New Zealand Rugby is weighing the most sweeping restructure of its domestic competitions since the professional era began, after a leaked internal document revealed three distinct proposals — including one that would see the country withdraw from Super Rugby Pacific entirely — ahead of a stakeholder summit in Wellington on Thursday, 24 September 2026.
The Post journalist Paul Cully obtained the document, titled Rugby Summit – Men’s Elite Competition Possible Options, which is understood to have been shared with attendees ahead of Thursday’s gathering. Planet Rugby and RugbyPass both reported its contents on 22 September 2026. NZR intends to settle on a preferred direction in late October before presenting a formal proposal to its board in early December 2026.
Option B: a new national competition
The most far-reaching of the three proposals, identified as Option B, would dissolve both Super Rugby Pacific and the Hilux NPC and replace them with a new national competition of between eight and ten teams. According to Planet Rugby and RugbyPass, each team would be run by provincial unions and would receive player payments ranging from NZ$8 million to NZ$10 million. All rugby beneath this top tier would be classified as amateur under the proposal. NZR would issue licences to the provincial unions, with private investment permitted through a separate vehicle.
The competition would operate within a broadly similar February-to-June window as the existing Super Rugby calendar and would not be expected to start before the 2028 season. Planet Rugby reported that the push for this option does not reflect NZR’s own position and has originated from the provincial unions, setting up a potential confrontation before NZR reaches its late-October decision. Planet Rugby also noted that NZRPA chief executive Rob Nichol had raised a comparable concept with The Post in February this year.
Withdrawing from Super Rugby Pacific would carry significant practical obstacles. Both Planet Rugby and RugbyPass reported that any exit would require complex and difficult negotiations with Rugby Australia to unwind the existing joint venture between the two governing bodies. Planet Rugby further noted that a national competition in the same seasonal window would not resolve the global calendar pressures currently associated with the February-to-June period.
Option C: expansion of the current format
Option C moves in the opposite direction, proposing a modest expansion of Super Rugby Pacific by adding two further New Zealand teams. RugbyPass reported that the document does not specify which two teams would be admitted, though provincial unions such as Tasman, Taranaki, Hawke’s Bay or Bay of Plenty were noted as potential candidates.
Under this structure, a new commercial entity named SRP HoldCo would be created to manage cross-border pooled commercial rights, fund logistics and oversee marketing. NZR and Rugby Australia would retain control of broadcast rights and deals. Planet Rugby reported that the document states Option C would require Rugby Australia’s agreement and would need to demonstrate the financial viability and strategic value of any expansion clubs.
Both Options B and C would involve merging the five existing New Zealand Super Rugby franchises — the Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Hurricanes and Highlanders — with their corresponding provincial unions. Planet Rugby reported that this consolidation would reduce the total number of high-performance environments in New Zealand from 19 to 14.
Option A: consolidation without competition change
Option A is the most cautious of the three proposals. Both Super Rugby Pacific and the NPC would continue in their current formats, but savings would be generated by merging the five Super Rugby clubs with their co-located provincial unions in the main centres of Auckland, Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago. Planet Rugby reported that, according to the 2024 Men’s Pathways and Competitions report cited in the document, this consolidation could save NZR approximately NZ$5.75 million per year.
As with Option C, an SRP HoldCo entity would be established to operate the competition, and private investment in Super Rugby franchises would become possible, allowing clubs to supplement player payments beyond NZR’s direct contributions.
How the three options compare
| Option | Competition structure | Key mechanism | Rugby Australia consent needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Super Rugby Pacific and NPC unchanged | Merge clubs with provincial unions; save ~NZ$5.75m/year | No structural change required |
| B | New 8–10 team national competition replacing both tournaments | Provincial unions run teams; NZ$8m–$10m player payments; amateur tiers below | Yes — exit joint venture |
| C | Super Rugby Pacific expanded by two New Zealand teams | SRP HoldCo manages commercial rights, logistics and marketing | Yes — financial and strategic case required |
The financial pressure driving the review
RugbyPass reported that NZR is facing a projected loss of NZ$66 million over the next four years, a figure described as one of the drivers behind Option C’s expansion rationale and the wider review as a whole. That financial context makes the December board decision particularly consequential: the three options represent meaningfully different approaches to stabilising the organisation’s position, with only Option A offering savings that require no negotiation with external partners.
What the proposals mean for southern hemisphere rugby
For those who follow the southern hemisphere game from the UK, the stakes stretch well beyond New Zealand’s borders. Super Rugby Pacific has served as the principal trans-Tasman club competition, and the prospect of the five New Zealand franchises departing under Option B would fundamentally alter the tournament’s character and commercial proposition for Rugby Australia and the Pacific Island teams that currently participate.
Under Option B, the joint venture underpinning elite club rugby across the Tasman would cease to exist in its current form. The question of whether merged provincial entities could sustain the player development pipeline that feeds the All Blacks would become a matter of real scrutiny, though the document as reported does not address that point directly. Options A and C preserve the trans-Tasman framework but each carries conditions: Option A requires no external consent and produces only incremental financial relief, while Option C depends on Rugby Australia accepting both additional New Zealand teams and the HoldCo commercial model.
The Wellington summit on Thursday, 24 September 2026 is expected to be a staging post rather than a resolution. With a late-October deadline for NZR to settle its preferred option and a board meeting in early December to finalise the proposal, the coming weeks are likely to determine whether Super Rugby Pacific continues in anything like its present shape from 2028 onwards.