Ineos had naming rights to the back of the All Blacks shorts and training kit, but it refused to pay the first instalment due for 2025 – believed to be about $10m – and also notified NZR it was terminating the sponsorship.
The early termination meant NZR was going to not only lose $21m of income this year, but potentially face hefty legal fees by going through the courts in its efforts to force Ineos to make some kind of compensation payment for the early termination.
In a statement, NZR said: “New Zealand Rugby and Ineos can confirm that a settlement has been reached between the two parties.
“Whilst the details remain confidential, both organisations are satisfied with the outcome and acknowledge a desire to now move forward.”
It is believed Ineos has paid what it owed for 2025, and offered a small additional payment on top, and means NZR’s financial position has been greatly improved.
If the national body secures a new sponsor for the back of its shorts and training tops to start in 2026 or earlier, it will potentially come out of this year, with more money in the bank than it would have had the Ineos continued with its sponsorship.
The Herald has been told NZR has several positive leads in play to replace Ineos. They are understood to be confident they will find a new sponsor and do so at a price similar to the one the British petrochemical firm paid.
But winning a settlement is not only a financial victory for NZR, it’s a precedent win that will deter other sponsors from attempting to ignore the rule of law in the way Ineos did.
Sources with knowledge of the relationship between NZR and Ineos say the British petrochemical firm may have underestimated the national body and been taken by surprise when it took legal action to fight the early termination.
Ineos has been withdrawing sports sponsorship across its portfolio of teams that includes a UK cycling team, the British America’s Cup team, a Formula One team and two French football clubs among other entities.
Ratcliffe told the Telegraph in March the reason he was pulling out of so many sports teams was entirely financial.
“I’m afraid life’s tough in trading in Europe, whether we like it or not,” he said. “I know it’s easy to just carry on, but I’m afraid life’s tough in the outside world in trading.”
“Europe is a tough place for business at the moment. It’s not just for us – it’s for everybody in the car industry as well as the chemical industry.
“Really, they’re pretty much the two biggest industries in Europe. Cars and chemicals are both about a trillion [euros in value], but they’re both having a tough time. At the moment, Ineos is the only chemical company in Europe that’s still building.”
Some of these agreements have terminated amicably and Ineos may have felt that NZR, a relatively conservative organisation that is ultra-protective of the All Blacks brand, was unlikely to have wanted the adverse publicity of a court case and public fight with a sponsor.
Ineos may have been anticipating a quiet and cheap exit from its All Blacks sponsorship, but NZR’s hardline approach of taking legal action and putting details of the fight into the public domain killed that prospect.
With Ratcliffe desperately trying to win fan support for his bid to turn around the fortunes of Manchester United – he bought a near-30% share in the past 12 months – the adverse publicity of a court case with the All Blacks was potentially going to damage his reputation and credibility as a trusted operator in the world of sport, and ultimately forced him to reach a settlement with NZR.
