RugbyRebels

The spirit of '95 left the majority of South Africans with little interest in rugby. That doesn't mean rugby is doing much wrong, there's only NZ I can think of where it's not a minority sport, it's just how it is. And even had SA won the rights to host 2015, 2019 or 2023 I doubt anyone seriously thinks rugby wouldn't have remained a minority sport.

I'd disagree with you there. I think there has been a failure to embrace the South African majority by the rugby community both within and without of the republic, and that has been reflected again with this decision. A chance has been missed, again, and it might just be a case of 3 strikes and you're out. Rugby probably never would have rivaled soccer among the non-white community but it had a chance to win hearts and minds again the way it did so palpably in 1995. Now there can only be the bitterness of rejection, which has already been expressed by the SA delegation quite unequivocally. It'll take time to see just how this does effect the game in the republic, but I fear the worst now for one of the traditional pillars of the international game.

rowan wrote:Well, better France than Ireland, but only 16 years after last hosting and SA misses out for the umpteenth time in a row. That's sport and now it's just a case of getting on with it. The one consolation from my perspective is that 2007 was perhaps the best World Cup so far, and hopefully 2023 will reach similar heights.

In terms of supporter involvement I completely agree. Gutted for Ireland, but I think RWC want a guaranteed money maker, and France did that in spades last time out.

I agree & would've been more than happy to see them host again in 2027. As stated, my only reservation with France, apart from the fact SA's turn is long overdue, was that they held it just 16 years ago and have in fact been involved in hosting 3 tournaments already. Really they should have been made to wait another four years. & I don't think they got the 2023 tournament because they offer the best deal financially. I think they got it for the usual reasons - horse-trading behind the scenes - which was precisely why World Rugby put out its report. So I think there will be repurcussions at HQ as well as within SA on this. Fact is World Rugby version of democracy actually resembles Apartheid itself. Only 15 of the more than 100 members have a direct vote, Europe alone has almost half the total votes, with the 6 Nations on their own hold more than 1/3 of the total votes, & white majority nations have a collective 32 of the 42 votes. This last statistic is perhaps most revealing, showing just how rugby is failing in its endeavours to truly globalise. South Africa is encountering the same resistance from the international community as it has encountered at home. & it is a great irony that France and the Home Unions, were were deadset against the World Cup concept to begin with, are now basically able to monopolise the tournament through the inequities of the voting system.

Old Billy Beaumont doesn’t seem too displeased. Scotland have admitted they voted for France as it would make the most money. Wales voted for SA as their chairman was involved in the ‘independent’ evaluation process.

Africa voted for France, ironically. Their delegate is Moroccan and has spent the past 30 years living in France. Oceania voted for France too. Not sure why, but I think we can guess.

What likely happened:

Ire (8): USA (1), Can (1), RAN (2), ENG (2), + two mystery votes (South America?)

SA (13): WAL (3), NZL (3), Aus (3), Arg (3), ENG (1)

FRA (18): SCO (3), Italy (3), Japan (2), Georgia (1), Romania (1), Asia (2), Oceania (2), Europe (2) and Africa (2)

In other words, second tier nations won it for France. Anyway, I think World Rugby should do what FIFA did after Africa were robbed of the 2006 tournament and virtually guarantee them the next one by confining the process to Southern Hemisphere nations. It's certainly not going to go to Europe again anyway. Australia and Argentina have already said they won't be in the running, and I don't imagine NZ will bid either - let alone win if they do. In fact, I can't see SA losing if they bid yet again, but it'll end up being something of a pyrrhic victory after all the expense and disappointment of the past three campaigns.

In the Times story which I suspect Mells read giving the reason that Scotland voted for France it notes that 55% of the monies handed out by the IRB to the unions will go to tier 1 nations. And that % of money going to the top 10 unions needs to change, and frankly in light of France offering £80 million more than either Ireland or SA it wouldn't hinder the tier 1 nations Vs the IRB backed SA bid to make a move in the direction of basic fairness

Nonetheless, France appears to have clinched it by shoring up most of the tier 2 and 3 votes. The traditional powers which got the tournament up and running and have dominated ever since took a back seat. They all voted for South Africa, and it wouldn't surprise me if, after the World Cup committee's recommendation came out, the SARFU just rested on its laurels while the French ran about lobbying in desperation. Let's hope that, if nothing else, this fiasco results in World Rugby taking a long hard look at itself. How do Romania and Canada get to sit at the big table, for instance, while none of the Pacific Islands have direct representation?

