Economics
IPL retention rules explained: slabs, RTM and the purse
How IPL retention works: six slots per franchise, five capped and two uncapped, the fixed slab charges, and the right to match card explained.
By CricketTaken EditorialPublished Economics18 min read
Late in the autumn before a mega auction, ten franchises each file a single sheet with the league office. It carries at most six names, and beside every name sits a figure nobody negotiated. That sheet is the IPL retention rules explained in their working form: a short list, a price per slot fixed months earlier, and a deadline that does not move for anyone. Everything a franchise will spend on the auction floor two months later is decided by what goes on that page.
The direct answer, before any of the reasoning. A franchise may keep six players from the squad it finished the previous cycle with. Those six slots can be filled either by a straight retention, declared in advance, or by a right to match card played while the bidding is live, and the two instruments share the same allowance. Inside the six, a maximum of five may be capped players, counting Indians and overseas players together, and a maximum of two may be uncapped. Each name is charged to the auction purse at a published rate rather than at a market price, and whatever is left after those charges is the money the franchise carries into the hall.
Those are the rules for the cycle the league is currently in. The count, the composition limits and every rupee figure attached to them are rewritten each time the governing council issues a new set of player regulations, which is the single most important thing to understand about this subject and the reason most articles on it go stale within eighteen months.
- 6Slots per franchise, retention and RTM combined
- 5Capped players allowed inside those slots
- 2Uncapped players allowed inside those slots
- 3Years the regulations run before rewriting
Structural limits from the IPL Governing Council's published player regulations for the 2025 to 2027 cycle. The league resets these each cycle.
What a retention slot actually is, and what it is not
A retention is not a contract renewal. The player's deal with the franchise is a separate matter; what the retention does is exempt him from being thrown back into the pool that every other squad in the league can bid on. Think of it as a franchise buying an exemption, and paying for that exemption out of the same purse it will later use to buy everybody else.
That framing matters because it explains why the charge is a purse deduction rather than a salary. The number the league publishes against slot one is not necessarily what the player is paid. It is what the franchise's spending power is reduced by for having kept him off the floor. The two figures are usually close, because a franchise that pays a player less than the slab charge is simply wasting purse, but they are conceptually different objects and the regulations treat them so.
The second thing a retention is not is a reward for loyalty. Nothing in the mechanism recognises how long a player has been at a franchise, how many titles he has won there or how much merchandise carries his name. A player who joined the squad in the final year of a cycle can be retained at slot one exactly as easily as one who has been there since the franchise was founded. Sentiment is entirely a franchise-side variable, and the rulebook is indifferent to it.
What a retention genuinely is, mechanically, is a purchase made under a price ceiling and a price floor at once. The franchise cannot pay less than the slab for that slot, and it cannot be made to pay more no matter how badly a rival wants the player. Both halves of that are unusual in professional sport, and together they produce almost every strategic feature of the system.
Why the slab price is fixed before anybody knows the market
The design choice underneath everything else is that the charge for a retention slot is announced before a single franchise declares anybody, and it does not respond to what the player would have fetched.
Consider the alternative. If retention charges were set to the player's likely auction value, retention would be economically pointless: a franchise would pay the market rate to avoid the market, which is a fee for nothing. The whole instrument only does work if the price and the value can diverge.
So the league sets a ladder, and the ladder is deliberately blunt. It cannot distinguish between a bowler who would go for a fortune and a batter who would go for less, and it does not try. What it produces instead is a sorting mechanism: the slab is a generous price for a player the room would fight over, and a poor price for a merely useful squad member. Franchises therefore sort their own squads for the league, keeping the names for whom the fixed price is a bargain and releasing the ones for whom it is not.
There is a rather elegant consequence. Because every franchise faces the same ladder, the retention lists collectively reveal how each front office rates its own players against a common yardstick. A name kept in slot one is a declaration that the franchise believes the open market would have gone past that figure. A name released is the opposite declaration, made in public, weeks before anyone can test it. Retention day is the only occasion in the calendar when ten squad-building departments publish their private valuations simultaneously.
The slab ladder, and the step that surprises people
The ladder for capped players does not descend cleanly, and the shape of it is the part most readers get wrong.
For the 2025 to 2027 cycle, the published charges for capped retentions ran at 18 crore for the first slot, 14 crore for the second and 11 crore for the third. Then, for a franchise wanting a fourth and a fifth capped player, the scale went back to 18 crore and 14 crore. Uncapped retentions were charged at 4 crore each. Read the sequence as a whole and the intent is unmistakable.
