Dylan Jones-Evans has called on the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) to publish the evidence behind its decision to reduce the number of professional regions from four to three, arguing that transparency is essential for trust.
Background of the decision
No one disputes that Welsh rugby faces some extraordinarily difficult choices over the next few years, and maintaining the status quo simply because change is difficult is not a credible strategy. But accepting that change is necessary is very different from accepting that every proposed change is necessarily the right one, and nowhere is that distinction more important than in the WRU's decision.
This would mark one of the most significant structural changes in Welsh rugby since the creation of regional rugby more than two decades ago. It would have implications not only for finances and playing performance but also for supporters, players, communities and the identity of the professional game across Wales. Most importantly, once implemented, it would be extremely difficult to reverse.
Process and engagement
Given this, any organisation contemplating such a fundamental restructuring should undertake a detailed appraisal before reaching a decision. It should examine the financial consequences of the different options, the assumptions underpinning those projections, the risks associated with each alternative and, critically, what happens if those assumptions turn out to be wrong.
Until recently, it was unclear whether such an appraisal had been undertaken. Jones-Evans wrote to chief executive Abi Tierney asking about the process that led the board to conclude that three regions represented the best future. Following further correspondence, the WRU said it held 32 separate engagement meetings between August and October 2025, involving a wide range of stakeholders, with each independently minuted and a subsequent report produced for the board.
Alongside this, detailed analysis was undertaken by the executive team and subjected to what the WRU describes as external independent challenge from experts in the field. That work culminated in a formal option appraisal considering a range of options, including financial analysis, strategic considerations, an assessment of the principal risks and opportunities, and feedback from the stakeholder engagement process. The board considered and approved the appraisal in October 2025, concluding that its preferred long-term strategic direction was a move from four professional regions to three as part of the wider One Wales Strategy.
Transparency concerns
For those asking whether there was a substantive evidence base, that clarification is welcome. But in answering one important question, the WRU has created another that is arguably even more important: if this detailed evidence exists, then why can't Welsh rugby see it?
Last week, Scarlets managing director Jon Daniels publicly questioned what he described as the lack of data and transparency surrounding the decision. He argued that a change of this magnitude requires everyone involved in Welsh rugby to understand both the decision and the data used to reach it. More significantly, he suggested that the Scarlets still did not know the real financial picture and questioned whether every possibility of retaining four professional teams had been properly explored.
There is now an uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of this process. The WRU says a detailed option appraisal was undertaken, yet one of the organisations most affected says it still has insufficient visibility of the data used to justify the proposed change. Those positions are not necessarily incompatible, as consultation can take place without the final analysis being shared, but that is precisely why transparency matters.
The WRU has pointed out that some information cannot be shared publicly because it may be commercially sensitive, legally privileged or linked to ongoing negotiations. That is reasonable, but it is not the same as saying the underlying evidence base cannot be shared. If individual contributions were made in confidence, redact them. If legal advice must remain privileged, remove it. If some financial assumptions are commercially sensitive, summarise them. What should remain is the substance of the case and the reasons why three regions emerged as the preferred option.
The WRU has also offered a stakeholder session to explain the work that underpinned the board's decision, but there is a fundamental difference between being given a presentation and being able to scrutinise the evidence, particularly when the board reached its preferred strategic direction in October 2025.
Call for publication
Welsh rugby has experienced enough governance difficulties to know that institutional trust cannot simply be demanded but has to be earned, and openness around major decisions is one of the most effective ways of doing that. There may ultimately be an overwhelming financial and strategic case for three professional regions but, equally, some of the assumptions underpinning that conclusion may prove less convincing when subjected to wider scrutiny.
At present, those outside the board who are affected by this decision cannot make that judgement because they have not been allowed to see enough of the analysis. Therefore, the next step should be straightforward: the WRU should publish the option appraisal, suitably redacted to protect genuinely confidential information, and allow Welsh rugby to examine the evidence for itself. If it still refuses, member clubs should press for disclosure, as there is simply no longer any reason why it should not be made available.
Indeed, the question is no longer whether the evidence exists but why, if the case for three regions is genuinely compelling, Welsh rugby is still being asked to trust the conclusion without being allowed to properly scrutinise the case behind it. And that simply isn't good enough.
