Alice Soper: Once again we are asking the talent of our players to bridge the shortcomings of their programmes

Joanah Ngan-Woo of the Hurricanes Poua. Photo / Getty Images

OPINION:

It’s over a month since the results of the New Zealand Rugby (NZR) governance review landed. This was the report that detailed how the NPC and Super Rugby model has ultimately failed the men’s game. So naturally, NZR reflected on this feedback and then went ahead and doubled down on Super Rugby Aupiki as the pathway forward for women in the game.

The announced modifications to this competition are an acknowledged individual pre-season, a one-week extension to the team’s preseason, an increase from five guaranteed games to six and a shot at a final. Given the contracted commitment from players has grown from 8 to 19 weeks including their individual preseason, the total pay has logically increased to $17,000 per player. This rate is actually slightly less per week than they received in 2023.

There is no official crossover with Australia’s Super W, no introduction of a Highlanders or Moana Pasifika team and no changes to these plans until after the 2025 World Cup. All of this means there is still no strategic vision attached to this tournament.

The last two years have almost broken a number of the players who have participated.

The absolute carnage of year one, had all teams shipped to Taupō for the duration of this ten-day tournament. Young players stepping onto this high-performance stage were isolated from their support systems. Covid ripped through the camps, meaning fringe players were called up and then ghosted, while others felt the pressure to return to play as soon as they returned a negative test. Still, there was some excellent footy played.

Year two, we saw the first full tournament played and the full toll it took on those playing it. Four to six weeks is the standard stand down period for a relatively minor injury. So this tournament had no time for such niggles. The semi-professionalism dreamt up by those in fulltime employment, had players yo-yo-ing back and forth between their rugby and their reality. The split-week format left no time to put any of their commitments down.

The burnout in this player group was a natural consequence of a schedule that afforded no downtime for recovery, be that mental or physical.

None of these well-being issues are addressed in these plans for the next two seasons. Instead, the period of anxiety is just extended. Something has to give and those currently giving the most would be doing it on the promise of better. But the men’s game, given a much better platform to launch their tournament in 1996, has proven that 30 years on Super Rugby isn’t it.

I asked NZR general manager of professional rugby and performance Chris Lendrum what domestic examples NZR had drawn from in the design of the Aupiki competition format. He pointed across codes at NRLW and down the world ranking ladder to Australia’s Super W. It is no secret that in the women’s game that our greatest competition is England, so it beggars belief that NZR hasn’t given their top tier competition, PWR, a proper look.

If they did, they would see a competition developed with a coherent strategic vision and a deep understanding of the women’s game. They would be provided an example of a sustainable joint venture, successfully growing audiences, player depth and their sponsorship revenue. They would realise that the answer all along lay in supercharging the Farah Palmer Cup, not repeating the mistakes of Super Rugby.

We have locked ourselves into a maximum of 14 Aupiki games between now and the next World Cup. England players will have 40. Once again we are asking the talent of our players to bridge the shortcomings of their programmes. This has been NZR’s strategy for the women’s game time immemorial. The only constant in women’s sport right now is change and our union refuses to. Unluckily for all of us, it might just be a bridge too far this time.