2023 (expanded) World Cup for South Africa

[Digby]

I don't think anything has happened, has it? & these terrorist threats are not usually too reliable. But if things do kick off betwen Ireland and Britain again, that could be a problem.

Even at the height of the Troubles Ireland was safer than South Africa is now - you have to go back to 1972 for it to be even vaguely close. What seems to have entirely escaped you is that this is an assessment of the risk in Great Britain - ie not where the tournament is going to be held. Furthermore that risk is assessed to be lower than the risk posed by the Islamic terrorism. Given we've just had a RWC in Great Britain with those higher terrorism risk levels, exactly what makes you think this will have even the slightest affect on people's thinking for who should host the tournament?

I suppose the raised threat levels aren't useful, but I doubt anyone is going to get carried away with them. Partly as you note we've just had a RWC where there would have been threats, and partly whilst there are groups on both sides of the NI situation capable of some appalling acts neither side are likely to try and undermine their own support base.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The Rugby World Cup 2023 host selection process has gathered momentum with the launch of the applicant phase.

The process to identify the host of one of the world's biggest sporting events kicked off last year and now moves to a key information-gathering stage on the road to confirmation of the host union by the World Rugby Council in November 2017.

France, Ireland, Italy and South Africa have engaged in the process since formally expressing an interest to bid to World Rugby in May last year.

The application phase, the second stage of the detailed three-phase information gathering and evaluation process, follows an initial period of education and consultation, including detailed briefings and participation in the Rugby World Cup 2015 observer programme designed to maximise knowledge on event hosting and benefits.

This important phase, which provides information exchange on key areas such as rights, benefits of hosting, the evaluation criteria and selection process and high level requirements, has two key objectives:

i) provide applicants with the detailed information required to develop their bid

ii) provide World Rugby with the information required to be satisfied that all prospective hosts are able to meet the mandatory minimum standards for staging a successful Rugby World Cup 2023

The process is also an opportunity to establish relationships and understand the economic, tourism and rugby benefits that can be derived from hosting one of the world's biggest sporting events along with information on the process, and a revised hosting framework which aims to create more unified partnerships, more effective operations and stronger commercial outcomes for World Rugby and the hosting country.

Applicants have also been provided with the criteria for evaluation. The criteria are based on World Rugby's seven priority objectives for RWC 2023 which are:
Venues and infrastructure commensurate with a top-tier major event
Comprehensive and enforceable public and private sector guarantees
A commercially successful event with a fully-funded, robust financial model
Operational excellence through an integrated and experienced delivery team
A vision that engages and inspires domestic and international audiences and contributes to the growth of rugby at all levels
An enabling environment of political and financial stability that respects the diversity of Rugby World Cup's global stakeholders
An environment and climate suited to top-level sport in a geography that allows maximum fan mobility
As part of the process, the unions will also supply World Rugby with an overview of key tournament deliverables such as finance, venues and intended governance support.

The applicant submissions are due by September 1, 2016 and will be evaluated by a World Rugby Technical Review Group. The outcomes of the evaluation will be independently assessed to ensure a fair and consistent approach. Applicants that meet the criteria outlined will move to the candidate phase on November 1, 2016.

[rowan]

So weather and geography will not be factors, I have been told repeatedly during this discussion. But World Rugby has just released its hosting criteria, and it indeed mentions weather & geography:

- An environment and climate suited to top-level sport in a geography that allows maximum fan mobility.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

So weather and geography will not be factors, I have been told repeatedly during this discussion. But World Rugby has just released its hosting criteria, and it indeed mentions weather & geography:

- An environment and climate suited to top-level sport in a geography that allows maximum fan mobility.

Er, all declared candidates have climates perfectly suited to top level sport and geography that allows fan mobility - though neither Ireland nor SA have much in the way of public transport.

How's your political stability coming along?

[Which Tyler]

I hadn't realised Qatar were bidding...

Political stability; public sector guarantees; governance support...

[rowan]

All declared candidates have climates perfectly suited to top level sport and geography that allows fan mobility

Not sure about Ireland on the former count. It's pretty wet and miserable at that time of the year. As far as 'geography that allows fan mobility' goes I'm not exactly sure what is intended by that. It's actually easier to get around South Africa's major centers than it is New Zealand's, with Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town being roughly as far from Jo'burg as Hamilton, Napier, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin are from Auckland respectively - only there's no Cook Strait and the freeways are much bigger and wider.

