Australia and South Africa will each lose one Super Rugby franchise if a review proposal presented to the Australian Rugby Union is adopted.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on Friday that other models delivered in a "secret review" of the Super Rugby competition, expanded to 18 teams for the 2016 season, included the possibility of South Africa losing two teams; another reportedly advocated further expansion of the competition.

ARU chief executive Bill Pulver said the board was reviewing a SANZAAR-initiated report into the expanded Super Rugby competition, noting that "everything is on the table".

"We've interviewed all the Super Rugby clubs and national unions and the idea is to design the competition for the future," Pulver said on Friday, noting that change was unlikely before the end of the current broadcast deal in 2020.

The ARU, meanwhile, came under fire from former Wallabies centre Brett Papworth, who slammed the union for what he said was a "from-the-roof-down" approach to the sport. Papworth, wrote in a hard-hitting column for Rugby News that the union should withdraw its franchises from Super Rugby and redirect money to grassroots level to revive the code in Australia.

"How can we be spending more than ever on the growing professional arm of the game, but getting worse," Papworth wrote.

"I have gone back as far as I can into the ARU annual report archives, and can tell you that since 2007 the ARU has spent $777,000,000 on the game [in nine years]. Almost all of it on the growing empires that are supposed to make us a rugby superpower. In that time, investment in rugby's grassroots has fallen to pretty much zero."

The Wallabies face an uphill battle in this year's Rugby Championship. Cameron Spencer/Getty Images

Papworth also pointed to the weak financial model of Australia's Super Rugby franchises -- who combined for a woeful three wins from 25 matches against New Zealand opposition this season -- as a reason why the ARU needed to get out of the competition.

"Tell SANZAR that it's over," Papworth wrote in reference to the 18-team, four-conference model introduced for 2016.

"And if it costs us money to get out, then who cares because it is currently being wasted on the wrong things anyway.

"The simple fact is that we, the rugby public, don't care anymore.

"[Super Rugby] has become meaningless, and if you ever want to win again you had better start creating real meaning at every level."

The Herald reported that Accenture had consulted stakeholders in compiling its report, including the 18 current teams, the national unions from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina and Japan, and the host broadcaster from each country.

"Less than a year after the new SANZAAR broadcast deal delivered the ARU a record $A285 million cash injection over five years, the celebrations have come to an abrupt end," the paper reported.

"The ARU has informed the five Super Rugby franchises they can expect a $A500,000 funding shortfall from head office next year, while the ARU searches for a new sponsor for Super Rugby and gets to grips with the true financial picture at the Western Force and the Brumbies."

The ARU did not secure a naming rights sponsor for the June Test series against England, or this year's Rugby Championship. In a further illustration of the depth of the woes in Australian rugby, Western Force were bailed out by $A800,000 of additional funding from head office while the Brumbies also have significant financial issues. Melbourne Rebels are being propped up by private owners, while Queensland Reds posted a loss of more than $A1 million last year. Only the Waratahs reported a profit last year, just $A100,000.

Papworth wrote in his column for Rugby News that a stronger interstate series in Australia would increase interest in the sport and its players at a representative level, and that money would "still flow from matches that people actually care about".

"It shouldn't be too hard to create an annual interstate series that matters," Papworth wrote.