The debate surrounding home finals has intensified as Manly and Cronulla continue their push towards September, with both clubs concerned they may not receive the full reward of earning a home final under current NRL rules.
The beachside clubs have emerged as genuine finals contenders in 2026, but a policy circulated by the NRL before the start of the season means a home final does not necessarily guarantee a match at a club's preferred home ground.
“For all NRL finals matches, ARLC reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to determine venues considered most suitable to host NRL and NRLW Final Series matches,” the NRL sent to clubs before the start of the season.
“This policy ensures all fixtures are played in facilities that meet the required standards for capacity, broadcast, operational delivery, player welfare, and fan experience.”
The policy has again become a talking point as the Sea Eagles and Sharks position themselves for potential home finals, raising questions about whether clubs that earn hosting rights through their ladder position should be guaranteed the advantage of playing at their traditional home venues.
The NRL controls the finals series and receives the gate takings, meaning larger stadiums can deliver greater returns through ticket sales and corporate hospitality. However, critics argue that those commercial benefits could come at the expense of clubs that have earned the right to play in front of their own supporters.
The numbers highlight why the issue matters.
Since the beginning of 2024, Cronulla has won 21 of 27 matches at their home stadium, giving the Sharks a winning percentage of 77.8 per cent.
Manly has won 20 of 29 matches at 4 Pines Park over the same period, a success rate of 69 per cent.
The debate has also reignited discussion around the future of suburban grounds in marquee fixtures, and whether supporters would embrace finals matches being shifted away from the communities that have backed their clubs all season.
Manly chief executive Jason King said clubs deserved certainty if they had earned hosting rights through their performances on the field.
“All we are asking for is a level playing field,” King told the Sydney Morning Herald.
“Integrity is paramount in every sporting contest – everyone must compete under the same rules. There's been talk about minimum standards – that's a rotten phrase in rugby league. We've been told we are unlikely to be impacted, but there are no guarantees.
“Surely our community – those who pay their hard-earned dollars across the entire season to attend home games at 4 Pines Park – deserve this. Surely our football team deserves the advantages of playing at home if they earn the right to do so. We're not interested in neutral Sydney venues with acres of empty plastic seats.
“Apparently, it's about fan experience, too. Leave me alone. There's no better experience than a heaving 4 Pines Park.”
King said he understood the commercial motivations behind the policy but questioned whether they should outweigh the value of home-ground advantage.
“We understand the commercial outcomes the game is trying to achieve through greater ticket sales and corporate suites – but at what cost?” King said.
“Would a capacity crowd at a sold-out 4 Pines Park not be a great advertisement for the game, its tribal roots, and its powerful connection with the community?
“Why should a club like Melbourne – or the Knights or even the Cowboys, for that matter – be treated differently than us? If they were to ‘earn' a home final – they would get to play at their home ground – play on, six again, no questions asked.”
Cronulla chief executive Dino Mezzatesta said the policy undermined the concept of earning a home final through ladder position.
“My position won't change,” Mezzatesta said to the Sydney Morning Herald.
“If the rule is that you've earned the right to play a home semi-final, how can it become discretionary?
“If you change the rule, change the rule for everyone. If you're going to turn around and say it's at the ARLC's discretion, then that's not a rule. It's like there's a rule for some and a rule for others …
“You make a mockery of the rule if you've earned the right, and then they have discretion [to change the venue] depending on the match-ups. That's even worse.”
The NRL is yet to directly speak on the matter, declining to comment to the Sydney Morning Herald.
ARL management having lost the plot.
The game exists primarily for the fans.
Without them, there would be no commercial competition.
PVL wants 4 billion for the TV rights, and also every penny he can suck out of the finals gate-receipts. As I say, he has lost the plot.