NZ Rugby Collective agreement
-
A good piece of info to have floating around the forum.
Helps with understanding some decisions that have to be made.
Worth a read.
- NZR - Collective Agreement 2025.pdf -
Here's a Grok 4 summary of the agreement;
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_d6991719-5568-4608-b613-609cbd3f2842
Potentially Controversial Elements
Based on a thorough analysis of the Collective Agreement, several provisions could be seen as controversial, particularly in the context of ongoing debates in New Zealand rugby about commercialization, player welfare, and governance. These are drawn directly from the document, with external context from recent reports highlighting why they might spark controversy. I'll focus on the most notable ones, as the agreement is largely player-protective but includes elements that have historically divided stakeholders.
-
Silver Lake's Involvement in NZ Rugby Commercial LP (NZRC LP):
- Document Details: Appendix 15 (Pages 212-213) outlines the relationship principles between NZRC LP (a commercial entity partially owned by Silver Lake, a U.S. private equity firm) and the RPC/NZRPA. It requires NZRU to notify the RPC of any "Prohibited Activity" or "Restricted Activity" by NZRC LP that impacts players, and specifically mentions scenarios where Silver Lake might sell its stake, triggering a disposal process.
- Why Controversial?: The Silver Lake deal, first approved in 2022 for a 5-8% stake in NZ Rugby's commercial revenues (valued at around NZ$200 million), has been highly divisive. Critics, including players and fans, argued it represented excessive commercialization and foreign control over the iconic All Blacks brand. The New Zealand Rugby Players Association (NZRPA) initially opposed the terms, demanding reviews and even threatening to form a breakaway entity in 2024, leading to fears of a "civil war" within NZ Rugby.Recent financial reports (as of May 2025) show NZ Rugby posting an $11.6 million loss, with CEO Mark Robinson admitting the model is "not sustainable" despite the Silver Lake cash injection, and a projected $50 million shortfall in 2026.This could surprise stakeholders, as the agreement treats the partnership as ongoing without addressing these escalating financial woes or player concerns about long-term control.
-
Use of Player Medical and Performance Data:
- Document Details: Appendix 14 (Page 210) allows the use of anonymized player data (e.g., injury surveillance, head injury assessments, long-term health tracking) for medical research without individual consent in certain "List A" projects, as long as it's for internal NZRU purposes or ethical research. "List B" projects require specific consent.
- Why Controversial?: In an era of heightened data privacy concerns (e.g., GDPR influences and athlete data scandals in other sports), the blanket allowance for anonymized data use could raise ethical questions about player autonomy and potential misuse for commercial gain, even if consent is required for external publication. This mirrors broader debates in sports where players feel their biometric data (e.g., heart rate, sleep patterns) is exploited without adequate compensation or control (Page 36, Clause 22). While the agreement emphasizes informed consent, the distinction between lists might surprise players if not clearly communicated, potentially leading to distrust.
-
Restrictions on Personal Promotions and Conflicting Sponsors:
- Document Details: Part 3 (Pages 32-34, Clause 19) allows players to engage in personal promotions but prohibits those that conflict with NZRU, Super Rugby Club, or Provincial Union sponsors/broadcasters, or could bring rugby into disrepute. Assessments consider financial impact, with no appeal process outlined beyond general dispute resolution.
- Why Controversial?: This could limit players' earning potential outside their contracts, especially for high-profile athletes seeking lucrative endorsements. In a sport where careers are short and injuries common, such restrictions might be seen as overly controlling, echoing criticisms in other leagues (e.g., NFL or NBA) where players push for more personal branding freedom. The broad discretion given to NZRU (e.g., assessing "significant negative financial impact") might surprise newer players expecting more autonomy.
-
Salary Cap Penalties and Financial Penalties:
- Document Details: For Provincial Unions, breaches of the salary cap (Part 8, Page 116, Clause 86) can result in financial penalties, deduction of competition points, or even relegation if deemed "deliberate, wilful or as a result of deceptive conduct." Super Rugby has a hard cap of $118,127,333 for 2021-2025 (Page 87, Clause 66.1).
