The assessment that there would be no winners from the Melbourne Rebels v Rugby Australia court case was borne out in painful fashion at the Federal Court in Melbourne on Thursday.
During the livestreamed proceedings, RA chief executive Phil Waugh looked like he would rather be trapped at the bottom of a ruck being trampled by South African hard man Bakkies Botha.
Waugh’s examination was excruciating at times as he frequently defaulted to two phrases: “I don’t recall”, and “I don’t presently recall”.
Events took a near-comical turn when Rebels barrister Bernard Quinn, KC, inadvertently slipped into Kath and Kim mode, telling Waugh, “Look at me, please”, as he tried to extract a clear answer.
Former Rebels directors are suing Rugby Australia, alleging the club was treated unfairly when it lost its licence in 2024.
But no matter who wins this case – which resumes on Monday – some damage has already been done to Australian rugby, specifically Super Rugby.
In extraordinary evidence – much of it taken from RA board meeting minutes – the court heard that by mid-2023 there were doubts about the solvency of the Brumbies and Waratahs, who are now on RA’s books.
This is the backdrop to the explosive WhatsApp message that emerged on Thursday in which Dan Herbert, then a non-executive director at RA and now the chairman, told an unknown recipient that RA should “let them [the Brumbies and Rebels] fall over”, to which the recipient replied with the thumbs-up emoji.
Waugh said he could not recall if he was indeed the recipient of that message from Herbert, but then added that if he was, the thumbs-up emoji could signify receipt of the message, rather than endorsement of its contents.
Parochial Canberrans will have their own interpretation of that exchange.
But the fact that the end of the Brumbies was even entertained, at any level, within RA in 2023 reflects Super Rugby’s struggles.
In fact, some of the ideas tossed around between RA and New Zealand Rugby in 2023, as revealed in court on Thursday, smacked of desperation.
First, there was the idea that the Rebels could merge with Moana Pasifika, hoping that two loss-making entities would somehow be better together. Second, NZ Rugby was considering taking Moana Pasifika to the west coast of the USA. Third, there was an idea that five new South African teams (excluding the Bulls, Stormers, Lions or Sharks) could join Super Rugby. And fourth, a second team could be established in Perth.
None of these ideas materialised.
An optimistic outlook after Thursday’s court evidence is that the landscape for RA and Super Rugby has changed significantly since 2023.
That’s true to a degree, and this year is the first in an improved broadcast deal with Stan and Nine Entertainment, the owners of this masthead.
But, of course, the other change has been the “integration” of the Brumbies and Waratahs into RA, which is now responsible for their losses.
One big question for Australian rugby remains: how much is RA losing each year to maintain the Waratahs and Brumbies in Super Rugby, a competition characterised in court as a “product” that had been in decline before the Rebels’ collapse?
Considering the Rebels’ travails, Moana Pasifika’s demise, the $NZ2 million ($1.65 million) loss the Hurricanes incurred last year (no New Zealand team made money) and what well-placed sources indicate, it is reasonable to assume that on the current trajectory, the combined annual losses of the Waratahs and Brumbies will chew through last year’s $70 million British and Irish Lions surplus years before the tourists arrive in Australia again.
RA has the $100 million World Cup windfall coming next year, but it was notably cautious when presenting the surplus brought about by the Lions tour, indicating that the overall model was still losing money.
Crowds in Sydney and Canberra remain underwhelming, at best, and this year’s Super Rugby finals look like they might be played exclusively in New Zealand, which will further dampen interest in the competition.
RA and NZ Rugby will need creative thinking to lift Super Rugby, which is currently a poorly performing co-owned asset.
As for the Rebels v RA case, it is complex in some areas – such as the Super Rugby clubs’ deed of participation and RA’s funding obligations – but essentially, it is still a classic test of who knew what and when.
That’s for the court to decide, but as far as the general rugby public is concerned, they now know a lot more about Super Rugby’s difficulties, and most of it is troubling.
Paul Cully is a rugby columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald.Connect via X or email.
