB owns the competition, not just a share of the teams
The short answer to “who owns The Hundred?” depends on what you mean by The Hundred. The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) retains ownership and control of the competition itself, including its regulations and playing window. Private investors have bought stakes in the eight teams, but that does not mean they bought the tournament.
For each team, the broad deal structure gives private investors a 49% stake, with the ECB retaining 51% in the team structure. The teams operate through partnerships involving their host venues or counties. So investors have a substantial interest in the franchises, while the ECB remains the central authority over the competition. A team stake is not a master key to English cricket.
The team-by-team ownership picture
The clearest way to read the deals is to separate the general stake-sale model from the investors publicly identified for particular teams. The ECB’s announcements confirm strategic partners across all eight franchises, but publicly available accounts do not provide equally clear detail on every team’s individual investor arrangements. Here is the reliable outline:
- Trent Rockets: Cain International is identified as a strategic partner, working in a co-venture with Nottinghamshire.
- Southern Brave: GMR Group, which also owns the IPL’s Delhi Capitals, acquired a 49% stake.
- Manchester Originals: RPSG Group, owner of Lucknow Super Giants, is the named investor. Some reporting describes its stake differently from the general 49% model, so the figures should not be treated as interchangeable without the specific deal terms.
- Birmingham Phoenix: Knighthead Capital Management is involved as a partner. The group owns Birmingham City.
- MI London: The former Oval Invincibles identity was changed to MI London, linking the team’s branding to the Mumbai Indians network and its associated ownership group.
- London Spirit, Welsh Fire, Northern Superchargers: These teams also have strategic partners under the wider investment programme, but the available deal details do not establish a sufficiently clear investor-and-stake breakdown for each to state one confidently.
That last distinction matters. “Every team has a strategic partner” is not the same as a reliable public table naming each partner and spelling out every shareholding. Nor should a reported stake for one deal be casually applied to another. The headline 49% structure is the general model; specific reports about an individual team can describe a different arrangement or use a different basis.
What investors bought, and what they did not
Investors bought interests in team businesses, with a role in operating and developing those franchises alongside host clubs or venues. That creates room to bring commercial experience, sports networks and brand recognition to a team. It also gives the investors a stake in the team’s future rather than ownership of The Hundred’s rules, schedule or central identity.
The ECB has established a Hundred Board to oversee strategic direction and commercial growth. Its remit includes areas such as sponsorship and licensing, player salaries, and draft or retention arrangements, with representatives from the ECB and the teams involved. The ECB continues to control competition-level matters, including regulations and the playing window.
In other words, the governance is shared in some areas, but it is not a simple handover from the ECB to eight new owners. A team investor can help shape the franchise; that does not automatically confer the right to rewrite the tournament. The fine print of each company’s arrangements matters, and a board role is not the same thing as unilateral control.
The distinction is similar to the broader trend of investors holding stakes across multiple cricket competitions. The growth of IPL owners buying teams around the world helps explain why franchise networks are expanding, but it does not mean every league uses the same ownership or governance model. In The Hundred, the ECB’s continued control of the central competition is the key difference fans should keep in view.
Why the branding can change while the competition stays put
MI London is the most visible example of investment changing a team’s public identity: Oval Invincibles became aligned with the Mumbai Indians brand. That sort of change can make ownership connections easier to spot, but it does not mean the competition itself has been renamed or sold.
There is a familiar temptation to see IPL-linked investors and assume The Hundred is becoming an extension of the IPL. The team partnerships do connect the competition to international franchise networks, but the ECB retains control of the central tournament. Branding can travel; governance does not automatically travel with it.
For fans, the practical question is therefore not simply “who owns this shirt?” It is also “who makes the rules?” A team’s commercial presentation may reflect its investor, while the format and competition framework remain under ECB control. That distinction is particularly useful when a familiar franchise name or look appears in a new league: it signals a relationship, not necessarily control of the whole competition.
Where the sale money goes
The stake sales were presented as a way to bring significant investment into the game, with proceeds distributed through a formula that includes professional counties and grassroots cricket. Counties that host teams and those that do not are treated differently in the distribution arrangements, and the ECB has said that a substantial amount will support grassroots cricket.
That is separate from the ongoing question of who runs a particular team. Sale proceeds are one part of the financial settlement; the ownership of team stakes and control of the competition are another. Keeping those strands apart makes the deal less mystifying, even if cricket governance does enjoy making a simple sentence wear a blazer.
The investments also sit within a wider commercial plan for the teams and the competition. The Hundred Board’s stated areas of responsibility include commercial growth, sponsorship and licensing, while the ECB retains authority over core competition rules and the playing window. That means commercial decisions can evolve without implying that the ECB has surrendered the tournament’s central governance.
The simple answer
The ECB still owns and controls The Hundred as a competition. Private investors have acquired stakes in its teams, generally described as 49%, with the ECB retaining 51% in the broad team structure and host clubs or venues involved in the partnerships. Individual investor details are clearer for some franchises than others, and reported exceptions should not be flattened into one supposedly uniform table.
So the investors bought a place inside The Hundred, not ownership of the whole competition. They can influence the teams they have backed and participate in the evolving commercial structure, while the ECB retains central authority over the rules and calendar. That is the distinction worth remembering when the next team adopts a new badge or a very familiar franchise colour scheme.