- Why Controversial?: Point deductions or relegation for administrative breaches could be viewed as disproportionately harsh, especially for smaller unions with limited resources. This has parallels to controversies in European rugby (e.g., Saracens' points deduction in 2019), where such penalties disrupted competitions and player careers. It might surprise fans or unions if enforced strictly, potentially exacerbating financial inequalities among Provincial Unions.
Potentially Surprising Elements
These are less overtly controversial but could catch stakeholders off guard due to their specificity or implications:
-
Overseas Secondments (Sabbaticals):
- Document Details: Players can suspend NZ Rugby Contracts for defined periods to play overseas (Page 76, Clause 59.15), with NZRU approval and RPC consultation. This is framed as a development opportunity but could lead to talent drain.
- Why Surprising?: While common in rugby, the formalization might surprise traditionalists who view it as weakening domestic loyalty, especially amid NZ Rugby's financial struggles. Recent reports highlight player exodus concerns, making this provision timely but unexpected in a player-focused agreement.
-
Business Class Travel "Where Affordable":
- Document Details: Business class is mandated for flights over 5 hours for All Blacks and Super Rugby teams, but only "where affordable for the NZRU" for All Blacks XV (Page 65, Clause 55.2(c)). A new consolidated travel policy is due by June 30, 2025 (Page 146, Clause 121).
- Why Surprising?: Given the emphasis on player welfare (e.g., medical screening in Clause 122), the affordability caveat for secondary teams might seem inconsistent, especially with reports of financial crunches. Players might expect uniform standards, particularly post-COVID travel scrutiny.
-
Premier Competition Incentive Payments:
- Document Details: Teams get bonuses like $50,000 for a home semi-final (Page 97, Clause 71.10), but players on NZ Rugby or Sevens Contracts are ineligible (Page 98, Clause 71.13).
- Why Surprising?: This exclusion could demotivate elite players loaned to Provincial Unions, as they miss out on team success rewards despite contributing. It highlights a tiered system that might frustrate lower-tier players or unions.
-
Variation Ledger and Revenue Adjustments:
- Document Details: The Player Payment Pool includes a Variation Ledger to handle over/underpayments (Page 21, Clause 8.9), with forecasts showing positive balances (e.g., $7.5 million closing in 2025, Appendix 2, Page 158).
- Why Surprising?: Amid 2025 loss reports, the optimistic forecasts (unchanged for 2024-2025) might surprise if actual revenues fall short due to sponsorship losses, potentially leading to reduced player shares.
Overall, the agreement is comprehensive and partnership-oriented, but the Silver Lake provisions stand out as the most controversial given historical and ongoing backlash. Financial instability in NZ Rugby amplifies these issues, making elements like data use and restrictions feel more restrictive. If unaddressed, they could fuel further player-administration tensions, as seen in 2024 disputes. No other major surprises emerge from the core terms, which align with standard sports collective agreements.
-
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
Recent financial reports (as of May 2025) show NZ Rugby posting an $11.6 million loss, with CEO Mark Robinson admitting the model is "not sustainable" despite the Silver Lake cash injection, and a projected $50 million shortfall in 2026.This could surprise stakeholders, as the agreement treats the partnership as ongoing without addressing these escalating financial woes or player concerns about long-term control.
Has anyone managed to read this bit without crying or facepalming themselves in the office?
-
@Windows97 said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
Has anyone managed to read this bit without crying or facepalming themselves in the office?
No.
Image of NZR board below. This is a governance issue, pure and simple. We are failing on this front, over and over.
-
i have some sympathy though. What else can they do? small country a million miles from any other serious rugby country, too few games being shown to too few people. Super rugby is done too soon. People in NZ barely care about NPC rugby (a comp shorn of all the elite talent in NZ for its entirety) let alone anyone overseas. And yet they absolutely have to pay competitively to keep the ABs strong or that equation gets even worse.