Lloyd Burnard

Cape Town - Rugby Africa refuses to confirm, or deny, that it voted against South Africa and for France at Wednesday's World Rugby Council vote that determined the hosts for the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

South Africans were left stunned at losing out to France, especially after they had been confirmed as World Rugby's official recommendation.

In the end, South Africa went down by 24 votes to 15.

In the aftermath of what was a shocking result, there were widespread reports that SA Rugby, remarkably, had failed to secure the two votes assigned to Rugby Africa.

Sport24 contacted Rugby Africa president Abdelaziz Bougja, who lives in France, on Thursday and while there was no official confirmation as to where Rugby Africa placed their tick, Bougja did not paint a picture of a harmonious relationship between his organisation and SA Rugby.

Bougja explained the process that Rugby Africa had taken in deciding who to vote for.

"We had a democratic process inside the Executive Committee," he said.

"We explained before what our process would be ... it was very transparent.

"The process was that all nine members of the Exco would vote, confidentially.

"How can the people know who we voted for and who we didn't vote for? I would like to know how.

"Our process was confidential and also when we went to the (World Council) vote, it was secret. You just put a tick on the name, so how can the people say we voted against or for? We don't know."

Bougja added that Rugby Africa, as an organisation, was in the unique position of having two "parents".

"We have a huge French community in Africa. It was very hard for us," he said.

Instead of looking at who voted for who, Bougja encouraged critics to look at why South Africa had lost out on the vote.

"Did they (South Africa) do things the right way? Did they go to visit the unions and make relations?" he posed.

"We never had been consulted by SA Rugby to get us to come on board ... we never had that chance to work with them on that.

"We have been totally ignored."

Bougja added that the official World Rugby recommendation was never designed to instruct the unions and confederations on who to vote for.

"It's a vote. You pay people to give you understanding of the process, not to vote in your place," he said.

"When we started the process it was clear. We had a tool, and the tool was the recommendation. Then the people have to decide by themselves."

While he refused to give up where the Rugby Africa vote had gone, Bougja did acknowledge that rugby on the continent would have benefited more from having the tournament in South Africa.

"I don't think that we will get the same advantages (now) as we would if it was in South Africa," he said.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SouthAfr ... y-20171116

For all the talk of South Africa's crime problem, it was the SARFU itself which was robbed in broad daylight, before many witnesses, by a very devious felon.

Not everyone in SA is disappointed that the country failed to win its bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup. Some South Africans were concerned it would just be another opportunity for looting; others couldn’t see why SA should be hosting parties for the world to enjoy.

For many, however, it has come as a huge disappointment that SA has lost out to France. That it would have been a thrill for the rugby fans is the least of it. The boost to the economy and tourism could have been significant and SA surely needs that now and into the future.

Globally, the impact of these megasport events is the subject of debate, because the cost to the governments of host countries is often sizeable and the returns are sometimes questionable.

But SA’s hosting of the 1995 Rugby World Cup was hugely important in putting the new democracy on the world’s radar screen and unifying a nation. And our experience of hosting the 2010 Fifa World Cup was an extremely positive one, economically as well as socially.

THE FAILED WORLD CUP BID DEMONSTRATES YET AGAIN HOW SA’S REPUTATION HAS FALLEN.
SA recovered from the Great Recession more strongly than many other economies, thanks to the investment that was going into the stadiums and infrastructure for the 2010 World Cup, as well as the confidence and nation-building boost it provided. The government spent about R30bn on preparations to host the tournament, but it was estimated afterwards that the event had attracted more than 300,000 foreign tourists and pumped as much as R93bn into the domestic economy.

It provided a catalyst for the building of much-needed public transport and other infrastructure. SA’s success as a host did much to promote it as a destination for tourism and for foreign investment. That the country’s leadership wasted that capital and presided over a slow slide in the economy in the years after 2010 is tragic.

This time, less investment would have been needed, given that SA already has the world-class stadiums built or upgraded for 2010. And, indeed, the independent evaluation report commissioned by World Rugby identified SA’s as the leading bid on technical grounds, ahead of France and Ireland.

