SA Rugby is technically insolvent – and still the healthiest bankrupt union in world rugby

David Coutts-Trotter — former Sun International CEO and a BizNews Premium WhatsApp channel regular — has done something rare: turned eight years of dense SARU audited financials into a piece any of us can actually follow. Liberal use of images helps. The headline number is brutal. SA Rugby’s liabilities now exceed assets by R84.4m. But the detail is what makes this essential reading: sponsorship has overtaken broadcast for the first time, the in-house Test-hosting model is printing real margin, and yet member-union funding keeps rising regardless of results. Add in this month's Ellis Park pricing debacle and the Loftus suite revolt, and 2026 becomes rugby's real accountability test..By David Coutts-Trotter.The one-minute version.SA Rugby entered the pandemic running small surpluses, was nearly halved by COVID in 2020, and has since rebuilt revenue to a record R2.03bn — sponsorship now its biggest earner, ahead of broadcast for the first time, with Springbok Test hosting brought in-house. But the rebuild has been expensive: the union lost money in four of the last six years, and the R93m loss of 2024 pushed accumulated funds below zero. At the end of 2025 the Group is technically insolvent — liabilities exceed assets by R84.4m — yet carries no term debt and won a clean audit on the strength of secured 2026 contracts. Management has committed, on the record, to a return to profitability in 2026. That is the number to hold them to..The eight-year headline (R millions, audited, Group).1. Where the money comes from.The revenue rebuild is the genuinely strong part of the story. Pre-COVID, SA Rugby was essentially a broadcast-rights business. The mix today rests on three legs — sponsorship (now the largest), broadcast, and self-delivered match hosting — plus a fast-growing royalty stream. The 2025 audited revenue note (Note 13) confirms the shift..The concentration risk the mix chart hides: every leg reprices off one asset — a winning Springbok side. Sponsorship, royalties, hosting margin and broadcast value all move together with Bok success. A sustained on-field slump would hit all four at once. Diversified sources, single underlying driver..2. Other operating income — the hidden swing factor.Grants are recognised as other operating income, not revenue (IFRS 15), and they swing the bottom line more than any single commercial line. The audited Note 14 shows what drove the R84m fall in 2025: the World Rugby grant dropped from R173.7m to R63.0m — a function of the quadrennial World Rugby funding cycle, not a one-off event..The practical implication: SA Rugby's reported result is partly a hostage to the World Rugby grant calendar. 2023 looks like a good year (+R8m) largely because R291m of grant landed; 2025 looks worse partly because only R63m did. Strip the grant volatility out and the underlying operating trend — costs outrunning commercial income — is steadier and less flattering than the headline results suggest. World Rugby has guaranteed £9m over the cycle ending 31 December 2027, so this line stays material and stays lumpy..3. Sponsorship overtakes broadcast.4. Where the money goes.The audited expense note (Note 16) gives the full departmental breakdown. Three cost blocks dominate: member-union funding (R400m), the national-team programme (Springboks R282m + High Performance R221m = R503m) and player image rights & insurance (R195m). Together they consume over half of income before a single overhead is paid. Total staff cost across all departments was R393m..The governance question sits with one line, not the national-team spend. Springbok and High-Performance costs are the core product — the asset that generates the revenue — and are properly treated as operating cost. The line that is hard to touch for structural reasons is member-union funding: it rose from R348m to R400m in a year the Group lost money, and the General Council has now locked it into a three-year model. The member unions are both the recipients of the distribution and the constituency that must approve any capital-raising to rebuild reserves — they receive the payout regardless of the group result, and they hold the vote on how to fix the balance sheet..5. The balance sheet — technically insolvent, but debt-free.At 31 December 2025, Group liabilities exceeded assets by R84.4m (Union: –R113.5m). This is genuine, audited technical insolvency — R110.9m of accumulated losses against only R26.5m of reserves. It is the direct legacy of the 2024 loss, deepened in 2025. The offsetting facts are real: no term borrowings, and an unqualified audit opinion signed by Nexia SAB&T on 14 May 2026 — notably with no emphasis-of-matter paragraph on going concern, despite the negative equity. The auditors leaned on secured 2026 sponsorship and broadcast contracts and the R100m overdraft facility. Two caveats on “debt-free” • Year-end overdraft of R27.0m. The Group had drawn R27m of its R100m facility at 31 December 2025 (secured by cession of receivables). “No term debt” is accurate; “debt-free” is looser — it runs on overdraft at year-end. • Finance costs of R6.5m are lease interest. Note 18 confirms R6.0m of the R6.5m is IFRS 16 lease-liability interest, R84k overdraft interest, R0.4m other — consistent with the no-term-debt position. Finance-lease liabilities of R61.8m sit on the balance sheet. Tax credit of R7.3m is deferred tax (Note 19) — temporary differences, no cash tax paid or received. It reduces the pre-tax loss of R40.4m to a R33.0m after-tax loss; it is not operating performance..6. The reserves problem and the Ackerley deal.SA Rugby holds effectively no reserve buffer. Pre-COVID reserves were spent propping up the game through 2020, and the union has run at or below breakeven ever since. With negative equity and no ring-fenced fund, any external shock — a lost broadcast cycle, a rand move, a World Cup-year revenue dip, another pandemic-scale event — has no absorber. This was the rationale for the proposed sale of a 20% stake in a new commercial-rights company (“Win by One”) to the US-based Ackerley Sports Group for $75m (~R1.3–R1.4bn) — and its rejection in December 2024 left the problem unsolved..Why the deal failed.The vote went 7–6 against, well short of the 75% approval required — led by the Bulls, Lions and Sharks (Western Province, in administration, held no ballot but also opposed it). Beyond the parties who had negotiated and promoted it, the transaction was widely regarded as a poor one, for reasons that had little to do with the principle of raising capital:.