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
What else can they do?
not run a deficit. That is not sustainable - you either change, or you have change forced on you.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
What else can they do?
not run a deficit. That is not sustainable - you either change, or you have change forced on you.
you should be a politician in opposition.
What do they cut? Player salaries? The NPC? Womens rugby?
They could add another sponsor to the AB jersey, but that thread could write itself.
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
Womens rugby
How much does this add/detract to NZR's finances?
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
Womens rugby
How much does this add/detract to NZR's finances?
I would imagine it adds $0 and detracts plenty...does help inflate the player numbers and growth in the game however.
Which quite ironically means that the one area of the game where the players base is growing is in the area that takes money from the game instead of adding to it (in it current form/format).
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@nzzp said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
What else can they do?
not run a deficit. That is not sustainable - you either change, or you have change forced on you.
you should be a politician in opposition.
What do they cut? Player salaries? The NPC? Womens rugby?
They could add another sponsor to the AB jersey, but that thread could write itself.
haha brutal.
Look, they are fucked both ways at the moment. But the solution is not to just keep doing what they are doing. They don't seem to have clarity on the value of player development, what the role of the comps are, how to drive fan engagement ... they seem stuck in the early 2000's.
What you don't do is flick off the revenue to Silverlake, screw the relationshipw ith the players union who aren't convinced, compromise your main comp with taking players out, just live with the fact that your main pro comp finishes in fucking may, having started in February (for a winter code), and then have a plan for growth which is trying to get Aussie Super franchises to split from their parent body.
I could go on. But I think we miss good leadership and nous at Board level.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@Windows97 said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
Has anyone managed to read this bit without crying or facepalming themselves in the office?
No.
Image of NZR board below. This is a governance issue, pure and simple. We are failing on this front, over and over.
It was a great one-off injection of cash into the game and grass roots no doubt...
However unless that cash injection is being utilised to grow additional revenue streams - or make existing streams bigger all it effectivly does is push the year we run out of cash a little more into the future.
And in fact, in the worst case this deal could actually expidite the year we run out of cash faster given it's based off revenue and not profit...
-
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@nzzp said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
@mariner4life said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
What else can they do?
not run a deficit. That is not sustainable - you either change, or you have change forced on you.
you should be a politician in opposition.
What do they cut? Player salaries? The NPC? Womens rugby?
They could add another sponsor to the AB jersey, but that thread could write itself.
A few of us suggested a similar idea to Silver lake but based around a public offering, for starters.
- align the season by combining NPC and Super rugby
- reduce team numbers accordingly
- add Japan as a partner for Super,
- consolidate relationship with set games in Japan every year for revenue split
- merge the MABs and ABXV to get our 2nd best players out then give them a full schedule with revenue split opportunities (USA, Canada, Japan, UK etc)
- add another sponsor or sponsors to the AB jersey as needed
If viable, add an U23 element to consolidated NPC / Super and add it to the TV deal
-
Grok: Top 20 Cost Items for NZ Rugby (2024)
NZ Rugby (New Zealand Rugby Union Incorporated) does not provide a granular list of 20 individual cost items in its 2024 Annual Report. Instead, expenses are categorized at a high level in the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2024. The main expense categories total $304,783,000, contributing to the net loss. I've ranked these categories by amount (largest to smallest) as the "top costs," based on the report's breakdown. Note that some are aggregated (e.g., "Competitions" includes multiple sub-items like player payments and event costs), and no further itemization into 20 discrete lines is available.Competitions: $126,529,000 – Covers costs for domestic and international competitions, including Super Rugby Pacific, National Provincial Championship (NPC), and related operational expenses.
Teams in Black: $83,758,000 – Expenses for national teams like the All Blacks, Black Ferns, and Sevens teams, including player payments, coaching, travel, and high-performance programs.
Game Development: $44,435,000 – Investments in community rugby, youth pathways, coaching development, and grassroots initiatives.
Administration: $27,887,000 – General overheads, including staff salaries, office costs, governance, and corporate operations.
