Scott Barrett of the Crusaders and Beauden Barrett of the Blues pose with the Super Rugby Pacific trophy. Photo / Photosport
Scott Barrett of the Crusaders and Beauden Barrett of the Blues pose with the Super Rugby Pacific trophy. Photo / Photosport
Four months on from Rugby Australia's threat to walk away from Super Rugby and the impasse to secure the competition's long-term future remains fraught.
Much of the deadlock can be attributed to ongoing attempts to forge a split of an estimated $60 million annual broadcast pot.
The Herald has canvassedseveral well-placed sources in order to break down the sticking points of negotiations between New Zealand Rugby and Rugby Australia powerbrokers.
Despite months of back-and-forth face-to-face meetings, zoom calls and email chains, dialogue is yet to materialise any form of agreement.
As recently as last week, suggestions of negotiating progress emanated from New Zealand Super Rugby sources, only for those to fade as it becomes clear the respective governing bodies remain some way apart on several fundamental aspects of a potential agreement.
Rugby Australia chairman Hamish McLennan launched a broadside in June when he claimed Australia could walk away from Super Rugby, following next year's season, to stage a domestic only competition. That move was seen by most as a bold bargaining play. McLennan has since doubled down on those claims, while RA chief executive Andy Marinos has been open about Australia's desire for a 50/50 revenue split.
Rugby Australia chair Hamish McLennan and Rugby Australia CEO Andy Marinos. Photo / Getty
Rugby Australia's bolshy push for additional revenue stems from its perilous financial position – thought to include $20 to $30 million in debt – and its underwhelming broadcast deal that needs propping up.
With that balance sheet there is a strong belief Rugby Australia cannot afford to tip almost $4m annually into each of its five Super teams, while major questions continue to linger around Australia's player depth and pathways.
In the key financial battleground the Herald has learned that of New Zealand's $100m annual broadcast deal with Sky Television, around $45m is attributed to Super Rugby.
Rugby Australia's sustainably weaker $28m broadcast deal with Stan and Nine is, meanwhile, believed to feature around $15m for Super Rugby.
That leaves a contested Super Rugby broadcast pool estimated to be around $60m.
The shared test rugby component of the broadcast arrangements – through the Rugby Championship – is already agreed for the next three years.
Yet the value attached to the respective domestic competitions, which in New Zealand includes the NPC and Farah Palmer Cup, continues to be contested in negotiations as Australia attributes a high valuation to the likes of Sydney's Shute Shield that attracts more attendance than viewership.
Rugby Australia's claims for a 50 per cent share of Super Rugby revenue runs into an immediate roadblock in the form of New Zealand holding seven of the 12 team licences including those for Moana Pasifika and the Fijian Drua, both of whom this year completed their inaugural campaigns.
Moana Pasifika players huddle during a Super Rugby Pacific clash. Photo / Photosport
New Zealand Rugby has an established agreement to pay a small share of its broadcast deal to Moana and Fiji, as well as covering expenses such as flights and accommodation for their away fixtures.
On that basis alone, the starting point for Rugby Australia's revenue sharing negotiations must be along the lines of a 58/42 percentage split at best.
Further challenges emerge from the soon-to-be negotiated broadcast deals.
NZ Rugby is believed to pay Rugby Australia around $5m annually at present – a figure expected to increase, but not double, next year with a view to striking a Super Rugby agreement through to 2030.
While a 10-year Super Rugby deal has been touted, historic agreements indicate five-to-six-years is more likely.
The current broadcast imbalance dictates it is seemingly impossible to agree a fair revenue share model, leaving the expectation a bridging agreement may be stuck until the respective deals are renegotiated for 2026 onwards.
Rugby Australia is believed to be pushing for an agreement to be reached soon to allow it to go to market with potential private equity investors.
Frustrations are building among New Zealand Super Rugby clubs as they face challenges attempting to sell long-term sponsorship and memberships but NZ Rugby appears content to be patient in order to strike an arrangement that does not severely compromise future funding.
While revenue-sharing is the major hurdle that will ultimately underpin any long-term Super Rugby deal, other sticking points include Australia keeping its options open on a polarising conference format that only served to alienate fans previously.
Rugby Australia have also indicated minimal interest in aligning with the touted global club competition from 2026, while continuing to push mechanisms such as player drafts. From a governance perspective, Australia wants Sanzaar to retain control for running Super Rugby while New Zealand's preference is to instead usher in independent, fit-for-purpose leadership that promotes the competition.
New Zealand is also believed to hold concerns about Australia's eligibility laws that threaten to devalue their Super teams.
The upshot, as New Zealand teams announce their Super Rugby squads for 2023, is there remains no certainty for anyone beyond next season.
