RugbyRebels

Shit, Rowan. I specifically mentioned the GAA venues in Ireland, of which there are shitloads, and most of them are considerably larger than the smallest ones used in the most recent RWC. Provided the GAA is happy with loaning out their venues (and remember that they did open Croke Park to the Irish footsoccer and rugby teams about 10 years ago, albeit with much debate), then they've set a precedent that they would be open to such a prospect.

Some of them may need a new coat of paint or whatever, but in terms of capacity and infrastructure, there is literally no reason that they couldn't host a world cup other than maybe "hey come on now, we just had one in your neck of the woods. Can you wait about 10 years, yeah?"

Like, if you had even a cursory knowledge of Irish sport - basically, something to the level of "they play crazyhockey there, and they call it hurling!" - then you'd know the GAA venues aren't small.

cashead wrote:Shit, Rowan. I specifically mentioned the GAA venues in Ireland, of which there are shitloads, and most of them are considerably larger than the smallest ones used in the most recent RWC. Provided the GAA is happy with loaning out their venues (and remember that they did open Croke Park to the Irish footsoccer and rugby teams about 10 years ago, albeit with much debate), then they've set a precedent that they would be open to such a prospect.

Some of them may need a new coat of paint or whatever, but in terms of capacity and infrastructure, there is literally no reason that they couldn't host a world cup other than maybe "hey come on now, we just had one in your neck of the woods. Can you wait about 10 years, yeah?"

Like, if you had even a cursory knowledge of Irish sport - basically, something to the level of "they play crazyhockey there, and they call it hurling!" - then you'd know the GAA venues aren't small.

GAA are already on board as supporting and agreeing to loan venues.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote:GAA are already on board as supporting and agreeing to loan venues.

I figured if they were willing to loan out Croke Park, they'd be likely to be on board with loaning out their venues for a RWC.

rowan wrote:Given that African countries aren't exactly keen on bidding for a Football WC, what makes you think they'll be ready to host a RWC which requires rather more facilities that they just won't have?

Aside from South Africa, of course. Once they've hosted it, the tournament probably shouldn't return to the continent for at least a couple of deaces. Anything could happen between now and the 2040s.

I just noticed this. Wait, so whichever African nation that gets to host the RWC can then not expect any sort of support or cash injection for at least 20 years? And didn't you say that the somewhat insular tournaments ought to be ditched? Whoo boy, I can not see this could possibly be detrimental to the game. It's practically foolproof!

Lizard wrote:The current system is basically "turn-about" between a money-pit and other rugby nations (principally the SH giants so far). This is not a coincidence but a deliberate plan to ensure the tournament is spread about but every second time a decent return is made.

1987: NZ/Aust (rugby)
1991: UK/Ire/Fr (money-pit)
1995: SA (rugby)
1999: Wal & co (money-pit)
2003: Aust (rugby)
2007: France (money-pit)
2011: NZ (rugby)
2015: Eng (money-pit)
2019: Jap (rugby)
2023: ??? (money-pit)

The obvious gaps are Ireland, Italy and Argentina. If it's to go back to a SH giant, then it does seem to be SA's turn. I believe that the traditional rugby nations should have a go before we get too concerned about spreading the game further via the RWC.

It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually all (i.e. in excess of 90%) of World Rugby's income is from the RWC, and it is this income that actually goes to support the game in minor countries. Holding the World Cup in the UK/France every second time is what allows the Africa Cup, Asian 5 Nations, Pacific Nations Cup etc to be held at all. Lessening that income stream would threaten the annual test programmes of the very nations you want to assist! The chance of hosting a prohibitively expensive tournament with no chance of winning in exchange for your annual tournament being binned doesn't seem very appealing to me.

We need a rep button

Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.


Yes, I agree that a World Cup in Ireland would practically be a home event for the other 3 Home Unions. That's one of my main arguments against it, in fact, because three of those nations (plus a portion of Ireland) are actually the same nation under the same government, and they are simply rotating te final among themselves to more or less collectively host it every second time. Meanwhile other continents are lucky if they see it once a generation.

Regarding time differences - South Africa is only an hour ahead of the UK, so it's not a factor.

