The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) has confirmed it held 32 stakeholder engagement meetings and a formal option appraisal before deciding to reduce the number of professional regions from four to three, but critics are now demanding that the evidence be made public.
In a letter to WRU chief executive Abi Tierney, Professor Dylan Jones-Evans asked for details of the process that led the board to conclude that three regions represented the best future for the professional game. The WRU responded that between August and October 2025, it held 32 separate engagement meetings with a wide range of stakeholders, each independently minuted, with a subsequent report produced for the board.
The WRU also said that detailed analysis was undertaken by the executive team and subjected to external independent challenge from experts. That work culminated in a formal option appraisal considering a range of options, including financial analysis, strategic considerations, an assessment of principal risks and opportunities, and feedback from the stakeholder engagement process. The 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.
Scarlets question transparency
However, Scarlets managing director Jon Daniels has publicly questioned 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.
This creates an uncomfortable contradiction: 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 sharing the final analysis, but that is precisely why transparency matters.
Redaction is possible
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.
Next steps
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.
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. 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.
