Moana Pasifika: Inside the race to save Super Rugby’s struggling side - Gregor Paul

That was it she said; the club’s Super Rugby journey would end in 2026. With that, the players went home, fearful about their own financial futures, and heartbroken that a club they truly believed in was going to be no more.

At about the same time as the players were driving home on the afternoon of April 14, the Herald was seeking clarification that PMA had informed staff that it could no longer fund the club next year.

When high-level sources who should have been made aware of such a serious development at the club were initially approached, they had no knowledge of anything having happened.

Also, when the Herald did receive confirmation that the players and staff had been spoken to by Sorensen, every source spoken to stressed that Moana Pasifika’s involvement in Super Rugby was not coming to an end, but that PMA’s involvement in Moana Pasifika was.

The Herald’s story, therefore, revealed that PMA had engaged the accountancy and consultancy firm Deloitte earlier in the year to conduct a sale process.

But that process failed to find a buyer for Moana’s licence, with PMA not able to fund the club beyond 2026, Moana would not be part of Super Rugby in 2027 unless a new owner was willing to take on the estimated $10 million of annual operating costs.

The Herald sought comment from PMA on April 14 before publishing its story and was told that a statement would be released in the morning.

That statement, which was attributed to Moana Pasifika chair Dr Kiki Maoate, contradicted the Herald’s understanding of the situation, as it was headed, “Moana Pasifika set to conclude Super Rugby chapter at the end of the 2026 season”.

Also on April 15, Sorensen completed a round of media interviews where the messaging again seemed contradictory, as she suggested that Moana Pasifika could still have a future.

Speaking to PMN Tonga, Sorensen said: “Don’t give up yet, that there will be a place for Moana. We are considering, you know, all options.”

The narrative about what exactly is going on with Moana Pasifika and whether it does or doesn’t have a future in Super Rugby has been confusing.

But as the Herald understands it, the situation is this: PMA is committed to meeting the club’s costs until the end of Super Rugby, but it is not involved in any effort to find a buyer or secure ongoing funding for Moana Pasifika.

A steering group of Pasifika greats – which is thought to include Sir Michael Jones and Tana Umaga, supported by the New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association – is leading the effort to save the club.

For Moana Pasifika to be part of Super Rugby next year, New Zealand Rugby – which will effectively take back the licence from PMA – will need to be convinced there is a long-term, viable business plan and secure funding for at least the next three years.

No one can confirm anything, but the Herald understands that there are serious negotiations in motion, with credible and motivated potential investors interested in saving the club.

Why save Moana given its poor on-field performance and financial struggles?

To understand who might be willing to financially invest in Moana, it’s imperative to first know the wider purpose and value of the club, and how the investment opportunity is likely being presented to potential backers.

The bid to win the licence to own Moana Pasifika back in 2021 laid out a compelling vision of the club being owned by Pasifika and run for Pasifika – providing a means to strengthen Pacific representation in elite rugby while also supporting the long-term sustainability and relevance of rugby in New Zealand and the wider region.

It was intended to be a pathway to enable elite Samoan and Tongan talent – in the islands and those eligible for either country but living in New Zealand or Australia – to be identified and developed and then picked up by the respective national teams.

The longer-term vision was for the club to potentially be based in either Samoa or Tonga and play most of their games there – but there was never a hard commitment to that or a timeline to transition from the original plan which was to train at Auckland’s Mount Smart Stadium and mostly play there, too.

Moana was not set up with a similar remit to the five foundation New Zealand clubs in that it was not conceived as a typical geographic franchise – winning fans from a prescribed territory.

Instead, it was identity-based – essentially borderless and almost virtual, as its connection with supporters was through Pacific culture, focused on faith, family and pride, and therefore there was a case to say its commercial potential was immune to the team’s performances.

While Moana have not been convincing on the field and have struggled to build commercial revenue through sponsorship, gate revenue and merchandise sales, there are three reasons why the remit remains compelling.

Firstly, the club has run a world-class content strategy that has generated more than 150,000 new social-media followers since 2025, with almost three-quarters being under 34.

