In Greek mythology, Ariadne, the daughter of King Minos, gives Theseus a magical thread which enables the hero to escape from the gloom of the labyrinth after slaying the Minotaur. Elsewhere in the lore, the three Fates were responsible for weaving the yarn of destiny, determining the nature of the challenges facing every individual and choosing the moment to sever the slender strand of human life. Even mighty Zeus, the King of the Gods atop Mount Olympus, could not interfere with its processes and timings.
NEW: Follow Your favourites in the App 📱
Users can now follow their favourite teams, tournaments and players in the RugbyPass App!
Is Super Rugby Pacific finding its way out of a meandering maze, or is it in need of a reboot to find the perfect alchemy? The time has come for the competition to choose a narrative and stick to it. From a 12-team launch in 1996 to a high watermark of 18 clubs in 2018, the tournament is now likely to dwindle to 10 in 2027, with the probable dissolution of the Moana Pasifika franchise based in Auckland.
CEO Jack Mesley has ruled out expansion via the return of South African clubs, emphasizing the need to “contain and fortify what we have now”. On a recent DSPN podcast with Martin Devlin, he claimed rather bullishly that “those games did not rate well. They did not attend well. They did not rate like we’re rating now. They did not attend like we are attending now. So I think there is a romance associated with the South African days.”
That will come as news to those swathes of ex-players and commentators who have observed that South African physicality is the glittering gateway to winning Test match footy. If you can’t pass that checkpoint with your passport-to-power stamped and approved, you can forget about international success.
The late escape plan is an 18-match home-and-away format with more liberal player movement between Australia and New Zealand. The current SRP iteration is described as ‘ho-hum’ by Super Rugby officials and the refresher would come via Kiwi player transfers across the Tasman.
One of the main stumbling blocks is the control exercised by the two host unions. The competition model is still very firmly ‘top-down’, with Super Rugby viewed as a breeding ground for the international game, rather than as an independent, commercially viable product. So Kiwis stay in New Zealand, and their Australian counterparts are far more home than away.
It renders the knockout stages of Super Rugby Pacific predictable. Four sides from the Shaky Isles will contest the semi-finals this coming weekend, with the two Australian qualifiers having been eliminated by a combined score of 112 points to 36 in the last round. Even those happiest of underdogs, the Brumbies, could not come close to overturning the odds in their 66-12 loss to the Hurricanes.
As one SRP CEO commented, “they’re not intentionally being difficult, but they [just] can’t take their All Blacks and Wallabies hats off.” As the unions also mop up the broadcasting revenue directly, the franchises are ever more dependent on putting bums on stadium seats in order to generate revenue, and it’s an uphill struggle.
While New Zealand is twitching back to life, Australia has work to do. The new One New Zealand Stadium, Te Kaha, sold out five straight Crusaders games and the entire Super Round, with Mesley rightly referencing “bloody great news, and testament to the work the guys are doing on the event experience”.
But their neighbours across the Tasman are consistent at best. The average Australian attendance in SRP 2026 rolled in at an average of 11,140 punters per game, 1,127 less than last year but only 495 lower than the same figure in 2023. Australia is keeping its head above water but having to work hard to do so.
The Brumbies have flown the flag for Australian Super Rugby for most of the last decade, but they were more thoroughly dismembered by the Hurricanes at the Cake Tin than in any game in living memory.
The real-life dilemma confronting anyone who wants to make owning a Super Rugby franchise a successful business venture was graphically illustrated by the observations of Malcolm Gillies on a Rugby Direct podcast. Gillies took a 50% share of the Hurricanes operation in 2025.
“When we got involved, we knew the Hurricanes were losing money [posting an annual loss of NZ $2.5m]. The model doesn’t work. Unless there’s change, it’s not going to work. I don’t think it’s sustainable as it sits right now.”
Coming to the scene with fresh eyes, Gillies sees the core dilemma with complete clarity: “My belief is it needs to be privatised.” The prospect of running SRP as a raft of independent businesses raised a host of secondary questions:
- Relax the two-player overseas limit: “Surely allowing overseas players to come and play in our competition would work? Why wouldn’t you? Imagine if you had the big South African lock [Eben Etzebeth] coming over here. You’re going to get people wanting to come and see world-class players.”
- “Should [Super franchises] be contracting and paying the players? Should we have a contract to release them for international duties? If you want private investment in these Super clubs, you’ve got to give them something to invest in.”
- “When a player goes overseas, why aren’t we getting a transfer fee? Why isn’t that passed back to the rugby club he came from?”
