Exclusive: Super Rugby Pacific’s future in doubt after Rugby Australia’s ‘betrayal’ of New Zealand Rugby

There are fears Super Rugby Pacific is going to fall apart as Rugby Australia look to back out of deal with NZ Rugby. Photo / Getty/NZ Herald graphic

Super Rugby Pacific was celebrating late last year after it was agreed that New Zealand and Australia would both commit to the competition until 2030. But now the Australians are reneging on key features of the deal they signed, and fears are rising that Super Rugby Pacific is going to fall apart, leaving professional club rugby in the Southern Hemisphere with a bleak and uninspiring future. Gregor Paul reports.

In December last year, months of what had been tense and at times confrontational negotiations concluded when the rugby unions of New Zealand and Australia signed a joint-venture agreement to commit to Super Rugby Pacific until 2030.

The deal, described by then Rugby Australia chief executive Andy Marinos as “the dawn of a new era”, was built on the three pillars of a short-term revenue sharing agreement, the appointment of an independent commission led by a chief executive and governed by a nine-person board, and a general commitment to give Super Rugby Pacific greater commercial and management autonomy and a stronger identity.

The commission, it was agreed, would have a remit to drive commercial revenue, oversee rules and regulations, shape the future strategic direction and generate fan-first initiatives.

It was being set up to take the lower-level decision-making and day-to-day running out of the hands of Sanzaar, the Sydney-based administrative company owned, funded and governed by the national unions of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.

The 12 Super Rugby Pacific clubs are unanimous in their belief that Sanzaar is conflicted as it primarily exists to protect and promote the interests of the national bodies it represents and its decision-making over the last two decades has reflected its desire to put the international game first.

What NZR and RA agreed when they both signed the term sheet securing Super Rugby Pacific’s future through to 2030, was that the new commission would manage, market and promote Super Rugby, Sanzaar would continue to do the same for the Rugby Championship and that decision-making authority for “major matters” such as negotiating broadcast deals, changing eligibility laws, expanding the number of teams or materially changing the format of either competition would remain categorically with the national unions.

The significance of the agreement was enormous as it ended what was a real prospect of Southern Hemisphere rugby being destroyed by an ongoing and seemingly irresolvable feud between NZR and RA which began in June 2020 when NZR unilaterally blew up the competition, announced it was launching a new one and then told Australia only three of their teams would get in.

NZ Rugby CEO Mark Robinson with Rugby Australia CEO Andy Marinos, who will move on as Australian boss in June. Photo / Getty

The Australians never quite got over being treated like that, and in mid-June last year unexpectedly announced they were ready to quit Super Rugby Pacific at the end of 2023 and set up their own competition — a threat that seemingly ended with the joint-venture agreement until 2030.

“This long-term agreement provides certainty for players, coaches, fans, sponsors and broadcast partners,” declared NZR chief executive Mark Robinson in December last year.

“And it solidifies our joint commitment to ensuring Super Rugby Pacific is the most entertaining, innovative and fan-focused cross-border club competition in the world.”

But six months on and the sense of certainty has been replaced by what is beginning to feel like betrayal as there is still no independent commission or board in operation, and according to multiple sources, RA is reneging on or at least trying to alter many of the conditions that were included in the term sheet it signed.

The fear in New Zealand is that RA is trying to unpick the deal that saved Super Rugby Pacific and persevere with an archaic and conflicted management model that leaves it under the control of national unions and forced to pander to the needs of the Wallabies and All Blacks.

As the Herald understands it, an independent chair and four independent directors have been found to join the CEOs of NZR and RA and the heads of the New Zealand and Australian professional player associations to form a nine-person board as per the terms of the deal.

But it is believed RA chairman Hamish McLennan is claiming that neither he nor his board were made aware of all the conditions in the term sheet and that they don’t support an independent commission being set up.

It is understood that RA now wants an unspecified, but smaller number of people handpicked from the two national unions and participating clubs to run Super Rugby — more as a committee than an active, funded body empowered to drive change.

That would effectively leave Super Rugby under the management and governance of Sanzaar — whose chair is McLennan.

Several sources have confirmed this change of heart occurred after McLennan failed to get his way over the appointment of a chief executive for the independent commission.

Sources say RA wanted to hand-pick the appointment, whereas NZR felt it was more appropriate to run a process. When they couldn’t agree, RA then began walking back its commitment to the commission.

The Herald has also been told that despite the signed term sheet clearly spelling out that “major matters” remain entirely within the control of the national unions, RA has aired concerns that it believes the commission would be able to kick Australian teams out of Super Rugby Pacific on a whim and renegotiate broadcast rights.

The Super Rugby Pacific trophy. Photo / Photosport

RA’s refusal to commit to what it agreed last year has left Super Rugby Pacific in a state of limbo at a time when some of the key metrics around the competition are showing growth.

Broadcast audiences in New Zealand are at their highest levels in five years and NZR wants the commission — which would effectively be a super-charged marketing arm — to be in place to capitalise on this fan revival.

NZR and New Zealand’s clubs also believe that the commission would play a vital role in driving fans back to games as while broadcast numbers are climbing, attendances are suffering an overall decline, albeit with major spikes for specific, high-profile games.

And there is universal agreement on both sides of the Tasman that more needs to be done to address the inequity in the competition which has seen a gulf open between the top five teams and bottom seven.

Robinson says that talks with RA will resume this week, but that NZR remains committed to implementing the terms agreed last year.

He said: “New Zealand Rugby and our clubs’ position is that we see benefit in having a more dedicated, focused Super Rugby in the shape of a commission with dedicated resource around governance and management model that might have more a singular focus and bring fresh perspective to some of the challenges we have historically seen in the competition.

“We continue to work in partnership with Rugby Australia to work through these matters.”

Given that RA has signed a legally binding contract, it’s unclear what will happen if it continues to refuse to accept the commitment it made last year.

NZR would presumably be reluctant to head to court due to the expense, permanent damage it would inflict upon the relationship and lack of certainty that it would deliver a beneficial, practical outcome.

The more likely consequence is that NZR will withdraw the $7m of annual funding it has agreed to pay RA annually until 2025 as part of a retrospectively agreed broadcast revenue sharing agreement.

But the fact that NZR is having to contemplate court action or cutting the purse strings is a worrying sign that Super Rugby Pacific is not on the solid ground it believed it was late last year.

The future of the Southern Hemisphere’s showpiece club competition is once again shrouded in doubt and being held hostage by vested interests and RA’s refusal to cede any kind of control.