But World Rugby’s council members voted in favour of France instead — with even Rugby Africa’s two delegates voting against SA, which seemed not to have brought them into the process or lobbied them or, apparently, any other delegates.

The outcome is embarrassing for World Rugby itself because this was the first time it had commissioned and publicised an independent technical report in an effort to make the process more transparent and get rid of perceptions of corruption or cronyism. "No one doubts France will put on a good show, but at what cost to rugby’s reputation for transparency and integrity?" asked one UK newspaper.

In the end, the council opted not just for the host that would be more lucrative and better suited to its own self-interest, but was seen as more fiscally and politically stable. And that, really, is the sad lesson for SA. No matter how wonderful our rugby grounds and how good our bid, the outlook for SA is murky — and that surely must have spooked World Rugby’s council members. That SA seems to have failed in the politics of building relationships with them, including with its own African peers, didn’t help.

The failed World Cup bid demonstrates yet again how SA’s reputation has fallen and how urgently its politics and its economy need to be fixed.

It is also a bitter reminder of how as a country we have squandered the unifying opportunities presented by 1995 and 2010. The transformation achievements of rugby are dismal; had SA won the bid, it would not have been a major nation-building opportunity in any case.

And given the current poor state of South African rugby, it’s no consolation that the last time France hosted the Rugby World Cup in 2007, SA triumphed.

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opini ... l-outlook/

No, actually, I don't think SA was robbed. The above comment was tongue-in-cheek. The 2023 tournament was theirs for the losing, that's clear from World Rugby's report, but they let it slip through their own apathy and political naivety, which is a little ironic, given this was their third straight attempt. While they sat back on their laurels and allowed their (evidently) superior credentials to do the talking, the French were busy shoring up the tier 2 and 3 votes, which now comprise a substantial portion of the committee (18/48, by my count). It is a telling factor that no major rugby nation appears to have voted for France, but that they do appear to have got the African regional body's backing! This is not to imply the FRU has done anything wrong. Conversely, they recognized the importance of the 2nd and 3rd tier nations, and this is not new. France has done far more to foster the game in developing nations than anyone else, formerly with its pan-European FIRA competitions in the 20th century, and latterly with its all-embracing professional club competitions, drawing in players from all around the globe. Only Argentina has shown a similar attitude in the modern era. So this is all very laudable. Tier 2 and 3 nations have stamped their mark on administrative proceedings and effectively swung a vote against a traditional powerhouse which has neglected them. So while the outcome of this vote may well have long-term adverse effects on the game in SA, to a certain extent it can be said that World Rugby has come of age with this decision. Meanwhile, France demonstrated the energy and political savvy which is going to be necessary to win the hosting rights to one of the world's premier sporting events, and in this respect they did it justice.

In saying that I do think they need to look at bringing more non-European unions on board. If Georgia and Romania are there, then the Pacific Islands must be, and to give it more of a global balance they should icrease the regional associations' votes by 1; just for starters.

rowan wrote:For all the talk of South Africa's crime problem, it was the SARFU itself which was robbed in broad daylight, before many witnesses, by a very devious felon.

Not everyone in SA is disappointed that the country failed to win its bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup. Some South Africans were concerned it would just be another opportunity for looting; others couldn’t see why SA should be hosting parties for the world to enjoy.

For many, however, it has come as a huge disappointment that SA has lost out to France. That it would have been a thrill for the rugby fans is the least of it. The boost to the economy and tourism could have been significant and SA surely needs that now and into the future.

Globally, the impact of these megasport events is the subject of debate, because the cost to the governments of host countries is often sizeable and the returns are sometimes questionable.

But SA’s hosting of the 1995 Rugby World Cup was hugely important in putting the new democracy on the world’s radar screen and unifying a nation. And our experience of hosting the 2010 Fifa World Cup was an extremely positive one, economically as well as socially.

THE FAILED WORLD CUP BID DEMONSTRATES YET AGAIN HOW SA’S REPUTATION HAS FALLEN.
SA recovered from the Great Recession more strongly than many other economies, thanks to the investment that was going into the stadiums and infrastructure for the 2010 World Cup, as well as the confidence and nation-building boost it provided. The government spent about R30bn on preparations to host the tournament, but it was estimated afterwards that the event had attracted more than 300,000 foreign tourists and pumped as much as R93bn into the domestic economy.