Interest Expense: $12,285,000 – Financing costs, primarily related to the Silver Lake investment (classified as a compound hybrid instrument).
Foreign Exchange Losses – Ineffective Hedge: $7,810,000 – Losses from hedging contracts that did not qualify for hedge accounting, impacted by global forex volatility.
Foreign Exchange Losses: $1,650,000 – General currency exchange losses on international revenues (e.g., sponsorships in foreign currencies).
Transaction Costs: $429,000 – One-off costs related to deals like the Silver Lake investment or commercial restructurings.
The report does not break these down further into 20 items, but sub-notes indicate:Within "Teams in Black" and "Competitions," significant portions go to player payments (part of the Player Payment Pool), travel, and match-day operations.
Other implied costs (not quantified separately) include marketing, legal fees, insurance, and technology investments, but they are rolled into the above categories.
If more granular data emerges in future reports (e.g., 2025 interim), it could provide additional details. These figures align with NZ Rugby's reported challenges, such as forex impacts and high-performance investments.nzrugby.co.nzCosts for Women's Rugby (2024)
The 2024 Annual Report specifies $24,800,000 invested in women and girls' rugby, an increase of $2,900,000 from 2023. This covers:Player payments and retainers for the Black Ferns and Super Rugby Aupiki (women's professional competition).
Coaching, management, and match-day expenses, driven by expansions to the Black Ferns campaign model and Aupiki structure.
High-performance programs, including development camps (e.g., Under-20 Women's Rugby Development Camp) and roles like Women's High Performance Pathway Manager.
Additionally:Provincial Unions allocated $1,800,000 of Strategic Alignment Funding specifically for women's initiatives, with $1,500,000 being role-based (e.g., coaching and development staff).
These costs are embedded within broader categories like "Teams in Black" ($83,758,000 total) and "Competitions" ($126,529,000 total), reflecting NZ Rugby's push for gender equity amid preparations for the 2025 Women's Rugby World Cup (which has already sold over 220,000 tickets, indicating potential revenue upside).world.rugby External sources note Black Ferns retainers ranging from $12,500–$20,000 annually, plus $2,000 per week for training camps (about 50 days), but the report aggregates these into the $24.8M figure.sports.yahoo.comnzrugby.co.nzRevenue for NZ Rugby (2024)
Total revenue for 2024 was $285,247,000, a record high despite the loss. Breakdown by major sources:Sponsorship and Licensing: $125,818,000 (44%) – Includes deals like the new Gallagher sponsorship (replacing Ineos in June 2025) and licensing from the All Blacks brand.therugbybreakdown.com
Broadcast Rights: $100,390,000 (35%) – From SANZAAR and domestic deals; negotiations for 2026–2030 are underway to potentially increase this.allblacks.com
Matchday: $32,013,000 (11%) – Ticket sales and event revenue, boosted by strong attendance (e.g., record Women's RWC ticket sales).
Interest Income: $14,371,000 (5%) – From cash reserves and investments.
Other Income: $9,351,000 (3%) – Miscellaneous, including grants and merchandise.
Fair Value Gain on Derivatives: $2,920,000 (1%) – Financial instrument adjustments.
Equity Accounted Surplus: $235,000 (<1%) – From associates/joint ventures.
Managed Funds Fair Value Gains: $149,000 (<1%) – Investment returns.
Revenue grew due to commercial partnerships via NZ Rugby Commercial LP (with Silver Lake's involvement), but was offset by forex losses on hedged sponsorships -
@Windows97 said in NZ Rugby Collective agreement:
It was a great one-off injection of cash into the game and grass roots no doubt...
I could see the theory - that Silverlake leverage their digital/marketing knowledge to grow the AB brand and revenue.
In practice, that did not happen. NZR+ was a shocker and a money pit. That's the sort of shit that happens in a corporate. Foster's pretty scathing of the 'commercial focus' of NZR - but they seem to miss that getting the onfield stuff right leads to off field success as well. Crusaders have the best back office and it supports onfield success. Most other Super bakc offices seem ... poor to mediocre.
