Over the past 14 years, the Melbourne Rebels served as an experiment to prove two notions:

1) That Melbourne can sustain a professional rugby union franchise
2) More broadly, that Australia can sustain five Super Rugby franchises

Does the failure of the Melbourne Rebels prove that rugby has no business being in Melbourne? Not necessarily.

Given that the appetite for any sport other than AFL and cricket is comparatively non-existent in Melbourne, it is easy to say that building a successful Melbourne-based rugby franchise there would be an exercise in futility. It is not unreasonable to conclude that this point has been proven when looking at the Melbourne Rebels’ financial track-record.

However, the Rebels’ rugby league counterparts, the Storm, have proven that it is possible to carve out a place in the Melbourne sporting market. In spite of a similar lack of local interest in league, the Storm have been tremendously successful financially. Perhaps this was a strong justification for rugby taking a gamble in the Melbourne market in the first place.

For the Storm, this gamble paid off, predominately because they win matches and trophies, which equates to money flowing in. The same cannot be said for the Rebels; their measly win record (32 per cent over 14 seasons) has simply never captured enough interest in the franchise locally and provincially.

Whilst it is too late for the Rebels, it should be possible for any Australian franchise, new or incumbent, to be successful. Above all things, the team must win matches and do so consistently. To consistently win matches, squad depth is critical.

Does this then suggest that we should not be exceeding four professional clubs? Many pundits contend that Australia cannot sustain five Super Rugby franchises due to squad depth being spread too thin, and that cohesion is reduced when we assemble the Wallabies squad.

Watch every match of Super Rugby Pacific ad-free, live & on demand on the Home of Rugby, Stan Sport

With the Rebels winding down, the four remaining clubs will be bolstered by the ex-Rebels players who decide to stay in the country. It’s then reasonable to expect that we should see an improvement in Australian Super Rugby and Test match results in the near term.

However, this near-term success should not be taken as evidence that the issue of squad depth has been solved. A four-team model will do the opposite in the long run, by eroding the depth of players that sit below the elite level.

After all, we are reducing the number of opportunities to play professional rugby in Australia from about 175 down to about 140. For the amateurs who spend their weekdays balancing training with day jobs, putting their bodies on the line on the weekends, and fronting the cost of physio bills and match fees on top of all that, a reduction in opportunities to crack the elite level can only be a disincentive.

When it comes to making a career out of your rugby talents in Australia, it makes a lot more sense taking those talents to a code such as league.

League presents a far greater number of career opportunities, boasting 17 elite-level squads. Even for those who are not at the elite level, competitions like the Queensland Cup and Ron Massey Cup pay well enough for players to justify their participation. That’s not to say that Rugby Australia should attempt to copy the business model of the NRL – bootstrapping our game with millions of dollars of pokies revenue is not a good look. Within our own code, the NPC in New Zealand is an example of what our game should strive to establish.

In closing, the Melbourne Rebels experiment does not prove that our game should not look to expand. What it does prove, is that we put the cart before the horse. If rugby is to truly thrive in Australia in the long run, RA’s mission must be to increase playing opportunities that pay. That should start with the semi-professional level and, only when we are ready, expand the elite level.