- Implement a draft system to help Australia, and even the talent spread across the competition: “If you want your players to be getting quality competition and you can’t give it to them in this country, why wouldn’t you allow them to go somewhere else to play, and still select them?”
Gillies and other progressive owners like Karl Budge in Auckland have been busy making bricks from the modest-quality straw they are given – with more live entertainment, light & laser shows and food trucks to create a more family-friendly experience. Gillies even allows the kids to run on to the pitch and mob their heroes at the end of the game.
It is the inequity of a tournament which a team from New Zealand is sure to win which is at the root of all the problems in the branch network. The Brumbies have flown the flag for Australian Super Rugby for most of the last decade, but they were more thoroughly outplayed by the Hurricanes at the Cake Tin.
The dismantling began in the tight five forwards, and at the scrum. Despite the presence of two grizzled veteran Wallaby props in Allan Alaalatoa and James Slipper, the Wellingtonian starting crew of Xavier Numia, Asafo Aumua and Pasilio Tosi made their point in no uncertain terms at the opening set-piece:
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) June 7, 2026
No need for angling or rotating, or any other ‘dark arts’ to convey a rose-tinted view of dominance to referee Ben O’Keefe here. All of the Canes’ front row go forward together as a unit, at a brisk trot.
They fulfilled all of Dave Rennie and Graham Henry’s desires for a front row which could perform their core roles at scrum-time, whilst making a truly awe-inspiring contribution in open play. In the 46 minutes that the starting trio were on the field, they made 20 carries for 91 metres, with five tackle busts and one try-assist. 70% of their carries came one-out from the ruck, at the point where the defence’s hide is typically the toughest.
At least two of them [Aumua and Numia] flashed the ability to offload in the tackle and sustain attacking continuity:
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) June 7, 2026
The Canes have caught the Brumbies’ switch-back side defence cold from a lineout, with the Ponies’ 9 and 10 defending together on the edge of the field, and it is just not a fair contest when a small scrum-half like Ryan Lonergan is required to defend a powerful, ball-handling tight forward like Asafo Aumua.
The work rate of the Wellington front-row starters was phenomenal:
It was the breakdown work which will have attracted the attention of ‘Dingo Dave’ and Ted, both in its frequency and quality of outcome. Both Tosi and Aumua won turnovers on the deck with able assistance from their mate at loose-head prop:
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) June 7, 2026
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) June 7, 2026
In the first clip, Numia is part of a two-man tackle which exposes the pill for Tosi to pilfer; in the second he leads a counter-ruck which triggers Tosi in support, enabling Aumua to steal the ball and initiate a counter from deep in the Canes’ own end.
The trio were just as cohesive in concert on attacking cleanout duty:
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) June 7, 2026
— William Bishop (@RPvids1994) June 7, 2026
First Numia bangs over another defender on one of those hard one-out carries, then Tosi and Aumua smash ‘Noss’ Lonergan out of the road at the following cleanout. It is as if only the knockdowns really matter: another cleanout by Aumua pancakes a Brumbies defender, Tosi carries the ball straight through the hole, and Warner Dearns scores on the very next play.
In the short term, there is a real chance that no less than four front-row forwards from the Hurricanes may be selected on the ‘Greatest Rivalry’ tour of South Africa, if Tyrel Lomax can return to form and fitness. With their solidity at set-piece and dynamism and work-rate outside it, Numia, Aumua, Tosi and Lomax could be just the medicine that Doctor Rennie ordered.
In the long term, Super Rugby has to decide what it wants to be – a preparatory ground for international competition governed by its unions, or a commercially viable venture in its own right, with its own rules and investors. If challenging the northern hemisphere for access to the world-wide talent pool is the aim, privatisation looks like a solution. If that means more liberal eligibility rules, local rather than central contracts, and opening the borders of Super Rugby to overseas immigration, so be it.
At the end of his podcast on DSPN, Martin Devlin joked “it always is about the girlfriend who leaves, mate. You know that”. Jack Mesley grinned before shooting back: “Even a South African one.” Right now, South Africa has won the last two World Cups while the competition it left behind seeks to rebuild. You can bet your bottom dollar it is the Springboks who are doing most of the laughing.
Watch Super Rugby Pacific live and free on RugbyPassTV in the USA!
Rugby in New Zealand and Australia needs to think about a product that will generate money in Australia first and New Zealand second. Look at the Warriors, they have always had a strong Australian presence in coaching, management and players and this was actively encouraged by the NRL. Now they are more commercially successful then any super rugby or NPC side with a huge loyal following. Why can’t New Zealand do the same for Australia in Rugby? Be open to new competition and commercial models. Allow free player movement while maintaining strict and clear player eligibility rules. New Zealanders think the Australians will sort their problems out but they will wait another 50 years for this while the All Blacks become less successful and Rugby in both countries bleeds money and popularity.