The first three steps behave the way anyone would expect. Keeping a second player is cheaper than keeping a first; keeping a third is cheaper again. That decline is doing something specific. It makes a small, focused retention list expensive per head and a slightly larger one progressively less painful, which nudges franchises towards keeping a genuine core rather than a single superstar.
The reset at slot four is the interesting design. A franchise that has already kept three and wants a fourth pays the top rate all over again. The marginal cost of depth jumps back to its maximum precisely at the point where a franchise would be tempted to keep its entire first-choice batting order together. Fill all five capped slots and the total charge reaches 75 crore before a single uncapped name is added.
Add one uncapped player at 4 crore and the deduction reaches 79 crore. Against the auction purse the league set for that cycle's mega auction, that leaves 41 crore to assemble everything else: the remaining dozen or more squad places, the overseas cover, the reserve wicketkeeper, the injury replacements. A franchise that keeps six is walking into the hall with roughly a third of its purse and eighteen holes in its squad.
That trade is the whole game. Continuity is available and it is priced, and the price is set high enough that nobody can buy all of it.
Uncapped retentions, and the five-year clause
The uncapped slots are the cheapest thing in the system, and the definition of uncapped is therefore load-bearing.
An uncapped Indian player, in the ordinary sense, is one who has never represented the senior national side. Franchises that develop such players get to keep two of them at a fraction of a capped slot's charge, which is exactly the incentive the league wants: an academy that finds a genuine talent is rewarded with several years of cheap use before the market can price him.
The current regulations add a clause that widens the category. An Indian player who has not appeared in a starting eleven in international cricket during the preceding five calendar years, and who does not hold a BCCI central contract, is reclassified as uncapped for retention purposes. Both conditions have to hold. A player on a central contract stays capped regardless of recent selection, and a player who appeared in a starting eleven within the window stays capped even without a contract.
In practice the clause touches a very small number of names in any given retention window. Its effect is to let a franchise keep a long-serving figure who has drifted out of the international side, at a slot price that reflects his current standing in national selection rather than his standing in the competition. Whether that is a sensible piece of rule-writing or an obvious loophole is argued over every cycle, and both readings have something to them.
The uncapped slots also interact with the capped limit in a way worth spelling out. Five plus two is seven, but the total is capped at six. So a franchise cannot fill every sub-limit. It chooses either five capped and one uncapped, or four capped and two uncapped, or some smaller combination. The sub-limits are ceilings on composition, not entitlements to be added together.
The right to match card, and why it costs a retention slot
The right to match is the second route into a retention slot, and it inverts the information problem.
A straight retention is a decision made blind. The franchise commits at the slab price without knowing what the market would have said. A right to match card is the opposite: the franchise releases the player, watches ten front offices price him in real time, and then decides whether to buy him back at whatever number the room produced.
The trade is precision against control. With a card, the franchise learns the true valuation before committing, which removes the risk of paying 18 crore for a player the auction would have valued at half that. What it gives up is the price. The card holder does not set the figure; it accepts or declines somebody else's. A player the room falls in love with becomes unaffordable, and the card holder watches him leave having gained nothing but information.
Under the amended procedure, the leading bidder is offered one final opportunity to increase the bid before the card can be exercised. That amendment exists to close a specific exploit. Without it, a rival could place a modest bid on a player it had no intention of signing, force the card to be spent at a low number, and move on having drained a slot for free. Requiring the bidder to be willing to raise means anyone attempting the manoeuvre risks actually owning the player.
The constraint that shapes everything is that cards and retentions share the six slots. A franchise that declares four retentions has two cards. A franchise that declares six has none. There is no way to keep six and still hold an option on a seventh, and the arithmetic of that is what makes the fourth name on a retention list the hardest decision in the building. The broader mechanics of the bidding itself, including how the accelerated round works and what going unsold costs, are covered in the piece on how the IPL auction works.
Holding a card also has a hidden carrying cost. A card cannot be played until the player comes up, and the player may come up late. So a franchise holding two cards must hold purse back against both, which means it cannot spend freely in the early rounds where the best available players go. Cards are not free options; they are money placed under a stone until the afternoon.
