Why Super League’s crazy loan system masks wider issue with 14-team competition

Super League has, on the whole, been an enjoyable watch and a rousing success in 2026. Crowds are rising, TV numbers are reportedly healthy and we have a thriving title race developing.

But we do have an issue that won’t go away – and which does need some major debate.

The decision to replace dual-registration with one-week loans didn’t cause much of a ruckus initially when it was announced but it has proven to be somewhat chaotic on multiple fronts.

Clubs borrowing players a week at a time may well be necessary given the early-season injuries we’ve had, but it’s simply not a good look for Super League. When some of your purported elite clubs are doing it too, it amplifies the matter even further.

But we’ll get to that later: for now, it’s important to point out that the system is masking another glaring issue Super League has.

14 teams has had its positive moments – even the sternest critic of the move (of which I was one) has to admit that. Bradford, York and Toulouse have all brought colour and occasional victories and in time, will likely grow into becoming Super League clubs.

But the one big issue with the move (for me at least) was always around the player pool. It simply is not deep enough to sustain 14 elite teams, and that’s already been proven in some of the recruitment the three clubs that came in – as well as some other teams – did.

There are some players currently playing in Super League who, if we are being brutally honest, are probably not Super League-standard players. But the situation has been put under the microscope further this week with two clubs, Castleford Tigers and Bradford Bulls, having to scramble in players from the Championship to fill out their squads.

The loan system is doing its best to act as a sticking plaster to cover over that fact as it stands. It’s allowing teams to borrow players from more established, heavyweight teams to fill out squads that don’t have the quality or the depth because the player pool isn’t strong enough to have 14 top-flight clubs.

The number isn’t going down any time soon, either – so the hope for the game is that the player pool somehow grows in the years to come. Perhaps that is where the NRL’s investment will really matter; not for top-line salaries. For meaningful change.

But the system looks even more ludicrous when you have huge Super League clubs with thriving academies borrowing players. Hull FC have taken Harry Newman and Jeremiah Mata’utia on initial one-week loans that have been extended, while St Helens have this week taken Bill Leyland back for a second time.

This is not an attack on those clubs. It is more a criticism of the system. Hull and St Helens are working it to their advantage because they know the loophole of taking a more senior player for a week is a far more preferential option than blooding a young player who may not be ready.

The question is: why is this being allowed? Should clubs be allowed a quick fix, a cheap get-out to cover up their problems or should they be made to work with what they have?

Injuries can’t be prevented, but when you have elite clubs who could genuinely compete for the biggest trophies this season borrowing other players a week at a time.. does that not emphasise this system may have a flaw or two?