That weekly ‘regional’ model is basically what we have now. It’s just for the reasons of there numbers being imbalanced (5 aus, 6 nz) and only wanting it to fit into a specific window that theres 1 team that the kiwi sides don’t play each other twice. For instance there has only been the single Final match up between Chiefs and Canes so far. There is also no need to backend the cross over games, they can be played out through the season (each conference will have odd team numbers now) for some respite.
Each pool will largely be about seeding rather than the typical interest about who makes the play offs. Perhaps the last team isn’t involved in their finals. Each country could even have their own make up, but the first team could have a bye while the other four duke it out, or the round robin winner crowned champion.
Normally the purpose is do or die crowd levels are needed to give the required economic boom, but if you tie a shorter SR concept like this together with a professional NPC, or a window for a Pacific Cup with JRLO teams, ‘more’ SR playoff games may become unnecessary, especially for kiwi sides as you suggest.
Surely they can still tie in a lot of the things yuo’re trying to create, just need a different way to encourage players to spread out like having a quota on a SR teams All Blacks contribution, opening eligibility up etc, and as I say, work on every little thing at once. I just really don’t want any kneejerk big ideas that are going to fall flat on their head and ruin everything.
Playing Super Rugby in regional ‘Conference’ like manner may work. This would require little structural changes, just a reorganization.
Like it was done in Covid e.g. the New Zealand and Australian teams play the games against themselves first. Then the crossover games. Then the playoffs.
The benefit of this approach is the Australian sides will build confidence which they can bring over into the crossover games and play offs. The Australian fans are also likely to stay engaged as the teams that will make the playoffs will not be clear until part way through the crossover games.
The New Zealand teams didn’t like the regional ‘Conference’ set up as they had hard games, week in week out.
It’s been a good long discussion, I was wrong to say theres “no new money in this”, can’t remember I was talking about there. Should be some good investment options sure, but is their current model of state teams setup to make the most of it? If JAS is getting contributions to help secure him how are they getting value out of their money? Can it sustain a dozen such ‘contributions’ with a far more active loan/transfer system?
Or do they need to change their structure entirely and just let them be clubs with rich owners and it’s all on one group to use such an unlimited resources (given this salary caps that prohibit pure spending)?
Certainly at the start maybe I was suggesting nothing changes? It will take a while for such parties as you suggest to come into play, and many Gillies says will need fundamental structural changes before they give over their cash.
The simplest most immediate solution to “The key is to get the Australian sides as contenders e.g. half of the teams in the playoffs.” is to split the comp into Aus and NZ divisions, each with their own finals, with the aussies gaurenteed to fight in the superbowl which can be hosted in Melbourne/Hong Kong etc for the most revenue proffit. I think aussie have proved thats a winner with the popularity of SR AU. Not sure theres any need to go further after that?
The key is to get the Australian sides as contenders e.g. half of the teams in the playoffs. That will unlock a lot more money e.g. Australian advertisers.
The money for the loan fees will come from Australian private equality investors. They found 1.7-1.8 million AUD per year for Suaalii. They can find tens of thousands per year to fill key weaknesses in their teams. If/when their teams play well/better the value of the Super Rugby franchise increases; their piece of the pie gets bigger.
It’s almost every year that an Australian franchise finds millions of dollars to convert a league player to rugby. So, the money is there, it’s just putting it to good use.
Sorry typo, J Barrett sabbatical in 2025.
I know you wrote this before the semis,Nick,but interesting to see two Kiwi teams got hammered by the same ones who dealt with the Brumbies and Reds.Perhaps they are just too good,like they have shown most of the season.
I mean it’s a great concept. IMO the comp doesn’t need gimmicks like drafts to turn things around, it’s already on the up and up, just the little things that come about by having a committie that cares first and foremost (the big problem with this idea) about itself will be enough to keep generating value.
Handing over broadcast rights is a great way to give them control over their own destiny. Personally I don’t want that.
Where is the money coming from for the loaning team? Theres going to be no new money in this, it will simply be an exchange where clubs have make up the lower nzr wage. SKY value SR at x, and that will be taken out of NZRs deal, and go directly to SR or whatever. Currently %34 of the profit NZR got from x is going into the collective player pool to help SR clubs their ABs. It going to be upto SR what they do with x instead, whether they can get more value from it than NZR can, or if %100 just goes straight into players etc. But essentially I think it should be looked at as the same money exchanging hands, it just now gives SR direct incentive to make SKY value it more over time.