The purse is not the salary cap
Two numbers get conflated constantly, and separating them clears up most confusion about what franchises can actually spend.
The auction purse is the pot the retention charges come out of and the bidding is drawn against. It is a hard operational limit inside the hall: a franchise cannot bid a rupee past it, and the bidding software will not let it try.
The total salary cap is a larger figure that sits above the purse. For the 2025 to 2027 cycle the governing council set it at 146 crore, 151 crore and 157 crore across the three years. That total is made up of the auction purse plus incremental performance pay plus match fees, the last of these being a genuine novelty: the same regulations introduced a per-match payment to every playing member, the impact player included, on top of the contracted amount.
Governing council figures for the 2025 to 2027 regulations. The total is the auction purse plus incremental performance pay plus match fees, not the purse alone.
Show the numbers
| Item | Total salary cap |
|---|---|
| Year one | 146cr |
| Year two | 151cr |
| Year three | 157cr |
The upward slope across the three years is deliberate and it does real work. A franchise that spends heavily on retention in year one is not locked into that spending level for the rest of the cycle, because the cap it operates against grows. The purse available for the mini auctions in years two and three rises too. It is a small piece of engineering that stops the mega auction from permanently freezing a squad's finances.
Introducing a match fee changed something subtler. Before it, a squad player who never got selected was paid the same as one who played every match. Attaching money to appearances shifts a slice of squad expenditure from guaranteed to earned, which is a familiar structure elsewhere in professional sport and a new one here. Anyone comparing structures across competitions will find the comparison of salary caps across major leagues useful, because the IPL's version is unusual in being a purse for buying rather than a ceiling on payroll.
Retention before a mega auction versus a mini auction
The word retention gets used for two quite different operations, and the distinction is the source of endless confusion in comment sections.
Before a mega auction, retention is the mechanism described above: a limited number of slots, published slab charges, and everybody else released into a pool that resets the league. This happens once per cycle.
Before a mini auction, in the intervening years, the default runs the other way. Squads carry over intact. A franchise does not retain players so much as release the ones it no longer wants, and the released names plus new registrations plus the previously unsold make up a much smaller pool. There are no slabs, because there is nothing to charge for; a player who stays is simply still under contract at whatever he was bought for. The purse a franchise brings to a mini auction is what remains of its cap after existing contracts are accounted for, plus the year-on-year increase.
So a mega auction retention is a purchase and a mini auction retention is an absence of action. The first costs money at a published rate; the second costs nothing because no transaction occurs.
- Governing council publishes the regulationsThe number of slots, the composition limits, the slab charges and the purse are all fixed before any franchise declares anything. This usually lands weeks or months ahead of the deadline so that squads can plan against known numbers.
- Franchises value their own squads against the ladderEach front office asks a single question of every player: would the open market pay more than the slab charge for this slot? Names where the answer is clearly yes go near the top of the list, and names where it is no get released.
- The retention sheet is filed by the deadlineThe list is submitted with the players ranked into slots, because the slot determines the charge. Ordering matters as much as selection, and once filed the sheet cannot be revised.
- Purse deductions are appliedThe published charge for every slot used is subtracted from the franchise's auction purse. What remains is the entire budget for rebuilding the rest of the squad.
- Everyone else enters the auction poolReleased players join new registrations and previously unsold names in the pool that all ten franchises bid on. The size of that pool is what makes a mega auction a genuine reset rather than a reshuffle.
- Right to match cards are countedA franchise's card allowance is whatever is left of its six slots after retentions. Six retentions leaves zero cards; four retentions leaves two.
- The card is played, or it is notWhen a released player comes up and a rival wins the bidding, the leading bidder is invited to raise once, and the card holder then chooses whether to match the final figure. Declining costs the franchise nothing but the slot it had reserved.
The sequence of the mega auction retention process. Exact dates and charges are fixed by the governing council for each cycle.
What franchises are actually paying for
Strip away the arithmetic and a retention is a bet on things that do not appear in a general valuation of a cricketer.
The most valuable of them is knowledge of a specific surface. A spinner who has bowled forty matches on the same square knows its pace, its response to evening dew and how it behaves when the ball is fifteen overs old. That knowledge is worth genuine runs, it is not transferable to another venue, and no rival franchise will price it into a bid because no rival franchise can use it. Retention is the only mechanism in the system that lets a franchise pay for venue-specific competence.