• The commission. The single biggest sticking point was a 15% commission on the transaction value — reportedly R200m+ — payable to the intermediary (Eddie Jordan's firm) for putting the deal together. Unions publicly noted this was money that could otherwise be ploughed back into the game. • Governance and process. The affair drew government intervention (the Sports Minister forced a postponement of the original October vote) and pointed criticism against King IV principles of transparency, accountability and integrity. The big unions alleged they were “railroaded.” • Control of the Springbok brand. Selling a stake in the commercial rights to the national team — an asset of significant public and emotional value — drew objection from unions, fans and commentators, even with SARU's assurance it would retain decision-making rights..The failed process still cost R14m in advisory fees. A rival bid was floated by a consortium linked to the big unions' backers (Rupert, Motsepe and others), but that carries an obvious conflict — the owners of the largest clubs taking ownership of the Springboks, and by extension the smaller unions in the ecosystem. The reserve question therefore remains open, and is the single most important unresolved item on the balance sheet..7. Test-match economics and Rugby's Greatest Rivalry.The 2025 in-house hosting model is the clearest example of SA Rugby capturing margin it used to give away. Rather than sell hosting rights to the provincial unions or third parties, SARU now owns delivery of Springbok home Tests. The audited result: R402m of match-hosting revenue against R213m of direct match-day delivery cost — roughly R189m net across the season, on top of a further R47m of Test-match guarantees. Previously that margin largely sat with the host union. These are audited 2025 figures; the events of July 2026 (below) test how repeatable that margin is..The 2026 series — how the money splits with New Zealand.“Rugby's Greatest Rivalry” (RGR) is a bilateral SARU–NZR revenue-share, not part of the Rugby Championship (paused for 2026 as a result). Four Tests: three in South Africa (Ellis Park 22 Aug, Cape Town 29 Aug, FNB Stadium 5 Sep) and a fourth in Baltimore (12 Sep, M&T Bank Stadium, ~71,000 capacity). The commercial structure, as disclosed:.• 50:50 on commercial and broadcast value. The pooled commercial and broadcast rights are shared evenly between the two unions — a fundamental departure from the traditional touring convention, under which the home union keeps everything and the tourist gets nothing. NZR shares in value generated on South African soil in 2026; SARU reciprocates on tour in NZ in 2030. • Gate favours the home union. Ticket and match-day revenue is split with the larger share to the host — so SARU keeps the majority of the gate across the three SA Tests. • The Baltimore “money game.” Promoted by Australian agency TEG, the US Test is projected to generate up to R100m more than an SA Test, in USD — worth more still once converted at a weak rand — plus a staging fee World Rugby is paying both unions to take the game to a 2031 World Cup target market..What this means for SARU's numbers: three home Tests at R100–120m gross feed the hosting line that is already transforming the revenue mix, and SARU keeps the larger share of that gate plus half the pooled commercial and broadcast pot. The trade-off is that NZR now takes a half-share of value from matches on SA soil that, under an old-style tour, would have stayed entirely at home — the price of a co-marketed premium product and the US windfall. The displaced parties are Australia and Argentina, who lose Rugby Championship fixtures and revenue in RGR years..The pricing model under strain — July 2026.The in-house model works by taking a “clean stadium” — the host union hands over the whole venue, suites included, and SARU re-sells everything to maximise yield. Two episodes in the same eight days show the model failing at both ends of the market..• Mass market — Ellis Park (England, 4 July). With the cheapest seats at R950, only ~21,000 of ~62,000 had sold a week out. SARU cut the floor to R650, then R450 — and, crucially, dropped mid-tier R1,750 seats to R650 in volume (a smaller number of higher-tier seats may also have been released cheaply, though that is less certain). Up to 28–30k seats sold at a discount, with some full-price sales continuing alongside, and the stadium filled to 52,790. Full-price buyers were refused refunds; SARU warned the discount was “not a precedent.” • Premium market — Loftus (Scotland, 11 July). Suite holders who pay a ~R200,000 annual lease must now also buy tickets from SARU (~R4,300–R4,500/seat, ~R80–100k per suite) plus catering to use their own boxes for Tests. They have served lawyers' letters (SARU calls the matter sub judice); reportedly only ~100 of Loftus's 400 suites will be occupied. The same dispute is brewing at FNB Stadium ahead of the September All Blacks Tests..The revenue effect on the England Test. The discount decision was the right one — filling the