NRL chief executive Gus has put forward a new structural proposal that would sideline the third‑versus‑fourth game concept championed by Peter V'landys. The move comes as the league finalises a $5.3 billion broadcast rights agreement that has already seen Nine and Foxtel split the season's television coverage for more than three decades. Gus's outline focuses on expanding free‑to‑air coverage while offering a broader slate of marquee matches in the closing weeks of the season.
The proposal, presented to the league's board and broadcasters, suggests a re‑configured final series that would feature a single elimination semi‑final, followed by a grand final, without a dedicated third‑versus‑fourth fixture. Advocates say the format could deliver higher‑ratings matches and reduce scheduling congestion, while critics argue it removes an opportunity for lower‑ranked teams to compete for a prize on the big stage.
V'landys' original third‑versus‑fourth game concept
Peter V'landys originally floated a third‑versus‑fourth game as part of a broader strategy to boost the league's commercial appeal and to provide an additional high‑stakes match ahead of the grand final. The idea was linked to his earlier push for a global round, an initiative aimed at taking the NRL to new international markets.
"We have warned both Foxtel and Nine of colluding on a joint bid," V'landys said, referring to past concerns about how broadcast partners negotiate rights. His proposal was intended to complement the existing broadcast split, giving free‑to‑air television a chance to showcase a marquee showdown that could attract sponsorship and viewership beyond the traditional fan base.
Details of Gus's alternative plan
Gus's alternative centres on a streamlined finals pathway that removes the need for a separate third‑versus‑fourth fixture. Instead, the top four teams would compete in a single semi‑final round, with the winners advancing directly to the grand final. The plan also earmarks additional prime‑time slots on free‑to‑air TV for the semi‑finals, aiming to increase exposure for the competition's climax.
The proposal includes a revenue‑sharing model that allocates a greater proportion of broadcast income to the clubs participating in the semi‑finals, a move intended to mitigate financial disparities and to incentivise teams to finish in the top two positions during the regular season.
Potential impact and stakeholder response
If adopted, Gus's model could reshape the commercial landscape of the NRL by delivering more high‑visibility matches to a wider audience, while potentially limiting the number of televised games on subscription platforms. Broadcasters have expressed cautious interest, noting that the shift could align with their strategy to balance free‑to‑air and pay‑TV offerings.
Club officials remain divided. Some executives welcome the prospect of a simplified finals series that could reduce player fatigue and operational costs. Others warn that eliminating a third‑versus‑fourth match removes an avenue for lower‑ranked clubs to generate additional revenue and fan engagement.
The league's board is expected to review both proposals during its upcoming strategic session, with a decision likely due before the start of the next season's broadcast negotiations.