Captaincy is the second. A settled captain who has read a ground's conditions for several seasons is running a different job to one arriving fresh, and the difference shows up in bowling changes and field placings rather than in a batting average. The demands of the role are set out in the piece on what a cricket captain actually does, and almost none of it is legible from a scorecard.
The third is squad architecture. A side built around an impact player substitution needs a particular shape: a batter who can be swapped in, a bowler who can be swapped out, an overseas allocation that survives the swap. Rebuilding that shape from scratch on an auction floor is difficult and expensive, whereas retaining two players who already fit it preserves the whole structure. The tactical consequences of that constraint are worked through in the article on the impact player rule.
Against all of that sits the cost of being wrong. A franchise that retains at 18 crore a player the market would have bought at 9 has not lost 18. It has lost the 9 of difference, plus whatever those 9 would have bought late in the auction when prices soften, which in a well-run room is a specialist death bowler and a reserve keeper. Retention errors are not visible on the night. They surface in March, in the shape of a squad with no depth.
Why every number here moves between cycles
This is the section that most explainers skip, and skipping it is why so many of them mislead.
The retention count, the split between capped and uncapped, the slab ladder, the purse and the salary cap are all set by the IPL Governing Council as part of a fresh set of player regulations for each cycle. They are not fixed features of the competition. They are policy levers, and the league moves them in response to what the previous cycle produced.
The direction of travel over the competition's history has not been monotonic. The allowance has been as low as a handful of players in some windows and as high as six in others; the right to match has been withdrawn and reinstated; the purse has climbed steadily as broadcast income has climbed. Each adjustment is a response to a complaint. When retention allowances are tight, franchises complain that squads they built get dismantled and the audience never attaches to a team. When allowances are generous, smaller franchises complain that the strong sides simply keep their cores and the auction stops redistributing anything.
The league has to choose a point on that line, and there is no correct answer available to it. A competition of ten franchises with an audience that attaches to shirts rather than to players needs enough turnover to keep the auction meaningful and enough continuity to make a squad recognisable from one season to the next.
So the practical instruction for a reader is straightforward. Treat any specific rupee figure attached to IPL retention, including every figure in this article, as belonging to the cycle it was published for. The mechanism is stable: fixed slab charges, a shared allowance between retention and right to match, composition limits, and a purse deduction that constrains the auction. The numbers filling that mechanism are rewritten roughly every three years, and the only authoritative source for the current set is the governing council's own regulations.
What retention does to the players
The system has clear effects on careers, and they are not evenly distributed.
For an established international, retention is close to costless. He is kept in a high slot at a good price, or he is released and the auction pays him properly. Either path ends well, and the main risk he carries is a franchise change rather than a pay cut.
For a good but not famous player, retention is where value is captured by the franchise rather than the player. The slab price for slot three is a fine outcome for the club and a mediocre one for a cricketer who might have been driven higher by two rivals in a bidding war. He has no say in the matter, because the regulations give the franchise the option and the player no corresponding right of refusal.
For an uncapped Indian player, the incentives are sharper still. The 4 crore slot is a large sum for someone at the start of a career and a small one relative to what a breakout season would fetch on the floor. A young player who wants to be paid what he is worth needs to reach the open market, and being retained cheaply for several years delays that. Against this sits the value of a settled place in a squad, which for a developing cricketer is worth a great deal more than a marginal increase in fee.
For overseas players, the calculation runs through availability. The regulations for the current cycle tie eligibility to registering for the mega auction, and impose consequences for players who register and then become unavailable before the season. That has tightened the informal arrangement under which a player could pick and choose which windows to appear in, and it has made the retention slot correspondingly more attractive: a retained overseas player has certainty that an auction registration cannot give him. How those windows interact across competitions is set out in the survey of the world's Twenty20 franchise leagues.
The criticisms, taken seriously
Three complaints about retention recur, and they are not equally strong.
It entrenches strong squads. A franchise that has assembled a good core keeps the core, and the auction redistributes only the edges. There is something to this, but the slab reset at slot four is precisely the answer to it, and the 79 crore total for a full six is a heavy tax on hoarding. A franchise that keeps everybody arrives at the auction unable to buy anybody.
It undervalues players who have no bargaining power. This is the strongest of the three. The player has no veto, the price is fixed by a body he does not sit on, and the difference between the slab and his market value is captured entirely by the franchise. Every argument the league makes about squad stability is an argument made with the player's money.
