What makes Welsh rugby competitive?
Spending, results and the players who connect the whole game.
The competitive question
URC spending and league wins
Actual URC results; estimated senior-player costs, including central contracts. Open each team to inspect the calculation.
Missing player costs: Leinster, Bulls, Sharks, Stormers, Lions. This includes 4 of the top five finishers.
The lines show low-to-high cost estimates, not a guarantee of accuracy. Wins are actual results. Empty markers mean estimated costs; diamonds mean the team reached the play-offs.
Inspect teams and regional budgets
Complete URC results and cost coverage · 2024-25
Regular-season finishing positions and wins. Missing costs are not zero and are never plotted. Select a costed team for its assumptions and sources.
| League position | Team | Wins / matches | Yearly cost of senior players |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Play-off qualifier | 11/1861.1% | £8.28–11.31mEstimated cost |
| 6 | Play-off qualifier | 9/1850% | £3.77–6.78mEstimated cost |
| 7 | Play-off qualifier | 8/1844.4% | £8.28–11.31mEstimated cost |
| 8 | Play-off qualifier | 9/1850% | £4.97–6.19mEstimated cost |
| 9 | 8/1844.4% | £4.97–6.19mEstimated cost | |
| 10 | 9/1850% | £6.09–9.33mEstimated cost | |
| 12 | 7/1838.9% | £4.97–6.19mEstimated cost | |
| 13 | 6/1833.3% | £3.77–6.78mEstimated cost | |
| 14 | 7/1838.9% | £3.77–6.78mEstimated cost | |
| 15 | 5/1827.8% | £3.22–5.12mEstimated cost | |
| 16 | 1/185.6% | £4.97–6.19mEstimated cost | |
| Results only · no defensible cost range | |||
| 1 | LeinsterPlay-off qualifier | 16/1888.9% | Not plottedWhy / sourcesContemporaneousEUR9-9.5m estimate including central contracts conflicts with later attribution of>EUR12m toCEO;EUR16-17m reports were explicitly denied. No common-scope upper bound is established. Keep results visible and disclose competing estimates; do not average them into a false precise payroll point. |
| 2 | BullsPlay-off qualifier | 14/1877.8% | Not plottedWhy / sourcesNo reviewed franchise payroll anchor or actual cap utilisation. Reported95m cap is a ceiling; PONI/top-ups, cap exclusions, andURC/CurrieCup shared squads require reconciliation. Do not assign cap as spending. |
| 3 | SharksPlay-off qualifier | 13/1872.2% | Not plottedWhy / sourcesNo reviewed franchise payroll anchor or actual cap utilisation. Marqueeindividualsalary reports cannot establish the full squad cost. Reported95m cap, PONI/top-ups andURC/CurrieCup perimeter unresolved. |
| 5 | StormersPlay-off qualifier | 10/1855.6% | Not plottedWhy / sourcesNo reviewed2024/25franchise payroll anchor. A2021coach statement of being15.3% below a then cap is stale and must not be mapped onto2024/25cap. PONI/top-ups andURC/CurrieCup scope unresolved. |
| 11 | Lions | 8/1844.4% | Not plottedWhy / sourcesContemporary reporting says budget is smaller thanBulls/Sharks but gives no amount; that does not justify a numerical discount from95mcap. URC/CurrieCup shared squads andPONI/top-ups unresolved. |
What each plan would spend on players · FY2029
The plan budgets do not predict how many games would be won.
How many URC games would each plan win? We cannot reliably predict that yet. Change the year or assumptions and the plans’ player budgets update. That does not tell us how many games they would win: several opponents’ costs are missing, and the others are estimates.
Select year and model
The competitive question
Premiership spending and league wins
English Premiership Rugby · 2024/25 results against rounded total staff costs from the supplied study. Not senior-player payroll.
Open markers are rounded study figures, not audited payroll. Bristol and Gloucester overlap; inspect either in the team table below.
Inspect all ten clubs
Premiership study data · 2024/25
All ten study rows. Both clubs at a shared chart position can be opened here. League points are not used as wins.
| Team | Wins / matches | Total staff costs (rounded) |
|---|---|---|
| 11/1861.1% | £15mRounded study figure | |
| 4/1822.2% | £14mRounded study figure | |
| 8/1844.4% | £15mRounded study figure | |
| 14/1877.8% | £15mRounded study figure | |
| 10/1855.6% | £11mRounded study figure | |
| 8/1844.4% | £13mRounded study figure | |
| 2/1811.1% | £7mRounded study figure | |
| 10/1855.6% | £16mRounded study figure | |
| 10/1855.6% | £11mRounded study figure | |
| 12/1866.7% | £13mRounded study figure |
What each plan would spend on players ·
No validated Welsh win-rate forecast from this study.
How would the plans perform in the Premiership? We do not have a reliable prediction. This compares English rugby clubs, not the regions’ league opponents. It counts all staff, not just senior players. We therefore cannot put a Welsh player budget on this chart and read off a predicted number of wins.
Keep the talent we develop
Player retention
A competitive squad needs continuity as well as a budget. Track where players go, not just how much a team spends.
The movement study is awaiting publication-rights review. Its player-level records and aggregate preview are not published here.
Evidence, definitions and limits
The existing YSA study follows recorded permanent-destination decisions over three seasons. Players without a recorded move are not the denominator. Staying in Wales can include another Welsh playing level; it does not necessarily mean remaining in a professional region. Loans, retirement and unknown destinations are excluded from this share.
These counts do not establish why players left, whether they should have been retained, the salary needed to retain them, or the effect on future wins. No named salary, health record or claimed post-move causal improvement is published.
Next test: same-season squad denominators, contract offers, playing minutes and academy origin, linked to each plan’s actual retention budget.
From member club to professional rugby
Pathways: opportunities must lead somewhere
Judge a pathway by development, meaningful minutes and progression—not simply its headcount or its budget.
WRU-reported 2024/25 indicators, not independently verified measures or 2027 targets. Read the original WRU review ↗
- Clubs & schoolsAccess, safe facilities, qualified coaches and continued participation.
- Academies & SRCMeaningful minutes, development support, late-developer and alternative routes.
- Regions & WalesSenior opportunities, progression and retention—not just first contracts.
Pathway evidence and what each plan must demonstrate
The WRU review reports more U20 game time and a younger SRC population, but does not supply the underlying minutes or a longitudinal conversion denominator. Do not turn its reported association with U20 results into a causal claim.
- Publish cohort size, senior minutes and first professional contracts with consistent periods and no double-counting dual registrations.
- Price travel, coaching, medical support and playing opportunities under both structures; track whether any lost regional places are genuinely replaced.
- Measure women’s and girls’ pathways separately. The men’s SRC evidence cannot stand in for their participation, development or progression.
One Wales / Portas-backed strategy: published goals ↗
Strategic objectives are not proof that contraction improves development or that four regions are affordable. Both claims need costed delivery and measured outcomes.