Sir Clive Woodward examines how the PREM’s shift to a franchise and ringfencing model protects investors but may undermine competitive integrity
Premiership Rugby has taken a decisive turn by adopting a franchise model and effectively ringfencing its top flight, a change driven largely by economics rather than pure sporting logic. After several clubs collapsed or left the competition—most notably Worcester, Wasps and London Irish—the leadership concluded that revenue protection and investor confidence had to come first.
From a business perspective, that reasoning is straightforward: attracting deep-pocketed owners is far easier when there is no immediate risk of relegation threatening their investment. However, the trade-off is a growing concern that the league’s on-field competitiveness and credibility may be suffering as a result.
That commercial reality helps explain why groups such as Red Bull were willing to acquire Newcastle and why the Bill Foley-led consortium invested in Exeter Chiefs alongside his outside interests, including Premier League club Bournemouth. These ownership decisions were made with the knowledge that the new structure reduces the chance of catastrophic financial loss through demotion.
Yet while balance sheets may be stabilised, there is growing unease that the soul of the competition—the unpredictable, high-stakes drama created by promotion and relegation—is being sacrificed. This tension is the core of the debate over whether the PREM has protected its future at the expense of its identity.
Recent results that illustrate the risk
The most immediate evidence of a damaged competitive fabric came from a string of one-sided results that weekend, games which lacked the tension that keeps fans engaged. For instance, Saracens trounced Sale by a staggering 85-19, during which Noah Caluori ran in five of Saracens’ 13 tries. On the same weekend Gabriel Hamer-Webb claimed four tries as Leicester demolished the Newcastle Red Bulls 62-3, and Gloucester‘s difficult season produced a 53-12 defeat at Bristol. Those scorelines are not just embarrassing for the clubs involved; they are symptomatic of a broader issue: several teams have little to play for when relegation is off the table, which dampens intensity and viewer interest.
Why sporting jeopardy matters
British sport has long been built on the principle of promotion and relegation, a mechanism that keeps matches meaningful throughout the season. Compare that to football’s Premier League: the prospect that a club like Tottenham could fall into the Championship is the very definition of competitive jeopardy, and it fuels drama from top to bottom. In contrast, the PREM’s removal of relegation has left four teams—Newcastle, Harlequins, Gloucester and Sale—effectively adrift at the lower end; collectively they conceded a staggering 248 points across four matches that weekend. When multiple fixtures turn into one-sided affairs, audiences switch off and the league’s broader appeal can contract rather than grow.
A two-legged play-off proposal
One practical compromise would be to reintroduce a form of jeopardy without fully reverting to automatic relegation: a two-legged play-off between the team finishing bottom of the PREM and the winner of the Championship. This hybrid model would preserve some investor assurances—failure would not result in immediate, unilateral demotion—while restoring seasonal significance for struggling clubs. A play-off provides spectacle, commercial opportunities and a genuine sporting test; it also mirrors structures used successfully in other countries, offering a middle path between absolute ringfencing and open promotion/relegation.
Anglo-Welsh expansion and commercial upside
Another idea with commercial and sporting merit is an Anglo-Welsh alignment: integrating the four Welsh regions from the United Rugby Championship into the PREM. Such a move could broaden the market, enhance matchday attendances and create fresh rivalries without undermining investor security. From a business perspective, an expanded league has the potential to increase broadcast value and gate receipts; from a sporting perspective, it would inject new stakes and variety into the calendar, making the competition more compelling for fans across both nations.
Balancing investor confidence with competitive integrity
The PREM’s administrators face a delicate balancing act. The franchise model has undoubtedly improved short-term financial stability, attracting high-profile investors who might otherwise have stayed away. But the gamble is that, over time, removing the threat of relegation could hollow out the competitive narrative that keeps supporters emotionally invested. The recent string of lop-sided results underlines that risk: when several fixtures display little fight, the product weakens. If the league wants both strong bank accounts and engaged crowds, it must design mechanisms that protect owners while restoring meaningful consequences on the field.
Ultimately, the TEST for the PREM will be whether it can marry the security that owners demand with the dramatic uncertainty that fans crave. Whether through a staged play-off system, cross-border expansion, or another hybrid model, the challenge is to ensure the league remains both solvent and sportingly credible. Only then will the PREM avoid the trap of being financially stable but competitively sterile.