It makes the mega auction less dramatic. This one is mostly aesthetic. Six retentions per side across ten franchises removes sixty names from a pool of hundreds, and what remains is still the largest redistribution event in the sport. The drama argument is really a complaint that the best players are pre-allocated, which is true and is the point of having retention at all.
A fourth criticism is more technical and gets less attention: the slab ladder is a single scale applied to a squad with very different roles in it. A specialist death bowler and a top-order batter occupy the same slot at the same price, even though the market for the two is not remotely comparable. A ladder that varied by role would be unworkable to administer and would invite endless argument about classification, so the league accepts a known distortion in exchange for a rule anyone can apply.
How to read a retention list on the night
The lists are published within hours of each other, and there is a great deal in them if you know what to look for.
Count the slots used, not the names. A franchise that keeps four and holds two cards is in a much stronger position than one that keeps six, even though the second looks more decisive. Cards are optionality, and optionality in an auction is worth real money.
Check the order, not just the list. Slot one costs materially more than slot three, so where a franchise has ranked its own players tells you how it rates them relative to each other, and occasionally the ordering is a surprise that the team sheet never revealed.
Work out the remaining purse immediately. Subtract the charges from the published purse and the number left tells you what kind of auction that franchise is about to have. A side with a large residue is going to be aggressive early; a side with a small one is shopping in the accelerated rounds and hoping.
Notice the uncapped slots. Two cheap slots used well are the closest thing to free value in the system, and a franchise that fills both with genuine prospects has effectively bought a season of squad depth for the price of a fraction of one capped retention.
Look at who was released rather than who was kept. A big name released is not a judgement that he is finished. It is a judgement that the slab charge exceeded his likely price, or that a card offers a better route to keeping him, and the second of those two is often the real story.
Wait for the auction before deciding anybody was wrong. A retention only becomes an error when the market says so, and the market does not open for weeks. Lists that look conservative on the night frequently look shrewd in January.
The mechanism is simple enough to hold in your head: six slots shared between two instruments, a published price per slot, composition limits, and whatever is left goes into the hall. The judgement inside it is not simple at all, which is why ten well-funded front offices reach visibly different conclusions from the same rulebook every cycle. More on the money, the rules and the arguments they cause is collected in the cricket section, and the rest of the sports explainers live in the full archive.
Common questions
How many players can an IPL team retain?
Under the regulations for the current cycle a franchise may keep six players from its outgoing squad. Those six slots are filled by a mix of straight retentions declared before the auction and right to match cards played during it. Within the six, no more than five may be capped players and no more than two may be uncapped.
What are the IPL retention slabs?
A retention is charged to the auction purse at a price the league publishes before anyone declares, rather than at what the player might fetch. For the 2025 to 2027 cycle the capped ladder was set at 18 crore, 14 crore and 11 crore for the first three slots, then 18 crore and 14 crore again for the fourth and fifth, with uncapped retentions at 4 crore each. Those amounts belong to that cycle and are rewritten whenever the governing council issues fresh regulations.
How does the right to match card work in the IPL?
A franchise releases a player, lets the auction price him, and then has the option to buy him back at the winning bid. Under the amended procedure the leading bidder is offered one final chance to raise before the card can be used, which stops a rival lodging a token bid purely to burn the card. Cards and retentions draw on the same pool of six slots, so using one costs the other.
Why does the fourth IPL retention cost more than the third?
Because the published ladder is not a single descending staircase. The first three capped slots step down, and the fourth resets to the top of the scale, so a franchise wanting a fourth capped name pays a premium rather than a discount. The design pushes franchises to send their fourth and fifth best players to the floor instead of hoarding them.
Is the IPL auction purse the same as the salary cap?
No. The purse is the money available for retentions and bidding, while the total salary cap adds incremental performance pay and match fees on top of it. For the 2025 to 2027 cycle the governing council set the overall cap at 146 crore, 151 crore and 157 crore across the three years, with the purse a smaller figure inside that.
Can a player who has played for India be retained as uncapped?
Yes, if he has not appeared in a starting eleven in international cricket during the preceding five calendar years and does not hold a BCCI central contract. The regulations reclassify such a player as uncapped, which lets a franchise keep him in a cheap slot. It is a narrow clause that affects very few names in any given window.
Filed under Cricket·ipl · cricket · auction · franchise cricket · squad building