It provided a catalyst for the building of much-needed public transport and other infrastructure. SA’s success as a host did much to promote it as a destination for tourism and for foreign investment. That the country’s leadership wasted that capital and presided over a slow slide in the economy in the years after 2010 is tragic.

This time, less investment would have been needed, given that SA already has the world-class stadiums built or upgraded for 2010. And, indeed, the independent evaluation report commissioned by World Rugby identified SA’s as the leading bid on technical grounds, ahead of France and Ireland.

But World Rugby’s council members voted in favour of France instead — with even Rugby Africa’s two delegates voting against SA, which seemed not to have brought them into the process or lobbied them or, apparently, any other delegates.

The outcome is embarrassing for World Rugby itself because this was the first time it had commissioned and publicised an independent technical report in an effort to make the process more transparent and get rid of perceptions of corruption or cronyism. "No one doubts France will put on a good show, but at what cost to rugby’s reputation for transparency and integrity?" asked one UK newspaper.

In the end, the council opted not just for the host that would be more lucrative and better suited to its own self-interest, but was seen as more fiscally and politically stable. And that, really, is the sad lesson for SA. No matter how wonderful our rugby grounds and how good our bid, the outlook for SA is murky — and that surely must have spooked World Rugby’s council members. That SA seems to have failed in the politics of building relationships with them, including with its own African peers, didn’t help.

The failed World Cup bid demonstrates yet again how SA’s reputation has fallen and how urgently its politics and its economy need to be fixed.

It is also a bitter reminder of how as a country we have squandered the unifying opportunities presented by 1995 and 2010. The transformation achievements of rugby are dismal; had SA won the bid, it would not have been a major nation-building opportunity in any case.

And given the current poor state of South African rugby, it’s no consolation that the last time France hosted the Rugby World Cup in 2007, SA triumphed.

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opini ... l-outlook/

That line sums it all up. France was seen as a safer bet, both financially and politically.

Except that wasn't the tone of World Rugby's own evaluation, and reports are suggesting most of the major playing nations voted for SA, but that France swung it by securing most of the 2nd and 3rd tier votes. It's actually very ironic that SA's reputation seems to have suffered so much among the rugby community since the end of Apartheid, prior to which it had clearly been held in high esteem. Anyway, it's done and dusted now. The RWC will return to France just 16 years after it was last held there. Will SA bid for 2027? Hard to see them missing out again - though the same old arguments will be trotted out regardless.

Dallaglio came up with a good point on Rugby Tonight during the week.
We all seem to want the IRB to spend more money encouraging the "lesser" nations - they should invest more in youth rugby, in the women's game, they should bail out Samoa, set up an Indian Ocean tourney, provide more cash and coaches for Georgia, Romania, Tonga and Sri Lanka etc etc.
But heaven forbid that they should chose to earn more money at their only money-making opportunity every 4th year!

rowan wrote:Except that wasn't the tone of World Rugby's own evaluation, and reports are suggesting most of the major playing nations voted for SA, but that France swung it by securing most of the 2nd and 3rd tier votes. It's actually very ironic that SA's reputation seems to have suffered so much among the rugby community since the end of Apartheid, prior to which it had clearly been held in high esteem. Anyway, it's done and dusted now. The RWC will return to France just 16 years after it was last held there. Will SA bid for 2027? Hard to see them missing out again - though the same old arguments will be trotted out regardless.

But don't forget that all the 3 contenders were rated as being able to host the RWC. The points margin between all 3 was minimal. That opens the door for further discussion. And France was the most successful (financially) RWCs yet.

Which Tyler wrote:Dallaglio came up with a good point on Rugby Tonight during the week.
We all seem to want the IRB to spend more money encouraging the "lesser" nations - they should invest more in youth rugby, in the women's game, they should bail out Samoa, set up an Indian Ocean tourney, provide more cash and coaches for Georgia, Romania, Tonga and Sri Lanka etc etc.
But heaven forbid that they should chose to earn more money at their only money-making opportunity every 4th year!