How's your political stability coming along?

Zuma needs to go but in terms of hosting a Rugby World Cup I don't think there would be any problem, provided the SARFU is given the go-ahead to bid, of course.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

All declared candidates have climates perfectly suited to top level sport and geography that allows fan mobility

Not sure about Ireland on the former count. It's pretty wet and miserable at that time of the year. As far as 'geography that allows fan mobility' goes I'm not exactly sure what is intended by that. It's actually easier to get around South Africa's major centers than it is New Zealand's, with Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town being roughly as far from Jo'burg as Hamilton, Napier, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin are from Auckland respectively - only there's no Cook Strait and the freeways are much bigger and wider.

How's your political stability coming along?

Zuma needs to go but in terms of hosting a Rugby World Cup I don't think there would be any problem, provided the SARFU is given the go-ahead to bid, of course.

So aside from a president who's corrupt and needs to be ousted and a political class who feel compelled to interfere with rugby at every turn, including currently refusing to allow SARFU to bid, you're all set?

Wellington and Cape Town have more rainfall than Dublin. Nice try, though transparently desperate.

[rowan]

Cape Town have more rainfall than Dublin

Took about 20 seconds to disprove that on google. Cape Town's average is 18.7 inches, where as Dublin's is 28.85. Also, at the time of the year the World Cup is held there is a 40% chance of rainfall in Cape Town but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature in Cape Town will be 18 degrees, compared to 8 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about two in Dublin. So if you'd like us all to believe that Ireland has some kind of advantage over South Africa in terms of climate, that would pretty much be the definition of a wet dream.

[cashead]

All declared candidates have climates perfectly suited to top level sport and geography that allows fan mobility

Not sure about Ireland on the former count. It's pretty wet and miserable at that time of the year. As far as 'geography that allows fan mobility' goes I'm not exactly sure what is intended by that. It's actually easier to get around South Africa's major centers than it is New Zealand's, with Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town being roughly as far from Jo'burg as Hamilton, Napier, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin are from Auckland respectively - only there's no Cook Strait and the freeways are much bigger and wider.

How's your political stability coming along?

Zuma needs to go but in terms of hosting a Rugby World Cup I don't think there would be any problem, provided the SARFU is given the go-ahead to bid, of course.

So aside from a president who's corrupt and needs to be ousted and a political class who feel compelled to interfere with rugby at every turn, including currently refusing to allow SARFU to bid, you're all set?

Also chairman of the governing body that has a board in open revolt against him and a CEO implicated with allegations of financial impropriety.

Stable as fuck.

[rowan]

I think if South Africa bids they will get it. The big question is, of course, will they be allowed to bid?

If not, it will surely go to Ireland, sadly.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Cape Town have more rainfall than Dublin

Took about 20 seconds to disprove that on google. Cape Town's average is 18.7 inches, where as Dublin's is 28.85. Also, at the time of the year the World Cup is held there is a 40% chance of rainfall in Cape Town but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature in Cape Town will be 18 degrees, compared to 8 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about two in Dublin. So if you'd like us all to believe that Ireland has some kind of advantage over South Africa in terms of climate, that would pretty much be the definition of a wet dream.

No advantage. I'm just not idiotic enough to think that Ireland (or indeed SA) has some sort of extreme weather that prevents top quality rugby.

[rowan]

Cape Town have more rainfall than Dublin

Took about 20 seconds to disprove that on google. Cape Town's average is 18.7 inches, where as Dublin's is 28.85. Also, at the time of the year the World Cup is held there is a 40% chance of rainfall in Cape Town but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature in Cape Town will be 18 degrees, compared to 8 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about two in Dublin. So if you'd like us all to believe that Ireland has some kind of advantage over South Africa in terms of climate, that would pretty much be the definition of a wet dream.

No advantage. I'm just not idiotic enough to think that Ireland (or indeed SA) has some sort of extreme weather that prevents top quality rugby.

