The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) should welcome independent scrutiny of its proposal to reduce the number of professional regions from four to three, according to a leading business commentator. Dylan Jones-Evans, writing in the Western Mail, argues that the union's insistence on credible alternatives is unreasonable while it retains control over the financial evidence needed to assess them.
The call comes amid intensifying criticism of the WRU's strategy, with former internationals, regional representatives, supporters and business figures questioning both the three-region model and the board's ability to implement it. Some have called for board members to stand down, and there are repeated demands for the release of the financial evidence underpinning the decision.
WRU response and the demand for evidence
The WRU has condemned what it describes as "personal attacks" on its board. Jones-Evans notes that no such abuse was evident in the public statements of prominent critics such as Hayley Parsons and Jonathan Davies, or from those requesting the release of evidence. The union maintains there is "no realistic prospect" of funding four competitive professional teams beyond 2028, and insists that criticism must be accompanied by credible alternatives.
However, the detailed financial and sporting information needed to test this conclusion remains largely within the WRU itself, as Jones-Evans emphasised in his previous column. This asymmetry, he argues, makes it impossible for outsiders to produce a fully costed business case.
'Built to Win' presents a credible alternative
Despite these constraints, detailed alternatives are emerging. One such framework is "Built to Win: A Business and Sporting Turnaround Plan for Welsh Rugby", developed by a Welsh entrepreneur with extensive experience in business turnaround and financial restructuring. Its central thesis is that 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.
The plan challenges the WRU to reform the operating system first, then retest whether three or four regions represent the best sustainable structure. Moving from four to three teams may provide additional funding for each surviving licence, but it does not automatically reduce central bureaucracy, improve coaching, repair the player pathway or eliminate duplicated functions.
Key proposals in "Built to Win" include separating the community and professional games through a Welsh rugby amateur foundation to protect club democracy, while a professionally appointed Wales rugby board oversees the stadium, elite teams, commercial rights and high-performance system. It also suggests centralising shared services such as finance, procurement, technology, data, sponsorship and customer management, while retaining regional responsibility for rugby delivery and community engagement. Independent financial oversight, transparent procurement, published performance indicators, stronger player and coach pathways, and an integrated commercial strategy are also recommended.
A call for independent, open appraisal
Jones-Evans acknowledges that "Built to Win" is not a finished business case. Its financial projections are illustrative, its sporting proposals require expert validation, and some structural recommendations could be difficult to deliver. Nevertheless, it challenges the WRU's assertion that no realistic route exists to sustaining four competitive teams beyond 2028. It does not prove four teams are viable, but it shows the question should be tested independently rather than treated as settled.
He proposes that an independent adviser be given controlled access to the WRU's departmental costs, headcount, cash flow, debt commitments, regional funding flows, stadium economics, and major commercial and lending 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 three-region model, and the reformed "Built to Win" model with either three or four teams. Each should be assessed using identical assumptions under base, downside and severe-downside conditions. The adviser could publish methodology, assumptions, comparative results and conclusions without disclosing sensitive material.
Such an appraisal should also consider how the Welsh Government and local authorities could support facilities, community participation and shared infrastructure where these contribute to public health, youth engagement, social cohesion and regional economic development—though not using public money to underwrite professional teams' recurring losses.
Jones-Evans notes that "Built to Win" is not the only alternative. Another Welsh entrepreneur spoke to the Western Mail about a separate strategy focused on retaining four teams alongside reform of WRU expenditure, governance and the player pathway. The existence of multiple alternatives 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, he argues, is for the WRU to determine which financial information is released, control the assumptions underpinning its preferred conclusion, and then dismiss alternatives because outsiders cannot produce a fully costed business case without access to the same 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 teams cannot be sustained under any credible reformed structure, an open appraisal would strengthen its case and give difficult decisions greater legitimacy. If it is unwilling to subject its conclusion to that test, people will reasonably ask whether the evidence is as definitive as its public statements suggest.
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 Welsh rugby should welcome an independent comparison of every credible option to ensure the best possible long-term outcome, rather than simply the one that appears most convenient today. 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.
