Among New Zealand's claims to fame is its reputation for producing iconic mountaineers.
It's no Mount Everest, but last week's New Zealand Rugby summit to address the prospect of staggering year-on-year financial losses requires everyone in the game to break common ground and conquer similar heights.
The struggles of residing at the end of the world with a paltry population and comparatively small economy are beginning to bite the NZ rugby ecosystem.
A recent report detailed that the wider New Zealand game will lose $66 million in the next five years (2027-2031) unless genuine change is swiftly brokered.
Given the size of the financial hole facing the game the assumption would be that all parties will seize this moment and come together for the greater good to safeguard rugby's future in New Zealand.
Self interest and agendas have long plagued progress, though.
NZ Rugby has undergone five reviews since 2011, with little meaningful change pushed through alongside those respective recommendations.
With the warnings this time around impossible to ignore, three contrasting solutions were proposed to address the near $20m in annual deficits as the five Super Rugby Pacific franchises, the 26 provincial unions, NZ Māori Rugby board and the Pasifika Rugby Council gathered for the summit in Wellington last week.
The first radical option put forward by the provincial unions is to scrap Super Rugby Pacific and launch a fresh, domestic tournament comprising eight to 10 teams.
Sitting in stark contrast to that proposal is the suggestion of expanding Super Rugby by adding two new teams from New Zealand.
The third -- and likely path -- proposes that the Super Rugby Pacific and the NPC tournaments continue as they stand.
The catch is the five main centres of Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Hamilton and Auckland amalgamat their provincial teams with their Super Rugby equivalent to reduce spending and duplication on shared high performance and administration costs.
Super Rugby Pacific has its challenges, no doubt. The lack of consistent competition and genuine jeopardy from the Australian teams, particularly at the business end of the season, continues to act as a ball in chain.
Despite the likes of the Blues and Hurricanes attempting to overhaul their match day experiences and engage with fans, attracting crowds continues to pose a major challenge, particularly when it comes to hosting Australian opposition.
There appears no fundamental evidence that will change anytime soon, either.
The other overarching problem is the Super Rugby commission's lightweight figurehead status leaves it effectively powerless to demand the best players play every week.
Next year, with a World Cup set to dominate the rugby agenda, mandated rest weeks for All Blacks and Wallabies will strip the competition of its premier talent.
The new Anzac test is sure to capture interest in April but with Super Rugby taking a backseat in that period, the fixture serves to underline the conflicting ideals confronting the domestic game in New Zealand and Australia in an increasingly competitive sporting market.
While Super Rugby's progressive rules, officiating that promotes flow and minimises stoppages and on field product are improving, any competition needs its star attractions.
For all Super Rugby's ongoing issues, though, its trump card is broadcast revenue.
No domestic only competition in Australia or New Zealand can hope to compete with a combined broadcast package from both countries - and the likes of the UK.
Visions of ditching Super Rugby in favour of an eight to 10 team New Zealand competition pits romanticism against reality.
NZ Rugby can't contemplate a further drop in broadcast revenue after its latest deal with Sky Television reduced from around $111 million to $80m annually through to 2030.
While the NRL now draws 28 million viewing hours from New Zealand, Super Rugby's 19 million and the NPC's 14 million prove the rugby audience remains strong.
Injecting All Blacks into provincial teams would evoke more tribalism than Super Rugby cultivates but the financial numbers ultimately don't stack up.
Provincial pride remains the heartbeat of the New Zealand game - the envy, in fact, of many nations around the world. But the landscape has shifted. Nostalgia doesn't pay the bills. That's why this option is a red herring nonstarter.
The same is true for adding more New Zealand teams to Super Rugby.
Moana Pasifika's collapse earlier this year, with $8 million in debt owing to creditors, underlines the climate in which NZ Super Rugby teams are operating.
And unless the reins are significantly loosened to allow more private investment and control, Super Rugby franchises will continue to struggle financially.
NZ Rugby can't afford to fund any more professional teams. Indeed, it needs to shrink that number, which is why it will push to fold the five main centre provincial teams into their Super Rugby franchise bases.
The rugby summit didn't produce a profound solution -- because no magic bullet exists -- but it was a chance for all parties to acknowledge the need for change and to offer their respective, conflicting views of a pathway forward.
NZ Rugby must examine every angle of its professional system - from the sevens scene to the women's game and whether national teams such as the All Blacks XV can continue.
Walking away from Super Rugby isn't a viable option, though. Certainly not at this point, with an agreement in place until 2030 with Rugby Australia.
Relations between New Zealand and Australia have drastically improved in recent times.
NZ Rugby isn't about to burn its neighbour by blowing up Super Rugby overnight.
Talks are ongoing behind the scenes, and there is sure to be resistance to systemic change before any summit is scaled, but the kicker in this situation is that after the consultation period the NZ Rugby board has the final say at its December meeting.
Super Rugby is an imperfect competition but, for now at least, its future appears safe.