Moana is bringing Super Rugby a massively engaged, younger audience that the competition – and rugby more generally – desperately needs.

Secondly, the Pasifika talent base remains undeniable. There were four players that represented the All Blacks last year who were born in either Tonga or Fiji, and 15 who identified as Pasifika.

The players to stand alongside the likes of All Blacks star Ardie Savea are there, Moana just needs to be better set up to get them and keep them.

And thirdly, if Moana Pasifika ceases to exist, there is a genuine prospect of Pasifika communities and whole countries giving up on rugby entirely and committing to rugby league.

“That’s the real risk. Then what for Samoa and Tonga?” Umaga, Moana’s coach, said after his side played in Sydney late last month.

“Rugby league has a great product at the moment. They’ve got a lot of money being put into it and are all over the islands, promoting it.

“Our people are made for the game. They love the game. They make up big numbers. If they all go to league, that will be a sad time and a sad place for where rugby should be.

“If we keep going the way we’re going, and we don’t want it to happen, there’s a possibility Samoa or Tonga might not make the next cycle of the World Cup.”

Who are the possible investors interested in Moana?

All investment roads lead to the respective national unions and governments of Samoa and Tonga, Pasifika or Pasifika-connected high-net worth individuals, and possibly the Pasifika professional rugby alumni.

Of this group, the Samoan and Tongan governments have the greatest financial capacity and motivation to commit to a long-term funding package that will effectively underwrite the club.

The Pacific region has become a hot geo-political theatre, with the Australian and Chinese governments both spending heavily in the region as part of their respective sports diplomacy strategies.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT] has earmarked $150 million for rugby investment in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga.

It is money intended to help fund the creation of three teams to play in Australia’s third-tier Super Rugby Aus competition that was launched last year, and to help build needed infrastructure, particularly in Samoa and Tonga, such as training facilities and stadium improvements.

There is a valid question to ask about whether governments should be investing in a professional sports team, but there are four valid reasons to justify it in this case.

If the Samoan and Tongan governments could underwrite Moana Pasifika then there would be a conjoined talent pathway from grassroots to the international game.

Australia’s money would pay for the identification and development of elite talent within each nation – essentially fund Samoa and Tonga’s high-performance and infrastructure – with the teams playing in Super Rugby Aus feeding players into Moana Pasifika and then the two respective national teams.

This would create stronger international sides on the world stage and enhanced profile and commercial opportunities.

Secondly, professional sport, particularly rugby, is a major driver of both countries’ respective economies, with estimates suggesting that remittances from money sent home by Tongan players accounts for almost 50% of GDP.

Thirdly, there is a valid precedent as the Fijian government owns 51% of the Drua and it has been a successful model. Potential sponsors like the security and stability generated by government investment and involvement.

And fourthly, rugby is so entwined in the social fabric of both nations as to be considered an endemic part of Pasifika culture that would be seriously damaged if Moana is left to collapse.

How can Moana be viably funded long-term?

Previous figures published by the Herald estimate that it costs circa $10m to run Moana annually on a no-frills, baseline budget.

Moana was previously funded by a combination of (NZ) government grants and loans, an annual contribution (circa $1.8m) from World Rugby, a $2m payment from NZR (the club’s share of Super Rugby broadcast revenue), an estimated $300,000 per year front-of-jersey sponsorship from Sky, and other commercial income from gate revenue, sponsorships and merchandise sales.

All government money has been exhausted, World Rugby decided not to extend its funding package beyond the initial three-year commitment, and Sky will not be renewing its jersey deal.

Any new investor would have the guarantee of NZR’s $2m, but they would have to come up with another $7.5m-$8m annually to pay the bills to keep the club viable.

The premise of any potential survival plan will be to lay out a three-year forecast where the new owners can confidently present a realistic, viable growth strategy that sees generated commercial revenue grow to $7.5-$8m annually and make Moana Pasifika self-sufficient.

The plan would need parties committed to underwriting the club to make up the inevitable financial shortfall, which the Herald estimates would be anything from $8m-$12m over the three years, depending on the success of the commercial strategy.

