Despite some encouraging signs of growth in matchday and commercial income, the report found that for a third successive year, no Prem Rugby club made a profit in 2023/24. The ten clubs made a combined loss of £34 million for the season, an increase from £24.2 million the previous year. This loss is equivalent to roughly £71,000 per week for the league.

Total debt across the league has climbed to £342.5 million, and six of the ten clubs are now classified as balance sheet insolvent, meaning they were reliant on owner support to continue operating as loss-making businesses.

A “Decade of Structural Fragility”

The 2025 report demonstrates that these financial woes are not a recent phenomenon. The analysis of the last decade shows that Prem Rugby clubs have accumulated £176.9 million in cumulative losses.

Speaking at the report’s launch, Alex Cadwallader, a Leonard Curtis director and former England U21 player, stated the findings were unambiguous: “The clubs collectively have been loss-making every year in the last ten years once the exceptional items such as ground sales in 2014/15 and the CVC investment deal in 2018/19 are removed… The current model is proven. It is a loss-making one”.

This view was echoed by the report’s co-author, Professor Rob Wilson, who described the situation as a “decade of structural financial fragility”.

The report’s Financial Performance Index, a model developed by its academic authors, ranks clubs on both sporting and financial metrics over the ten-year period. Co-author Dr. Dan Plumley explained that the index map reveals a league where many clubs are “simply treading water”.

“Ideally… you want to be in that top right quadrant, that’s suggesting that you are doing well, both on and off the pitch,” Dr. Plumley said. “If you in the bottom left, you are treading water”. The index showed Harlequins retaining its top spot (3.56), narrowly ahead of Leicester Tigers (3.62) and Northampton Saints (3.71).

“Broken Beyond Tinkering”

In a hard-hitting foreword for the report, former England international James Haskell argued that the league’s problems are existential. “The business model, as it stands… is broken beyond tinkering,” he wrote.

Lead author Jonathan Dyson noted at the launch that English rugby, much like English cricket, finds itself at a “pivotal stage of [its] development,” making the report’s findings all the more urgent.

In a video address for the launch, Haskell compared the league’s current trajectory to a famous movie ending:

“Because right now, we’re basically Thelma and Louise, foot down, laughing, waving at fans, heading straight off the cliff. And everyone knows it. Players know it. Coaches know it. Fans definitely know it.”

Professor Wilson, a co-author, suggested one of the key drivers for the losses is a salary cap that is “too high” for many clubs to operate sustainably, creating a pressure to spend beyond their means simply to compete.

A Franchise Model Reset?

The Leonard Curtis report does not just diagnose the problem; it analyses a potential solution that is reportedly being considered by the league: a franchise model.

Phil Lyons, the Leonard Curtis director who designed the report’s model, explained the philosophy behind such a move. “We are looking to leverage the scale of joining lots of costs together… achieving those economies of scale,” he said. Lyons stressed it would require a “change of mindset” from club owners to one where a “rising tide lifts all the boats”.

The analysis concludes that through a franchise licensing system, clubs could save between £1.1 million and £1.9 million annually from shared services and centralised governance.

However, the report warns this is no silver bullet. Leonard Curtis stated that club finances would only be stabilised if the model was combined with:

• Independent financial regulation. Phil Lyons described this as a “key role”.
• Disciplined cost controls, including a recommended wage-to-revenue ratio limit of 70% initially.
• Transparent annual licensing/grading.
• Solidarity with a properly supported second tier.

The proposed structure would see an initial period of no relegation to “encourage investment” before potentially expanding. Haskell backed this view, stating: “A franchise system could reset Prem Rugby… Add in proper wage to revenue guardrails and the appointment of an independent regulator, and we might finally have the beginnings of something that looks like a sustainable business model” .

Lessons from the Women’s Game

The report also highlights the potential and pitfalls of league structures by examining Premiership Women’s Rugby (PWR). Gessica Howarth, a report panellist and vice-president of women’s sport investment firm Sphera Partners, described the Red Roses’ World Cup victory as an “unprecedented platform”.

“But to convert this surge in visibility into lasting impact, we must in turn reach into depth,” she warned. Howarth noted that the PWR already operates a “soft franchise model” and that while it could benefit from a new men’s structure, “what we don’t want to do is constrain the women’s game”. She stressed that the women’s league must be allowed to “maintain [its] unique identity and independence”.

This need for a sound structure was underscored by new research in the report from Dr. Ellie Nesbitt, Senior Lecturer in Sport Management at Nottingham Trent University, which highlights a “significantly lower competitive balance” in the PWR compared to the men’s game. The data shows an average competitive balance score (HICB) of 127.86 for the PWR, compared to 108.93 for the men’s Premiership (where 100 is perfectly balanced). Dr. Nesbitt warned this dominance by a few teams “risks fan disengagement due to the predictability of the games and results”.

Ultimately, the report paints a picture of a sport at a crossroads, armed with clear data on its financial unsustainability. As Alex Cadwallader concluded at the launch: “The competition in France is moving forward and disruptors with new models are circling. The question really should be why would we not consider a different model?”.