JB has been on sabbatical twice now? where was the first, I can’t even remember.
Rova has played especially well as well.
That loan system is already in place Spew. You need to think of ways to use it, then ways for it to benefit the competitiveness of the league. For instance, one of the Canes first team midfielders, like Higgins (in a perfect non injury world) or Rova could simply have chosen to go the Chiefs instead of them using WTG players or Foketi. How do you get these players to the teams that actually need them?
For instance you could have a loan credit, built up by table position from lowest to highest, and clubs use that as currency to select players? It also dictates the value of the loan to the player (in case you aren’t use compulsion you need a bonus to get the deal over the line etc), higher credit used, more it financially benefits the player? To be taken out of a SR pool or something.
Anyway, this is why I am criticising Gillies. You cant make statements like ‘we could make a draft’, without acutally having a working idea. Gillies has no clue what he’s doing yet he wants the unions to have him over control of SR, yeah right!
I more meant the specific terminology of the practices you were putting in place with your 'loan’ lol, not so much the use of the word draft. That was too daft, to be given such a shaft..
So if you go back to my point, you cannot do this without complusion. As I said in another post, you are just talking about an open market.
Also, ignore what fran thinks. You can have compulsion in your idea if you want, it just has to be done in a lawful way, ie for the benefit of everyone. The first thing to get across the line is that players have to want to be part of the draft, because they earn more money that way. It failed in league simply because they strongarmed it in, not because of like what you are trying to do, provide more opportunities, improve value, and raise standards.
You are of course going to need to show everyone how you do this by using compulsion though. Currently of course the simplest hurdle is money. They don’t have the money to compensate someone for throwing them in on the other side of the ditch, let alone give the need job security/contract length (double the contract wage, double the length, would be a good starting point). Especially when you are currently suggesting these other ‘loan’ options will make a positive effect as well.
So what are you actually thinking Spew, this is a big exercise and its good to see wanting it to succeed. Where the the players coming from, where are the going, and how are they getting there?
Agree, the ARU and NZRU would have to lead this. I guess the sticking point will be how much money is on offer.
The New Zealand franchise owners are always moaning that they don’t get the tv money and have sell tickets and merchandise to make money.
If the loan player fees were decent, then that could provide another revenue stream for the franchise that loans the players.
Yes, has been injured a bit in the last two years. But even before that Higgins only got good game time in 2025, when J Barrett was on sabbatical. Even though Higgins is not currently fit, it seems that Rova will be the midfield reserve for the Hurricanes.
I guess J Barrett moving from 15 to 12 really threw a spanner in the Hurricanes midfield plans. But he’s adapted well to 12, so it worked out.
Over the past few years the Hurricanes have had a lot of good midfielders: J Barrett, Umaga-Jensen, Proctor, Sullivan, Rova, and Higgins. In many of the last few years they could’ve loaned one to another franchise.
Players would be eligible to be loaned as soon as they signed for a franchise. The loan system would be seen as part of normal business. An opportunity to loan a player could arise as there was an injury, week to week. Teams that want to borrow a player could ask first, or teams that wanted their players to get more game time could proactively ask a team if they wanted a player. Players could proactively rule themselves out of the loan system.
The EPL loans players to lower divisions and even other EPL clubs. Loaning players between teams is not a new concept in professional sports.
I would be interested to hear his description of what he meant by a draft. I would be very surprised if there was no compulsion.
If you don't understand I won't waste my time trying to explain it.
After all most of us on here are continually puzzled as to what you're trying to say.
Well said, good arugments.
The only point I would raise is that the private owners/clubs are against many of the concepts you raise, so I think you would need the national bodies etc to lead and not have to worry about whats beneficial to the franchises (that means think of whats best for them as they can’t do that themselves).
Haha, or the answer could be the prop they had brought in was being used by another franchise all season and has just returned now he’s no longer used by them, and is raring to go for that game.
What are you trying to say here.
That is indeed negativity. Your mind is not open to anything that involves the word draft.
No, that’s a win win situation. Preston having had game time is worth far more than training cohesion lost at Crusaders and Force having the addition of top 9 outweighs then having to go back to their normal 9.
The basic premise of the idea is that their is ‘drawbacks’ for the ‘top’ team involved though. As spew says, you are not looking at the positives and balancing out whether it is indeed beneficial.
And yuo reinforce this by telling yourself why it won’t work. I’m not even sure you know why it’s lawful in the US and not here.
Wasn’t Higgins just injured all year? How are you judging his position otherwise, is it the following year he becomes eligible for the draft, or do coachs need to stipulate before who and who aren’t going to be used?
In his case I’m pretty sure it was planned he would have 50/50 time with Jordie, and he would be playing fullback mostly.
SR could have weekly bonuses for selection built ontop of the cap, to create a reward system/incentivize moving.
Or the scouts of the Blues, Landers, aussie sides, could simply be better, and realise what they could get (I’m not sure even the Crusaders did as he doesn’t appear a big part of their plans). Of course you would also need more flexible squad dymanics and be allowed to demote the contract of the guy you’re replacing for Preston (which might also not be something you can get past the players association/law).
You could perhaps implement a system of the ‘draft’ playing being anyone not signed by his own region, so if a Wellington player is say forced to sign with someone else like Saders, then even year for that contract he is free to renegotiate.
He obviously just returns in that situation. 24-30 would certainly even things up.
As to how advantageous it would be for the club, that is very circumstantial, true. Likely it would not be at all.
The South African teams were mostly bad at Super Rugby anyway. They only had one team win it three times over, and couldn’t get over the finals. The timezone difference, travel time and jetlag, and lack of top-tier competition meant that they were not really perennial winners like the Kiwi teams were.
Get rid of Super Rugby, focus on making the NPC better and with a longer season, and maybe bring in the Aussie teams for some festival/magic round/super round type games.
The only thing I don’t like about the NPC concept is that a lot of fans and players are tied up in a few very big unions, which is a waste. So if you are looking at it to be part of the performance echelon I think it needs to run alongside a club comp of Blues Saders Ponsonby Poneke etc.
A fee could be paid to the club that players are loaned from as a short term incentive.
The long term incentive for the owners of New Zealand Super Rugby franchises is that if the Australian teams improve the competition will be more valuable. Which will make their investment more valuable. That, along with a fee, could be enough incentive for the New Zealand Super Rugby franchises to take a risk on voluntarily loaning a player.
Even if a small number of players go from New Zealand franchises to Australian ones, and assuming, that they are better players. Any improvement in the quality of Australian franchises would be better than nothing. The front row is the natural area where New Zealand franchises have a real competitive advantage over Australian franchises.
Also, as previously stated retaining top level players who would otherwise leave the competition - as they are looking for a big pay day - is the other way that a voluntary system could make a difference.
But whether such a voluntary loan system eventuates, we’ll see. If it does eventuate we’ll see if it makes a difference. Hopefully some change occurs that improves the quality of the competition.
I’m sorry but I don’t think a voluntary system would work. The super teams have an expanded squad for a reason. Best example is last week the Crusaders were forced to use a player from the extended squad because of injuries to their props.
I think they would ask of the system you propose what’s in it for us. And the answer is quite obvious; nothing.
This is professional sport and peoples reputations and earning potential rest on results.
Yes I hope the readers here still got that from my posts too, it have big implications for sure.
My reply was to be more specific about what has happened, the transfers themselves are fine, it is just one of the practices that FIFA used to deter clubs from provoking players to terminate their contracts will have to stop. I’m sure they will be able to come up with other legal replacements.
There’s never been an issue at the top end of Super Rugby pacific, the top 2-3 teams are usually very physical and have very solid packs. That canes starting front row here while Lomax and the 2 promising young fullas are on the bench is a great example.
The issue is that the drop off is currently very steep from the top teams to the «peloton» of 5th to 8th 9th. Lots of weaknesses at set piece, defense and physicality.
If 2 Australian teams could match the 3rd/4th best kiwi team the comp would be so much better. I don’t have any solutions long term but its crucial the Moana players don’t all remain in NZ to bolster the squads of the kiwi teams.
Faiilagi, Sanerevi, Pellegrini and Lalomilo would make great additions to Aussie 23s. Tupou taieloa is a tricky one as he probably has his long term sights on a black jersey. But why couldn’t he do that via an Australian club?
One argument is that the competition is weak because there is a system where one team has been dominant.
One can say the bottom sides need to improve, but it is just as logical to say the top sides need to get weaker.
Over the sideline (I think it was them) showed this to be a misnomer, and that it is one of the tightest rugby comps available. Case in point Crusaders beating Hurricanes, Brumbies beating Crusaders, Moana beating Brumbies, etc etc.
Opening eligibility to the whole comp would in general be one of the easiest solutions you would be looking for. Theres no real downside to free trade in SR imo. Agreed, Moana have some really talented players and could make the imbalance even greater.