The Rebels aren’t the only ones on trial as their increasingly bitter battle with Rugby Australia plays out – it’s the entire concept of the five-team model.
Game over . . . a fan hugs the Melbourne Rebels mascot.Getty Images
There isn’t enough money in Australian rugby to pay for five teams at present,and the sheer cost of running a Super Rugby team – and how much Rugby Australia has been spending on them – was confirmed by the extraordinary administrator’s report into the Melbourne franchise.
During the past three years,Rugby Australia has put $16.6 million into the Rebels. Bear in mind this is an organisation that has been forced into taking an $80 million credit facility at an interest rate of more than 10 per cent.
Player salaries at the Rebels over the same period totalled more than $22m,and the administrator stated that the franchise has been spending an average of $7.37m on players a year.
These are the fundamentals of the Rebels situation and should be seen as far more relevant than the administrator’s view that Rugby Australia should engage with the Rebels’ investor group for a rescue package.
Why? Because that recommendation takes a very narrow view as to what might be best for the Rebels’ creditors,not what is best for the sustainability of Australian rugby.
It does not take into consideration that Rugby Australia would have to keep funding the Rebels with money it doesn’t have – to the tune of about $5m a year – despite knowing that the very same organisation has been bleeding at least $5m a year for the past three years,regardless of the RA funding.
Rebels players face an uncertain future.Getty
There can’t be any RA director with any sense of whole-of-game responsibility and even a basic grasp of mathematics who can conceivably believe that five Super Rugby franchises are sustainable.
I do feel sorry for the Rebels fans,who have been entitled to take the promises of previous RA administrations in good faith. Just last year,former chair Hamish McLennan said that an Australian team would be cut “over my dead body”.
Responding to fears that the Super Rugby commission would be the vehicle that eventually led to the reduction of Australia teams,McLennan said:“I’ve committed to[Rebels chairman] Paul Docherty and[Force owner] Andrew Forrest. Over my dead body will they be kicked out.”
But,while such statements might appeal to the sense of Australian pride,the details laid out in the administrator’s report make clear that they haven’t been supported by what’s happening in the real world,and that has been the case for years.
Super Rugby,in fact,has been living in a state of cosy delusion since about 2016,when a beefed-up overall broadcasting deal masked the fact that a lot of the uplift was a result of a boost from the UK due to the competitive tension in that market at the time.
Similarly,New Zealand Rugby’s big deal with Sky in the last broadcasting cycle was a direct result of Spark Sport’s emergence,but that won’t be repeated for the 2026-2030 cycle,and if the Kiwis’ next deal is flat,or even lower,RA’s wallet will be impacted too. There’s no more help coming from across the ditch;this masthead’s understanding is that NZ Rugby,like RA,will record a loss for the 2023 year.
From the tone and messaging of RA chair Daniel Herbert in an interview with colleagues Iain Payten and Michael Atkinson this week,it’s clear that enough is enough. RA wants people to live in the real world in Australian rugby,as hard as that might be. Herbert used to run it straight as a player;he’s carried those attributes into his new role.
At current spending levels,with five Super Rugby teams,RA would spend about $70-75m in the 2025-2027 period. For the avoidance of doubt,let’s spell this out. If nothing changes,RA will piss away the proceeds from the Golden Decade with ease and be left with a monumental hangover without any paracetamol in the house.
Watch all the action from the season,with every match ad-free,live and on demand on.
Sports news,results and expert commentary..