bowl beat holding price and leaving ~30,000 seats empty at a nationally-symbolic Test. But the cross-tier collapse, mainly R1,750 seats sold at R650, forfeited real willingness-to-pay: roughly R1,100 per seat on perhaps 10,000 seats. On that basis the Test came in an estimated R10–15m short of the revenue its published ticket structure implied — not because discounting failed, but because it was rescuing a launch that had been mispriced. The discount recovered most of the gap; it could not recover the yield already conceded on the mid-tier seats. Against the 2025 audited hosting average of ~R67m per Test (used here only as a yardstick, not a published per-match budget), that is a ~15–22% dent in a single Test's revenue. This is a 2026 effect: 2025's Tests were priced far lower, against a weaker slate that wouldn't have commanded marquee pricing or crowds either way, so the audited hosting figures aren't a like-for-like benchmark..Why this matters for the model, and for TGR. The two July episodes rhyme into one thesis: SARU has shown, twice in eight days, that it cannot hold premium price — at the top of the ticket ladder (England) and at the top of the market (the empty suites). The audited R189m hosting margin is real but assumes premium pricing the market has just resisted — and the same assumption sits under the Rugby's Greatest Rivalry projection of R100–120m per home Test. If a Tier One draw like England needs cross-tier discounting to fill Ellis Park, that projection rests on a price structure July 2026 has called into question. The exposure lands on the September All Blacks Tests — the most lucrative fixtures in the hosting book, and the ones the 2026 turnaround depends on.And it is not only a commercial risk. The Springboks are a contested national and transformation asset, so pricing that reads as “rugby for the exclusive few” carries political risk alongside the commercial kind — and the Sports Minister's intervention to force a postponement of the Ackerley vote in 2024 shows that reach into SARU's affairs is not hypothetical. No government statement on the 2026 pricing has been made at the time of writing, but it would not be a surprise if one came..8. The Tier One peer group.SA Rugby's losses are modest against its peers, and its debt position is better. Converted to rand at approximate mid-2025 rates (£1≈R23.5, €1≈R20, NZ$1≈R10.5, A$1≈R11.5; year-ends and bases differ, so treat as order-of-magnitude):.What the comparison honestly says.• Where it flatters SARU: smallest loss in the group, no term debt, no stadium millstone, no private-equity revenue-share mortgage on future income. On losses-and-leverage, arguably the second-healthiest Tier One union after Ireland. • Where it doesn't: revenue scale — the RFU earns ~2.7× from one market; SARU monetises the world champions at a fraction of that. And reserves: Ireland sits on real accumulated funds while SARU sits on negative equity — the worst reserve position in the group despite being debt-free. • The strategic irony: the two unions that took private equity (NZR, and the CVC unions) still lose money — cash injections don't fix operating models. The Ackerley rejection leaves SARU the harder task of fixing the P&L, but on a cleaner balance sheet than most peers carry..9. What management has committed to for 2026.The 2025 report is unusually specific about the year ahead, which gives clear, checkable benchmarks: • A return to profitability in 2026, with positive cashflow into 2027 — stated in the going-concern note and the finance review. This is the headline promise. • Rugby's Greatest Rivalry and the Nations Championship both launch in 2026, alongside the continuing (SANZAAR-owned) Castle Lager Rugby Championship — three sources of new commercial revenue. Note the Rugby Championship is described as continuing, not paused. • Digital transformation: a relaunched SA Rugby website in Q2 2026 and monetisation of the fan database — where the growth in the Commercial and Communications lines is being directed. • URC/EPCR economics: the SA franchises continue in the URC and European club competitions; the mid-2025 conversion to full URC shareholder removes the participation-fee drag that cost hundreds of millions a year and turns SARU into a profit-share recipient. • World Rugby funding of £9m guaranteed over the cycle to 31 December 2027 — a hard anchor under the other-income line, though lumpy year to year..10. Bottom line.SA Rugby has done the hard commercial rebuild — revenue mix transformed, brand monetisation improving fast, the biggest structural cost (URC participation) converted into an asset. What it has not done is prove it can hold a surplus, and it now has negative equity and no buffer if the Springbok flywheel stutters. The pre-COVID years show this organisation can run at breakeven-plus; the post-COVID years show how expensive the European pivot and the national-team ramp have been. 2026 is the test of whether the two finally reconcile..Three things to watch in the 2026 accounts (AGM ~May 2027): a genuine surplus north of breakeven with the URC fee gone; the first actual move to constitute a ring-fenced reserve fund; and whether member-union funding is ever linked to group results rather than rising regardless. Two of three and the turnaround is real. None of three and 2025's optimism was just a good line at the AGM..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

SA Rugby is technically insolvent – and still the healthiest bankrupt union in world rugby

Related Stories

The Economist's Bartleby: Are you committed to your company or your team?

The Economist: Tests showing shocking new declines - are teenagers getting dimmer?

Precision flying or reckless risk?: Airlink's DHL Stadium flyover divides opinion at home and abroad

MAILBOX: SARU sold the seats, but lost the fans