New Zealand Rugby governance review: The numbers that prove how unsustainable NPC and Super Rugby are

A Wednesday night clash between Auckland and Manawatū drew few spectators to Eden Park. Photo / Photosport

The vast cost of running the NPC has been highlighted by the New Zealand Rugby governance review, which questions the sustainability of the competition running alongside Super Rugby in its current forms.

Among its thorough dive into how rugby operates in New Zealand, the four-person independent review panel revealed that across a slate of 75 fixtures, match costs alone totalled $15 million at an average of $200,000 per game. That figure did not factor in player payments, totalling a further $17m.

Those numbers are a stark contrast to the attendance figures for the competition. According to the report, the full NPC slate draws in around 200,000 in total attendance.

However, 25 per cent of those to attend games do so on complimentary tickets, the panel noted. In all, it suggested an average paying crowd of 2000 per NPC game; a number which is made abundantly clear on televised broadcasts of games played at the likes of Eden Park (around 50,000 capacity), Sky Stadium (34,500) and FMG Stadium Waikato (25,800).

A spokesperson for the panel confirmed these figures were only reflective of the NPC and did not factor in the Farah Palmer Cup.

While the panel noted financial and broadcasting information for Super Rugby was commercially sensitive and not as readily available as it was for the provincial unions, it provided a clear example of their findings in relation to the nation’s professional scene.

The cost of running the two competitions in their current incarnations was brought up several times in the report, with Super Rugby’s relationship to the NPC and its “pressing financial issues” described as two central issues that must be addressed.

“Few, if any, would contend that a country of five million people can support six professional franchises and 14 NPC teams with a high and growing investment in professional players,” the panel stated.

Later in the report, they also questioned “not only whether New Zealand can support so many fully professional rugby players but whether it can afford the overhead costs of 26 different provincial unions”.

Among the feedback the panel received during their review of the two competitions, a common view that was shared was that the NPC, in particular, contained too many teams, while one interviewee described the current Super Rugby competition as “a dog’s breakfast”, with fans unclear on when the competition will start, which players will be available and how they’re supposed to relate to both Super Rugby and NPC.

Remarkably, this isn’t the first review to question the relationship and roles of the two competitions.

The pre-Covid McKinsey review, which looked at alignment, efficiency and cost saving across the game and was published in 2020, concluded there were potential efficiency gains worth upwards of $20m to be made each year.

It suggested provincial unions should focus on the club game at local level, and Super Rugby should be the platform for identifying talent and developing elite players.

“That work appears to have been sidetracked by Covid and effectively parked,” the governance review panel said of the McKinsey review.

“Most of the report’s conclusions are still valid and there are certainly efficiency gains to be made. The McKinsey process canvassed many of the same people as this review and the conclusions were largely the same.”

The report credited one NPC union for taking that idea on board, with the unnamed organisation telling the panel they had “given up” on being competitive in the NPC in favour of investing in the game at the grassroots level.

However, NPC unions on average spent 59 per cent of their turnover on high performance and only 21 per cent on the community game.

The panel said solving the country’s professional rugby problem was one that needed to be done at the national level, however, NZR’s current governance structure did not support that.

Provincial unions also came into question in the governance review in relation to how decisions are made by the governing body, with the report suggesting the NZR board and staff were “constantly mindful of upsetting the member Unions and the threat of member Unions calling a special general meeting to remove the NZR board is ever present.”

After the findings were released on Thursday, a joint statement was sent out on behalf of the New Zealand Provincial Rugby Chairs to address the thorough report.

“We are here to serve our rugby communities and the thousands of participants across the country who will demand that we put the game first. Any decisions that ultimately need to be made will be done so through that lens,” the statement said.

“This is a hugely important, deeply researched piece of work and, with that in mind, we are going to carefully consider the findings as a collective. Until then, we feel it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment further.”

NZR chair Dame Patsy Reddy said in a statement: “The (NZR) Board will now take time to digest it fully. We are committed to considering all recommendations. We will consult with our member unions and stakeholders on their views and next steps to deliver the best possible governance framework for rugby in Aotearoa New Zealand.”

Christopher Reive joined the Herald sports team in 2017, bringing the same versatility to his coverage as he does to his sports viewing habits.