Welsh rugby's fundamental problem may not be the number of professional teams but an operating model in which governance, ownership, central costs, regional funding, player development and commercial activity have become fragmented and poorly aligned. That is the central thesis of “Built to Win: A Business and Sporting Turnaround Plan for Welsh Rugby”, a framework developed by a Welsh entrepreneur with experience in business turnaround, financial restructuring and commercial deal-making.
The column by Dylan Jones-Evans follows a week in which former internationals, regional representatives, supporters and business figures questioned both the WRU's three-region strategy and the board's ability to implement it. Calls have been made for board members to stand down and for the financial evidence underpinning the decision to be released.
WRU response and the call for evidence
The WRU responded by condemning “personal attacks” on its board, although none were evident in public statements by prominent critics such as Hayley Parsons and Jonathan Davies. The Union insisted there is “no realistic prospect” of generating enough money to fund four competitive professional teams beyond 2028 and said criticism must be accompanied by credible alternatives.
Publishing financial information, however, is not the same as allowing independent scrutiny of the assumptions, costs and projections underpinning the preferred strategy. The real question is whether any information released enables alternative proposals to be tested properly against the Union's own model.
Built to Win proposals
Built to Win proposes separating the community and professional games through a Welsh Rugby Amateur Foundation to protect club democracy and govern grassroots rugby, while a professionally appointed Wales rugby board would oversee the stadium, elite teams, commercial rights and high-performance system. It also proposes centralising shared services such as finance, procurement, technology, data, sponsorship and customer management, while retaining regional responsibility for rugby delivery, identity and community engagement.
The framework includes independent financial oversight, transparent procurement, published performance indicators, stronger player and coach pathways and an integrated commercial strategy. It is not a finished business case, as its financial projections are illustrative and its sporting proposals require expert validation, but it challenges the WRU's assertion that no realistic route exists to sustaining four competitive professional teams beyond 2028.
Call for independent appraisal
The column argues that an independent adviser should be given controlled access to the WRU's departmental costs, headcount, cash-flow, debt commitments, regional funding flows, stadium economics and major commercial agreements. Comparable information would be required from all four regions, including income, operating costs, debts, shareholder loans, property obligations and restructuring liabilities.
The existing four-region structure could then serve as the baseline against which three alternatives are tested: the WRU's proposed three-region model and the reformed Built to Win operating model with either three or four teams. Each should be assessed using identical assumptions under base, downside and severe-downside conditions, and the adviser could publish the methodology and comparative results without disclosing sensitive material.
Another Welsh entrepreneur spoke to the Western Mail about a separate strategy more explicitly focused on retaining four professional teams alongside reform of WRU expenditure, governance and the player pathway. The existence of both alternative strategies reinforces the point that the choice is no longer simply between the WRU's three-region proposal and preserving the present, unsuccessful structure.
What is not acceptable is for the WRU to determine which financial information is released, maintain control over the assumptions underpinning its preferred conclusion, and then dismiss alternatives because those outside cannot produce a fully costed business case without access to the same underlying evidence. That is not a fair test of credibility but a closed shop in which only the WRU can meet the standard it has established.
If the WRU is correct that four professional teams cannot be sustained under any credible reformed structure, an open appraisal would strengthen its case and give difficult decisions greater legitimacy. The central question is no longer whether the existing four-region model is working, but whether its failure stems primarily from the number of teams or from the system surrounding them.
Those responsible for the national game should welcome an independent comparison of every credible option to ensure Welsh rugby secures the best possible long-term outcome. If Welsh rugby truly belongs to its clubs, players and supporters, those entrusted with running it have a responsibility to be open and transparent about the evidence behind decisions that will shape everyone's game for generations.