The pro game needs money. Its a simple reality and opportunities for WR to earn it are effectively based on the RWC.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Dallaglio came up with a good point on Rugby Tonight during the week.
We all seem to want the IRB to spend more money encouraging the "lesser" nations - they should invest more in youth rugby, in the women's game, they should bail out Samoa, set up an Indian Ocean tourney, provide more cash and coaches for Georgia, Romania, Tonga and Sri Lanka etc etc.
But heaven forbid that they should chose to earn more money at their only money-making opportunity every 4th year!

The pro game needs money. Its a simple reality and opportunities for WR to earn it are effectively based on the RWC.

55% of the money goes to the 10 tier 1 unions, the rest goes to everything else. In the main it's about perpetuating the closed shop and not coaches for Sri Lanka, though that doesn't mean it's wrong to want money

Sure, I agree with that, but we can't just alternate the thing between England & France now, can we? The irony here is that it may well end up being SA in 2027 (I don't know how they could possibly miss -again), so we'll end up with a French World Cup and a South African World Cup in the 2020s anyway, and the proceeds of those two tournaments combined wouldn't have been any different had it been the other way round. That's all I've been saying all along - SA 2023 (because they'd have waited nearly 30 years) and France 2027 (by which time they'd have waited 20). Instead we've got France hosting again just 16 years after the last time, and SA now looking at over three decades minimum. So I don't believe those unions which voted for France did so because the tournament would be more profitable. They knew as well as we do that France would've got the next one anyway.

I think the idea mooted at some point was to have a cash cow every other tournament. New Zealand wasn't that profitable, France of course was, so too England. Japan is a bit of a difficult one to call, but the balance of risk must be that it won't be as profitable as if it were in a top flight nation.

Having England or France every 8 years seems hugely unfair, but I do understand the economics of it. For all its world coverage, Rugby is still a minority sport in many countries and the turnout is rarely that great to support a big tournament like that. Perhaps that will change in time when other nations get the alternating opportunity to host, but thats the facts right now.

I could see the logic in that, but it would require some degree of manipulation to get everybody onside, and that doesn't seem to have been the case given World Rugby's own recommendation didn't support it, and reports are indicating none of the major unions did either. We'll never know exactly what happened behind the scenes, of course, but all indications are France swung the vote by focusing on the tier 2 and 3 delegates who now comprise over a third of the council members. CAR's own delegate has in fact gone on record as saying France has paid attention to them whereas South Africa hasn't. Of course, he's a Moroccan living in France and might have felt very different had he been based in the southern half of the continent, where SA is very much engaged in developing the game beyond its own borders. The Zimbabwe Rugby Facebook forum has been abuzz with outrage and condemnation (against that delegate) since the day the annoucement was made, with many suggesting they part company with the North Africans.

So, Gosper says that the recommendation stage probably won’t be repeated and Beaumont and Pichot weren’t ever entirely convinced by it.
In even more shocking news, it has been confirmed that Wales won’t be hosting any matches.

A conspiracy theorist might even imagine the whole thing had been stage-managed, to give the impression the World Rugby leadership really WAS behind the African bid, when in fact they simply turned it down for the third time in a row.

Mellsblue wrote:Old Billy Beaumont doesn’t seem too displeased. Scotland have admitted they voted for France as it would make the most money. Wales voted for SA as their chairman was involved in the ‘independent’ evaluation process.

The SRU had always stated it was voting for the money.

So we shouldn't be surprised if a game or two goes Murrayfield's way??

I've ridiculed the RLWC as a mickey mouse tournament involving manufactured teams, which it is, but rugby's is not exactly a paragon of fair and competitive sporting activity either. The same 4 nations have now hosted 7/8 tournaments (with Britain getting 3, if we're honest about it), and that will become 8/10 in 2023. Meanwhile, elite competitions and excessive scheduling among the tier 1 nations themselves have created a premier division with which no one else can really hope to compete under these circumstances. Therefore about half the teams at the World Cup are showing up regularly just to serve as cannon fodder for the big guns. Sure, there is the rare upset - about one per 48-game tournament, on average (involving tier 1 & 2 opponents)! So undoubtedly half the teams are only there to make up the number. It is true that rugby has done a great deal to spread the game around the world. But the sport has clearly failed to integrate its top flight with the masses, and it is this attitude which deprives its showpiece event of legitimacy.