Provincial rugby cannot pay its bills with memories. But putting those memories on an international flight does not automatically create a business.
The suggestion of connecting South Africa’s Currie Cup with New Zealand’s National Provincial Championship deserves scrutiny. First, establish what is actually proposed: a four-team knockout competition after the domestic tournaments, preserving both championships. This is an editorial idea, not an announced agreement between governing bodies.
That distinction matters. A limited competition can be tested. A wholesale merger would demand a much larger financial commitment before anyone knows whether supporters want it.
The attraction is obvious. Provincial rugby sells belonging. International opposition could give that belonging fresh expression, offering supporters an unfamiliar opponent without asking them to abandon familiar colours.
But the relevant question is brutally simple: who pays extra?
An existing subscriber watching another match does not necessarily generate another pound of broadcast revenue. A sponsor receiving overseas exposure does not necessarily increase its budget. Attention has commercial value only when somebody agrees to purchase it.
Consider a deliberately hypothetical travel budget.
Assume four overseas team trips across the semifinals and final, each involving 40 players and staff. At an assumed £1,500 per person for flights, airfare alone reaches £240,000. Add seven nights per trip at £150 per person per night for accommodation and meals: another £168,000.
That is £408,000 before ground transport, insurance, medical provision, venues, broadcast production or prize money.
These are planning assumptions, not quotations. Actual costs would depend on routes, timing and tournament design. They nevertheless expose the hurdle: additional revenue must cover additional expenditure before a provincial union receives any meaningful benefit.
Even 10,000 additional paid admissions across the competition, contributing an assumed £20 each after direct ticketing and matchday costs, would deliver only £200,000. Broadcast guarantees and sponsorship would still have substantial work to do.
The answer is to sell a pilot before building an institution.
Secure a broadcaster’s minimum payment. Offer one founding partner a tightly defined package with category exclusivity and measurable customer engagement. Use participating unions’ supporter databases and existing broadcast channels to test demand without financing an expensive advertising campaign.
Premium pricing needs a scarce occasion: qualification earned domestically, meaningful stakes and players supporters recognise. Another loosely assembled exhibition will struggle to justify either ticket prices or sponsor investment.
Distribution also needs realism. Which market gets an attractive live viewing window? Can highlights reach supporters cheaply? Who owns the audience data and the commercial rights?
Then protect the participants. Travel should be centrally funded, player availability agreed and payments guaranteed. Smaller unions cannot become unsecured lenders to somebody else’s international ambition.
There is a worthwhile experiment here. Run one edition with capped exposure, transparent accounts and renewal dependent on revenue actually collected. If necessary, concentrate matches in one host country to reduce travel complexity.
The prize is a competition that pays provincial rugby more than participation costs.
Without that discipline, the venture risks exporting the domestic game’s financial problems at international prices.
Rugby already knows how to celebrate its history.
Now it must learn to price its future.
