Apologies if this has been done before but I am bored and thought to have a play around with Chatgpt on the topic of 20th team and it suggested NZ. I raised a few questions around players, value etc and It isn't perfect and some of the numbers I think would be off but interesting non the less. Here is what it spat out
"Adding a
second New Zealand NRL team is more than just a feel-good move — it has potential financial upside
if handled strategically, but it also comes with
real risks around player depth and market saturation. Let’s break both parts of your question down:
Financial Benefit of a Second NZ Team
TV Rights & Revenue Growth
- Foxtel/Kayo & Nine (Australia): Another NZ team gives minimal uplift in Aussie broadcast rights. Their value is in time slots and competitive games.
- Sky Sport (NZ): Where the big growth potential lies.
- NZ currently pays ~$20M AUD/year for the Warriors. A second team could add $10M–$15M+ per year depending on viewership and derby interest.
- If Sky gets a Friday night Warriors vs Orcas rivalry, they'd push harder in negotiations.
- Derby games are TV gold:
- Think: Warriors vs Kea becomes the NZ version of Broncos–Cowboys or Roosters–Rabbitohs.
- 3–4 games/year between NZ teams could spike NZ ratings significantly.
Ballpark TV Rights Impact:
- NZ TV deal uplift: +$10–15M AUD/year
- Potential new commercial partners (Air NZ, NZ brands): +$2–5M/year
- Increased digital/streaming appeal for NZ fans = long-tail value
Where Would the Players Come From?
Short Answer: It’s a real concern — but not unmanageable.
NZ Domestic Talent Pool
- NZ produces around 100+ NRL-level juniors per year, but many are poached early by Aussie clubs.
- A second NZ team would give those players a reason to stay — especially if placed in the South Island.
- Strong base in:
- Auckland (already overloaded with Warriors academy talent)
- Waikato/Bay of Plenty
- Christchurch and Canterbury region
Raiding Rugby Union
- NZ rugby has more depth than it needs — and a growing number of players are crossing codes.
- A second NRL team could:
- Offer alternative career paths to fringe Super Rugby players
- Snap up young dual-code juniors before they’re lost to rugby
Pasifika Pipeline
- NZ’s massive Pacific Islander population is a natural fit.
- Recruit directly from:
- Tonga, Samoa, Fiji
- Auckland/Porirua/Christchurch school systems
Aussie Fringe Players & Q-Cup
- Every expansion team taps into:
- NSW Cup/Q-Cup surplus
- Former NRL players overseas
- Junior reps blocked by stacked NRL rosters (e.g., Panthers, Roosters)
Key Risk: Dilution of Talent
- With 20 teams, there’s concern about spreading the current talent pool too thin.
- But the NRL’s investment in Pathways + NZ developmentcan offset this:
- Double down on junior elite programs in Christchurch, Hamilton, Wellington
- Incentivise Kiwi kids to stay in NZ
Final Verdict
Financial upside: Solid — potentially +$15–20M/year to the NRL with a second NZ team
Player pool: Tight, but viable if paired with a strong development plan
To make it work:
- The NRL must centralise NZ player development
- Ensure the second team is well-funded and well-coached
- Position the NZ derby as a marquee event — not just another fixture
Then I asked it which is a stronger business case Wellington or Christchurch?
1. COMMERCIAL STRENGTH
Wellington (Capital City)
Pros:
- Bigger population: ~220,000 city / ~500,000 region (vs ~400,000 in Christchurch)
- Government HQ: Proximity to political power = easier federal support (especially with PNG/NZ aid links)
- Corporate base: More head offices, especially public sector, insurance, energy companies
- Sky Stadium: 34,000 seats, already hosts NRL & Warriors games
Cons:
- Stadium is soulless and often empty
- Weaker local identity — doesn’t “own” league or union
- Not as tribal as Christchurch
Christchurch (South Island)
Pros:
- Strong local identity and loyalty – the South Island backs its own hard
- Revitalised city post-quake with a point to prove
- Te Kaha Stadium (opening ~2026): brand new 30,000-seat venue = excellent fan experience
- Less “competition” for attention than in Wellington
Cons:
- Smaller corporate base
- Smaller airport/media reach (though not by much)
- Union-dominated, but in decline
Winner: Wellington — for raw commercial potential, especially with government and big corporate partners.
But it's close — Christchurch has a
stickier fan base and a shinier new stadium coming.
2. ON-FIELD / FOOTY POTENTIAL
Junior Pathways
- Auckland dominates junior league in NZ, but both Wellington and Christchurch are under-tapped.
- Christchurch has a more developed rugby league history, especially through the old Canterbury Bulls and South Island tournaments.
- More Māori and Pasifika league heritage in Christchurch than Wellington.
Talent Pool Depth
- Christchurch regularly produces NRL players (e.g. Manu, Tevaga, Brimson's family is from there)
- Better link to rural league communities (e.g. West Coast, Timaru, Invercargill)
- Wellington's elite athletes tend to go into rugby union, sevens, or drift to Auckland early
Winner: Christchurch — stronger league roots and more realistic junior production.
3. X-FACTOR / “Sticky Brand” Potential
Christchurch:
- “South Island vs North Island” could become a tribal rallying point
- More underdog vibe = more loyalty
- New stadium could drive huge FOMO and fan attendance
Wellington:
- Harder to define identity — it's everyone’s second team
- Risk of being a “Warriors Lite”
Winner: Christchurch — easier to market as a
true rival, not just an expansion side
FINAL VERDICT
| Category | Winner |
|---|
| Population / TV Market | Wellington |
| Commercial Sponsorship | Wellington |
| Player Pathways | Christchurch |
| Fan Culture | Christchurch |
| Long-term Identity | Christchurch |
Best Choice: Christchurch — if the NRL wants a sticky, competitive, and sustainable second NZ club with tribal support and real pathways.
Wellington might offer better short-term commercial polish, but
Christchurch gives you a team with soul — closer to what the Dolphins have done."
