Of the 32 home tests the All Blacks have played since 2019, 21 have been in either Auckland (two were at Mt Smart Stadium) or Wellington.<\/p>\n
Fans enjoy the sight of the All Blacks stars at Eden Park. Photo \/ Alyse Wright<\/p>\n
The next most-used venue has been Dunedin, which has hosted five tests, but it\u2019s likely that in the full course of the 2019-2028 period, the All Blacks will play more in the US than they do in Otago<\/a>.<\/p>\n They have already played three tests in the US since 2019<\/a> and will play a fourth in September when they take on South Africa in Baltimore<\/a>.<\/p>\n With games being broadcast behind Sky\u2019s paywall and such a high concentration of fixtures in two urban centres in New Zealand, it could be said the All Blacks are losing their claim to be the people\u2019s team.<\/p>\n Maybe, when more games per decade are played in the US than they are in the South Island, they have already lost that right. Or at least they are no longer the people of New Zealand\u2019s team.<\/p>\n This offshore drift is, of course, about money \u2013 with two clear objectives of making more in ticket revenue by playing at larger stadiums and also showcasing the brand in strategically identified markets with the aim of winning new fans and new sponsors, and selling higher volumes of merchandise than they would in New Zealand.<\/p>\n Match day revenue has been a perennial source of frustration for the national body<\/a> as the money the All Blacks earn from playing tests is almost minuscule in comparison with the major Northern Hemisphere nations.<\/p>\n Last year, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) made $34 million from match day revenue, whereas England\u2019s Rugby Football Union (RFU) raked in $286m.<\/p>\n The two entities have vastly different revenue profiles, as of the $522m the RFU made last year, 54% came from match day revenue, 17% from media rights, 14% from sponsorship and the rest from government grants and investment returns.<\/p>\n NZR, by comparison, had 31% of its $304m of revenue last year come from media rights, 47% from sponsorships<\/a> and 11% from match day income.<\/p>\n Understandably, NZR wants a higher percentage of a higher total revenue to come from match days, hence this push to playing more offshore fixtures.<\/p>\n NZR chief executive Steve Lancaster<\/a> says of this balance between making money and connecting the All Blacks with their domestic fanbase: \u201cThat\u2019s the challenge. If we were purely a commercial business, we would take all our games offshore to maximise our revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cBut we are not. We are part of the fabric of this country. We are accountable to our members and loyal to our public and participants, so we just have to manage that.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd that means we don\u2019t maximise every cent we could earn commercially but we have to balance that. If we act in a purely mercenary way around commercial revenue from test matches, ultimately it will bite us in the a*** domestically and the health of the game here. And that is a judgment call. We get feedback that\u2019s for sure.\u201d<\/p>\n The issue of whether NZR is getting the balance right could be debated endlessly. NZR is running an investment thesis that says the All Blacks have to be commercialised offshore to make the sort of money needed to then be invested in the domestic game at all levels down to the grassroots.<\/p>\n The financial logic stacks up, but what is the long-term cost domestically of playing so many games outside of New Zealand? What impact will this have on participation in the sport as there is truth to the adage that the next generation can\u2019t be what they can\u2019t see?<\/p>\n Also, when so much of the rugby the All Blacks do play in New Zealand is in either Auckland or Wellington, what impact will this have on the brand profile domestically and the number of people actively following the national team and buying subscriptions, match tickets and merchandise?<\/p>\n The provinces feel like they remain rugby\u2019s strongholds \u2013 the places where the game remains a focal point of communities \u2013 yet they are being denied the right to access the All Blacks the way they once were.<\/p>\n Having the All Blacks come to town to play a test has incredible tangible and intangible value for smaller, provincial centres. There\u2019s the payday that comes for local hospitality businesses, but there is also the more valuable asset of connection between the players and the people.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s believed there may have been an indirect financial cost to the decision to only play four home tests in 2026, as this may have been a factor in Sky reducing its annual fee for media rights<\/a> from about $100m-a-year to $80m.<\/p>\n On top of this, there has been a relentless narrative from NZR since 2022, after its decided to sell a stake in its commercial revenue to US fund manager Silver Lake<\/a>, about the importance of the overseas fan.<\/p>\n Every initiative seems to be aimed at finding new, offshore fans. NZR\u2019s content strategy is heavily skewed to foreign audiences and the loyal domestic fan who buys a Sky subscription, a season ticket to their Super Rugby team and a replica All Blacks jersey may be wondering if they are being taken for granted.<\/p>\n When the All Blacks end up playing 39% of their games in front of their own people as they have done so far since 2019 (excluding World Cups<\/a>), domestic fans have a valid argument to say they are the victims of this globalisation strategy.<\/p>\n \u201cAt times we have to make decisions that are not optimal financial decisions but they will be the optimal for the game, and our stakeholders \u2013 our people, players, coaches and members,\u201d Lancaster says.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to be accountable to them. It is subjective and we have to try to strike a happy medium.\u201d<\/p>\nEngland, with its Twickenham base, last year made $286m from match day revenue while NZR made $34m. Photo \/ Photosport<\/p>\n
New Zealand Rugby CEO Steve Lancaster: “We have to try to strike a happy medium.” Photos \/ Photosport<\/p>\n