It’s not known for certain how much commercial income Moana generated last year, but sources have indicated it would likely have been between $1m-$1.5m.

A new owner will have to quintuple commercial income within three years to make the club viable, and this, essentially, is the question on which Moana’s future hangs.

Is it realistic to believe that the club can, within three years, generate circa $8m a year from sponsorships, gate revenue, merchandise sales and any other ventures it may launch?

For context, the Blues, as the competition’s economic powerhouse, are thought to generate between $13m-$15m a year, depending on the number of home games they host.

It is an ambitious growth target for Moana, but they do have a secret weapon with which to power a reset commercial strategy, which is the reach and engagement of its content.

Moana have generated a digital audience cut-through that is the envy of the competition and could serve as a gateway to monetised partnerships with corporates, consumer and retail brands, and government agencies looking to connect with Pasifika communities.

Sources with deep knowledge of commercial sporting markets have told the Herald that they believe Moana could significantly grow their income if they target fewer, higher-value, better aligned sponsorships.

Another source said that should there be government investment secured, there would be potential for Moana to follow the example of the Fijian Drua.

It is understood that the Fijian government has encouraged entities in which it is a shareholder to make sponsorship agreements with the Drua.

Samoa and Tonga don’t have the same corporate heft as Fiji, but the Herald understands that there may be companies with shipping and telecoms infrastructure interests in the Pacific that could be interested in building a partnership with Moana.

The unknown in any commercial forecasting is the likely contribution from gate revenue as arguably the greatest barrier to Moana building a fan base to date has been their enforced nomadic existence.

For various reasons, they haven’t been able to secure a regular home ground or develop a cost-effective hosting strategy to build a consistent match experience.

Where could Moana be based and play?

Auckland, as the world’s largest Pasifika city, is the obvious (short-term) home for Moana to be based (and the club has access to international-class facilities at its current training home at North Harbour Stadium).

But playing games in Auckland has been challenging as local rivals the Blues have a binding licence with NZR that there will not be another team playing in their designated region (Auckland, South Auckland and Northland).

It is understood that NZR has previously financially compensated the Blues to enable Moana to play games in Auckland.

Moana also tried to take a game to Tonga earlier this year but pulled out when they had no way to meet the estimated $600,000 of broadcast and associated costs.

Some commentators have suggested shifting the club to Melbourne or Brisbane, but it is understood Rugby Australia would not support such a change in Moana’s licence, and relocating to Hawaii or the West Coast of the USA would burden Super Rugby with an unviable travelling cost.

The solution that the Herald is being told may be working, is to change the mindset of the five foundation clubs in New Zealand from seeing Moana as a threat – a predator competing for players, sponsors and fans – and evaluating the metrics that show the club has enhanced Super Rugby’s audience and not cannibalised it.

Moana have one of the strongest digital profiles in Australasian sport, and it is understood that at least one of their games last year was among the highest broadcast audiences of the season.

Super Rugby collectively, on the other hand, is believed to have suffered a significant drop in audience and engagement this year since mid-March (the Super Round in Christchurch withstanding), and there is a strong argument that the New Zealand clubs need Moana to survive for them to thrive.

A new investor will likely seek agreement to play in Auckland, while running a cost-effective ‘touring’ strategy where Moana take occasional ‘home’ games to other parts of New Zealand, Australia, Samoa and Tonga or even further afield.

How long has the club got to save itself from closure?

NZR’s board, which will ultimately decide whether to greenlight any new investment/ownership proposal, is thought to be meeting on May 14.

The 10 other Super Rugby clubs are understood to have asked for confirmation about whether the competition will feature 10 or 11 teams by no later than June 1.

If the club is going to be saved, a solid proposal will need to be presented within the next three weeks and have a genuine chance of being finalised by early June.

The other pressure on the timing front is that some of Moana’s players are being offered contracts elsewhere and they need assurance about whether their current club has a future beyond this year or not.

Gregor Paul is one of New Zealand’s most respected rugby writers and columnists. He has won multiple awards for journalism and written several books about sport.