Northland lifting the Ranfurly Shield off Canterbury | Photo: John Davidson/Photosport
Sport Nation • September 23rd, 2026 11:42 am
With New Zealand Rugby facing a major financial reset, three structural proposals are set to be discussed at a summit involving around 80 stakeholders in Wellington on Thursday.
The meeting comes after a New Zealand Rugby report revealed a structural deficit of $20 million a year, projected losses of $66 million between 2027 and 2031, and cumulative losses of more than $100 million from 2024 to 2028.
Sports reporter Paul Cully outlined the three options being considered – while stressing that none has been formally endorsed by New Zealand Rugby.
Option one: Replace Super Rugby and the NPC with a national competition The most radical proposal would see Super Rugby and the NPC replaced by an eight-to 10-team national competition. “There’s three options on the table and there’s an important distinction to be made here around the option of getting rid of Super Rugby in the NPC and replacing it with a 8 to 10 team national competition,” Cully told Sport Nation on Tuesday. “My understanding that’s not reflective of New Zealand Rugby’s position, i.e. the executive and the board, it’s come from provincial unions. “In saying that, provincial unions as we all know are voting members of New Zealand Rugby. Highly influential, long histories, and it has been their idea to get that discussed on Thursday.”
But what would that mean for the likes of Manawatū, Southland and Northland?
One of the biggest questions surrounding a national competition is which unions would be included – and which could be left outside the professional structure. Cully said the documents indicated that the NPC would need to be changed, although the full meaning of that remained unclear. “The document states that the NPC would have to be quote marks reformatted, which you can read that any way you want.” He warned that the proposal could create a greater divide between the professional game and the provincial level beneath it. “I think it would invariably draw a harder line between the elite professional game and the levels beneath that, which is why it’s just an option at this stage.” He feared it could leave unions facing uncertainty over their future role, depending on how many teams were included and how the competition was structured.
Option two: Expand Super Rugby to seven New Zealand teams The second proposal would retain Super Rugby but expand the number of New Zealand-based teams. “The second option is expand Super Rugby, so the teams we’ve got at the moment plus two, to come likely from provincial unions.” Cully said the idea had been discussed previously, including as part of the Aratipu Report. “I think of the existing five Super Rugby teams and then the two extra, that’s been discussed over a number of years. “I think it was originally part of the Aratipu Report a few years back, when they ultimately decided that there wasn’t the resources to have seven New Zealand Super Rugby teams.” He suggested the proposal appeared to draw on previous work rather than being a completely new idea. “That proposal to me looks like something that’s been gathered from previous reports and has just been put on the table.” Cully said this was the option he found most appealing. “I quite like that idea of the five Super Rugby teams and then two extra, because it would give you those extra New Zealand derbies, a bit of extra tribalism, that I think everybody can see is maybe lacking a little bit, and then extra playing opportunities for players in New Zealand as well.”
Option three: Keep the current system but merge unions and franchises The third option would retain the existing Super Rugby structure, but bring provincial unions and Super Rugby franchises together in the five main regions. “The third option is essentially a status quo, but the amalgamation of Auckland, the Blues, Waikato, Chiefs and so on and so forth throughout the five Super Rugby centres.” Cully described it as potentially the mildest proposal, but questioned how the mergers would work in practice. “Potentially the mildest proposal which is effectively the status quo but amalgamation of the provincial unions and the Super Rugby clubs and those five main centres looks okay on paper but in reality how would that work.” He said existing tensions between some of the organisations could make the process difficult. “Some of these relationships are already a little bit tense so even the path of least resistance I think is going to be controversial.”
However, he emphasised that no proposal had been selected or fast tracked at this stage. “Now, none of these options are preferred, we’re a long way off from having any of these options having that status.”
Regardless of which proposal gains support, Cully believes the current system is unlikely to remain untouched. “So whichever way you look at it, I would suspect that major change is coming.”
Any decision would require agreement from a wide range of stakeholders, including provincial unions, Super Rugby franchises and other parts of the game. “You’re going to have to get agreement from a whole range of stakeholders before any of these happen.
“The documents have already been presented to the stakeholders, so they’re already across this. So they know when they arrive in Wellington what’s going to be discussed.” However, the timeline for reaching a decision is relatively tight.
“But it’s going to happen quickly if New Zealand Rugby follows the timeline outlined. “Late October has been identified as the time when New Zealand Rugby decides which way to go,” he claimed.
Where does privatisation fit? Privatisation is also expected to feature in the wider discussion, although it is being treated as a separate issue from the proposed structural changes. “Privatisation is a separate piece of work that’s been driven by the Super Rugby clubs, so they’ve been keen to keep it distinct from what’s going on with the structure and the system of New Zealand Rugby.” If Super Rugby remains in place, Cully believes some form of privatisation could become increasingly likely. “But I think that a move towards privatisation, if Super Rugby is maintained, it’s almost inevitable. “May not be the full privatisation that we associate with maybe the Top 14 in France, but I do think that New Zealand Rugby is keen to get additional money through the door.”