WRU needs to publish evidence underpinning its decision to cut a rugby region

If individual contributions were made in confidence, redact them. If legal advice must remain privileged, remove it, but just publish

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 decision by the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) that the long-term future of the professional game should involve reducing the number of regions from four to three.

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.

Given this, I would expect any organisation contemplating such a fundamental restructuring to 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 by the WRU and I therefore wrote to chief executive Abi Tierney asking a series of questions about the process that had led the board to conclude that three regions represented the best future for the professional game.

Following further correspondence, we now have a much clearer answer, and it is an important one. Between August and October 2025, the WRU says that it held 32 separate engagement meetings 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.

More importantly, that work culminated in a formal option appraisal considering a range of options for the professional game, including financial analysis, strategic considerations, an assessment of the principal risks and opportunities, and feedback received through the stakeholder engagement process. It seems that the WRU board considered and approved the appraisal in October 2025, after which it concluded that its preferred long-term strategic direction was a move from four professional regions to three as part of the wider One Wales Strategy.

For those of us who have been asking whether there was a substantive evidence base behind the decision, that clarification is welcome and now what work was undertaken before the Board reached its conclusion. 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?

I am not alone in asking that question, and 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.

So, there is now an uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of this process as the WRU says that a detailed option appraisal was undertaken, containing financial analysis, strategic considerations and an assessment of risks and opportunities. Yet one of the organisations most affected by the outcome says that 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 and to allow questions, but there is a fundamental difference between being given a presentation and being able to scrutinise the evidence, particularly when we know that the board reached its preferred strategic direction in October 2025.

Yes, boards exist to make decisions, but if one of the regions directly affected is still publicly questioning the evidence and transparency nearly a year later, it is difficult to argue that the case has been sufficiently understood outside that boardroom.

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.