New Zealand Rugby has put the future of Super Rugby and the NPC on the table as it looks for about $20 million a year in savings, with one of three options replacing both competitions with a single new national league.
The three proposals are set out in a confidential NZ Rugby document that was seen by RNZ and first reported by The Post. They were drawn up for a summit in Wellington on Thursday 24 September, which brought NZ Rugby together with the provincial unions and the Players Association to talk about the governing body’s finances and the shape of the domestic game.
Nothing was to be decided at the summit. According to RNZ, NZ Rugby hopes to take a final proposal on the domestic competitions to its board meeting in December, where other possible changes to the structure of the game could also be revealed.
The money problem is the reason for the review. The document says rugby in New Zealand cannot fund its own growth without changing course, and describes the current financial model as unsustainable. NZ Rugby’s revenue has doubled over the past decade, but costs have grown faster, leaving it with recurring deficits.
The figures are stark. NZ Rugby is forecast to make cumulative net losses of $68 million between 2022 and 2026, and a further $66 million from 2027 to 2031. The game is forecast to lose $26 million in 2026 alone. Cash reserves are projected to fall to $72 million by the end of 2031, about where they sat in 2021 before the Silver Lake investment deal. The document also states that no domestic competition is currently profitable.
The first option would expand Super Rugby Pacific from 10 teams to 12. A new company, called “SPR Hold Co” in the document, would run the competition, holding the pooled commercial rights and handling logistics and marketing, while NZ Rugby and Rugby Australia kept “broadcast control”. The five New Zealand Super Rugby clubs would merge with their home provincial unions in Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago, cutting the number of high-performance set-ups around the country. RugbyPass reported that the document did not say which two teams would be added, and that any expansion would need Rugby Australia to agree.
The second option leaves Super Rugby and the NPC as they are, but saves money by folding each Super Rugby club into the provincial union in the same city. RugbyPass reported that this approach draws on a 2024 review of men’s pathways and competitions, which estimated savings of $5.75 million a year.
The third option is the one that has drawn the most attention. It would scrap both Super Rugby and the NPC and replace them with a new national competition of eight to ten teams, cutting ties with Australia. RNZ reported that this idea was put forward by the provincial unions, and that it is unclear how the teams would be chosen. RugbyPass reported that the teams would be run by the provincial unions, with player payments of between $8 million and $10 million each, and that any new competition would most likely start in 2028.
RNZ stressed that all three proposals are still indicative and were written as starting points for discussion.
The players are wary of pulling down competitions that have served the game for a generation. New Zealand Rugby Players Association chief executive Rob Nichol told RNZ’s Morning Report the domestic competitions were worth keeping.
“I cannot emphasise enough how well, in the men’s game, NPC and Super Rugby, how well it’s delivered over the last 25 years,” Nichol said. “Ironically, even though New Zealanders love to beat up on our comps, we’re the envy of the world in that respect still.”
He said his preference was to develop the existing competitions, arguing that in recent years the focus had been more on the All Blacks and Black Ferns and on how to commercialise those teams.
Player payments are rugby’s biggest single cost. RNZ reported they were not expected to be a major topic at the summit, but that NZ Rugby is looking at ways to save money there too. The document says NZ Rugby wants to keep its best players and coaches in New Zealand, although RNZ understands the organisation is willing to consider changing the All Blacks eligibility rules so senior players could play overseas and still be picked for the national team. No such change is currently being worked on.
Rugby league looms over the whole discussion. “Rugby is up against a well organised, well-funded competitor – future success requires alignment against this challenge,” the document states, according to RNZ.
The document says the NRL, with 17 teams and 213 games a season, now draws 28 million viewing hours in New Zealand. Super Rugby draws 19 million and the NPC 14 million. Super Rugby will be down to 10 teams and 86 games from 2027 after Moana Pasifika’s exit. The NRL is also reaching into rugby’s talent pool, with 61 of the 434 players in its under-21 competition this year, or 15 percent, having played first XV rugby at a New Zealand school.
That pressure may soon grow. The NRL wants 20 teams by 2030, with the Perth Bears joining next season and a Papua New Guinea side from 2028, and RNZ reports that a Christchurch-based club is among the frontrunners for the 20th licence, with a decision expected by the end of the year.
NZ Rugby chief executive Steve Lancaster has played down the threat. Speaking to Newstalk ZB’s Jason Pine this month, he said, as reported by RNZ, “It’s not a binary proposition for us.” He added, “For one code to be strong doesn’t mean the other has to suffer, there’s plenty of space in the market for more than one code to be thriving.”
For fans, nothing changes yet. No decision has been made, and RugbyPass reported that any new competition would be unlikely to start before 2028. But the December board meeting now shapes as one of the most important in years for the national game, with the NPC’s provincial rivalries, the Super Rugby clubs and the trans-Tasman partnership with Australia all in play.
Which option would you back? Should New Zealand keep Super Rugby and the NPC, grow Super Rugby, or start again with a new national league? Tell us what you think in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply