That fragility is amplified by the financial positions of the five (foundation) New Zealand sides \u2013 all of whom, including the champions, the Crusaders, are believed to have lost money last year.<\/p>\n
Crusaders captain David Havili celebrates after winning the 2025 Super Rugby final. Photo \/ Photosport<\/p>\n
\u201cThe whole system has to change,\u201d Hurricanes chairman Malcolm Gillies told Rugby Direct<\/a> this week. <\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s sustainable as it sits right now,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it stays the way it is now, I fear for it. If there\u2019s change, then I believe we\u2019ve got a product. But if it doesn\u2019t, I believe it\u2019s going to die. That\u2019s my honest opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n For the Crusaders to win the title and end up in the red illustrates the key issue with the current set-up \u2013 which is that in New Zealand, the competition is partially privatised in what the clubs feel is an imperfect partnership with the national union.<\/p>\n Each of the five clubs has private-equity investors \u2013 the Highlanders are thought to be 87% owned by high net-worth individuals.<\/p>\n However, there are commercial restrictions on their respective licences, and it\u2019s New Zealand Rugby (NZR) and Rugby Australia that effectively control the player market and have all the decision-making power around the strategic future of the competition.<\/p>\n This semi-privatised model means that clubs are overly dependent on generating gate income to make ends meet \u2013 but they have limited ability to control the draw to play at the best times to maximise attendance, and most would like the competition to be longer so that they play more than seven home games a season.<\/p>\n The Hurricanes lost $1.4 million in 2023 and $700,000 in 2024 (and are predicted to post another loss for 2025) primarily because their average crowd has dropped from around 16,000 pre-Covid, to around 12,000 post-Covid \u2013 which has cost an estimated $500,000 of income annually.<\/p>\n Having seen around 24,000 come to Hnry Stadium for the semi-final last year<\/a>, they likely would have sold out and pocketed around $1m the following week had they not lost \u2013 significantly improving their financial outcome.<\/p>\n The Crusaders, who did host the final<\/a>, weren\u2019t able to capitalise financially as their former stadium only had 17,000 seats. <\/p>\n Should the new stadium in Christchurch with its 30,000 capacity have been available last year, the Crusaders would have likely made a profit.<\/p>\n The clubs are effectively saying that the only chance they have of posting a profit is to host playoff games and hope a bumper crowd turns up.<\/p>\n There was, the Herald believes, some talk late last year of introducing a shared-risk revenue model for ticket sales, but it\u2019s understood nothing came of that.<\/p>\n In recent few years, the Super Rugby sides have won two commercial concessions from New Zealand Rugby \u2013 the right to do their own apparel deals (previously Super Rugby was part of the All Blacks agreement with Adidas), and the right to sell competition sponsorships collectively.<\/p>\n But this is peripheral, small margin stuff. The big money lies in broadcast rights, but NZR negotiates these and keeps the income \u2013 using it to pay the players.<\/p>\n And this is where Super Rugby differentiates from every other comparable professional competition.<\/p>\n The French Top 14, English Premiership and the URC all operate independently from their national unions and negotiate and share their revenue from media rights.<\/p>\n They have free-market models where private enterprise \u2013 albeit the Irish and Scottish national unions run their club teams in the URC \u2013 own the players\u2019 contracts, and have unrestricted and full access to all commercial income from gate revenue, merchandise, sponsorships and media rights.<\/p>\n With the current, half-privatised model in New Zealand not enabling clubs to fully control their playing rosters the way they would like, not offering enough commercial streams to be profitable, and not giving them any say in the strategic future as it relates to how many teams, format, geographic footprint or eligibility<\/a>, the desire for change is strong.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you want private investment in these Super clubs, you\u2019ve got to give them something to invest in,\u201d Gillies said on Rugby Direct.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom what I\u2019ve seen, there\u2019s not a lot there. My belief is it needs to be privatised. It cannot continue the way it is.\u201d<\/p>\n Can Super Rugby be sold to private equity?<\/p>\n What\u2019s clear now is that NZR is at a genuine inflection point, where it must decide how much it needs to change for Super Rugby to build a stable financial footing.<\/p>\n It may feel that the current set-up doesn\u2019t necessarily have to change much at all. <\/p>\n It has, after all, attracted significant private investment and with 60,000 ticket sales this weekend and broadcast figures holding just about where they were last year (they are believed to have been up in earlier rounds but down in the last few weeks), the competition is in reasonable shape as it pertains to the critical measurement of fan engagement.<\/p>\n But there is a pressing reality that private investors can\u2019t keep their money in loss-making ventures long-term, and a lucrative super round in Christchurch<\/a> is most welcome, but it\u2019s not a true reflection of the competition\u2019s popularity or economic horsepower.<\/p>\n Also, while NZR\u2019s preference may be to tweak the current structure rather than contemplate wholesale change, there is a decade of evidence that says Super Rugby is only going to find financial viability if it goes all-in on private ownership and embraces free market principles,<\/p>\n The greatest leverage the clubs have in forcing change is they are the key drivers and custodians of NZR\u2019s high-performance programme.<\/p>\n It is the Blues<\/a>, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders who do most to build All Blacks players, and it is the All Blacks who generate around 80%-90% of NZR\u2019s income.<\/p>\n The question NZR faces is, therefore, one of control, and whether it is willing to greenlight a total privatisation of Super Rugby that would effectively hand the clubs control of the player market, media rights and strategic direction of the competition.<\/p>\n NZR has long been fearful of losing control of its elite players \u2013 worried that private investors won\u2019t look after them and that players will turn up for test duty battered and broken.<\/p>\n But fully privatising Super Rugby is not necessarily a high-risk move, and as has been witnessed in the United Kingdom and France, it is possible for investors to have full autonomy of club rugby while acknowledging and respecting the needs of the international game.<\/p>\n All it takes for NZR to have the security it wants is a well-negotiated licence agreement that has binding stipulations around when the competition can be played and how elite talent has to be treated.<\/p>\nA smattering of spectators watched on as the Blues played the Western Force in 2025. Photo \/ Photosport<\/p>\n
Hurricanes players huddle ahead of hosting Moana Pasifika. Photo \/ Photosport<\/p>\n
Beauden Barrett makes a break during the Blues clash with the Crusaders at Eden Park. Photo \/ Photosport<\/p>\n