That's not what I said though. I just made the point much earlier that South Africa's weather conditions were (far) preferable, but this aspect of the argument was dismissed as irrelevant. It certainly won't be the defining factor, but it's not entirely irrelevant, as World Rugby's own list of criteria states. But if they are only referring to 'extreme' weather, I guess that rules out Iceland & Greenland. Sure, I bet that's precisely who they had in mind when they included that clause...

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Cape Town have more rainfall than Dublin

Took about 20 seconds to disprove that on google. Cape Town's average is 18.7 inches, where as Dublin's is 28.85. Also, at the time of the year the World Cup is held there is a 40% chance of rainfall in Cape Town but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature in Cape Town will be 18 degrees, compared to 8 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about two in Dublin. So if you'd like us all to believe that Ireland has some kind of advantage over South Africa in terms of climate, that would pretty much be the definition of a wet dream.

No advantage. I'm just not idiotic enough to think that Ireland (or indeed SA) has some sort of extreme weather that prevents top quality rugby.

That's not what I said though. I just made the point much earlier that South Africa's weather conditions were (far) preferable, but this aspect of the argument was dismissed as irrelevant. It certainly won't be the defining factor, but it's not entirely irrelevant, as World Rugby's own list of criteria states. But if they are only referring to 'extreme' weather, I guess that rules out Iceland & Greenland. Sure, I bet that's precisely who they had in mind when they included that clause...

Well if you want to believe that "climate perfectly suited to top level sport" means something other than a climate perfectly suited to top level sport, then knock yourself out. Those of us capable of reading and comprehending will continue with other discussions.

[Which Tyler]

That's not what I said though. I just made the point much earlier that South Africa's weather conditions were (far) preferable, but this aspect of the argument was dismissed as irrelevant. It certainly won't be the defining factor, but it's not entirely irrelevant, as World Rugby's own list of criteria states. But if they are only referring to 'extreme' weather, I guess that rules out Iceland & Greenland. Sure, I bet that's precisely who they had in mind when they included that clause...

Are you really sure it wasn't included as a result of the football world cup going to Qatar? A place singularly inappropriate for top level sport.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

That's not what I said though. I just made the point much earlier that South Africa's weather conditions were (far) preferable, but this aspect of the argument was dismissed as irrelevant. It certainly won't be the defining factor, but it's not entirely irrelevant, as World Rugby's own list of criteria states. But if they are only referring to 'extreme' weather, I guess that rules out Iceland & Greenland. Sure, I bet that's precisely who they had in mind when they included that clause...

Are you really sure it wasn't included as a result of the football world cup going to Qatar? A place singularly inappropriate for top level sport.

That's obviously what it's designed to prevent: rich countries without much of a rugby history who want the tournament as a vanity project whilst being singularly climactically unsuited to hosting.

But no, it's the danger that Kiwis might suffer from being rained on.

[rowan]

That's not what I said though. I just made the point much earlier that South Africa's weather conditions were (far) preferable, but this aspect of the argument was dismissed as irrelevant. It certainly won't be the defining factor, but it's not entirely irrelevant, as World Rugby's own list of criteria states. But if they are only referring to 'extreme' weather, I guess that rules out Iceland & Greenland. Sure, I bet that's precisely who they had in mind when they included that clause...

Are you really sure it wasn't included as a result of the football world cup going to Qatar? A place singularly inappropriate for top level sport.

Good point, though by the end of October it's generally down to the low 30s in Doha, and then dips into the 20s in November.& if they played night games you could shave a few more degrees off those estimates as well. Not that I'm advocating for a RWC in Qatar, of course

[rowan]

Meanwhile, Argentina is set to bid for 2027, apparently, having been given full government backing. My guess is that if a European nation gets 2023, it'll come down to either Argentina or SA (provided they're allowed to bid) for 2027. However, if the South African government can be persuaded to change its stance in time for the 2023 bid to go ahead (still quite possible), I think they'll get to host it and Argentina might have to wait till 2031. Interestingly Argentina is also bidding for the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Uruguay as a co-host. I certainly don't see them getting both. It'll have to be one or the other, surely.

[Lizard]

An Argentine RWC would be awesome. I would go to that, for sure.

[rowan]

Agreed. If they go head-to-head with SA for 2027, I'd be 100% Argentina.