So Ireland is easy to get around. Why not stage the next tournament in Fiji, then, or Swaziland for that matter? The World Cup has developed into one of the world's major sports events and has outgrown small nation hosts, as 2011 quite clearly demonstrated. In Ireland the fans would be climbing over the top of each other. There are only two major cities and one major rugby stadium. The list of stadia they are likely to use was published in a prominent UK newspaper not so long ago, and comprised largely of creaky old Gaelic football and hurling venues - with almost half of them under 30,000 capacity. South Africa has dozens of rugby-purpose and football stadiums with a 30K capacity or over, spread around at least a dozen major cities. There is no comparison to Australia, which is a continent (but nonetheless staged a successful RWC). In South Africa fans could quite easily bus it between venues.

Rowan - not sure if you're aware of this, but rugby is a professional sport now.
This means that money needs to be earned somewhere; this is the RWC - actually, this is pretty much every other RWC.

The 2010 FIFa World Cup was the most profitable ever at the time, making almost 3.7 billion dollars for the organization, up almost 25% on Germany 2006. It has since been surpassed by 2014 Brazil, however. Almost 3 million people attended matches at the 2010 event. I wonder why the FIFA World Cup has never gone back to England, though they've bid a number of times since hosting it half a century ago.

Football =/= Rugby
There are really quite a lot of difference if you look closely

rowan wrote:The 2010 FIFa World Cup was the most profitable ever at the time, making almost 3.7 billion dollars for the organization, up almost 25% on Germany 2006. It has since been surpassed by 2014 Brazil, however. Almost 3 million people attended matches at the 2010 event. I wonder why the FIFA World Cup has never gone back to England, though they've bid a number of times since hosting it half a century ago.

I guess you missed the whole bribery scandal that's brought down the FIFA hierarchy then?

Lizard wrote:

rowan wrote:Sure, I think perhaps my comment wasn't clear enough or it has been misunderstood. I was replying to a question over how the tournament was going to be financed in new host nations, and my reply was intended solely to demonstrate there was no risk to World Rugby. I'm quite happy to concede that England and France are probably the two most lucrative host nations at the moment due to population, TV & sponosrship potential and the strength of their respective currencies. But we can't stage it in those two countries all the time, or if we did that would be to neglect the international market and stifle the opportunities for growth. That's a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot approach, by any standards.

The current system is basically "turn-about" between a money-pit and other rugby nations (principally the SH giants so far). This is not a coincidence but a deliberate plan to ensure the tournament is spread about but every second time a decent return is made.

1987: NZ/Aust (rugby)
1991: UK/Ire/Fr (money-pit)
1995: SA (rugby)
1999: Wal & co (money-pit)
2003: Aust (rugby)
2007: France (money-pit)
2011: NZ (rugby)
2015: Eng (money-pit)
2019: Jap (rugby)
2023: ??? (money-pit)

The obvious gaps are Ireland, Italy and Argentina. If it's to go back to a SH giant, then it does seem to be SA's turn. I believe that the traditional rugby nations should have a go before we get too concerned about spreading the game further via the RWC.

It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually all (i.e. in excess of 90%) of World Rugby's income is from the RWC, and it is this income that actually goes to support the game in minor countries. Holding the World Cup in the UK/France every second time is what allows the Africa Cup, Asian 5 Nations, Pacific Nations Cup etc to be held at all. Lessening that income stream would threaten the annual test programmes of the very nations you want to assist! The chance of hosting a prohibitively expensive tournament with no chance of winning in exchange for your annual tournament being binned doesn't seem very appealing to me.

I think you're mixing up money-pit with cash-cow.

mon·ey pit
noun informal
an ongoing drain on financial resources, such as a house in frequent need of costly repairs or improvement.
"your bargain fixer-upper need not become your money pit"

Lizard wrote:Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

rowan wrote:Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.


Yes, I agree that a World Cup in Ireland would practically be a home event for the other 3 Home Unions. That's one of my main arguments against it, in fact, because three of those nations (plus a portion of Ireland) are actually the same nation under the same government, and they are simply rotating te final among themselves to more or less collectively host it every second time. Meanwhile other continents are lucky if they see it once a generation.

Regarding time differences - South Africa is only an hour ahead of the UK, so it's not a factor.

So Ireland is easy to get around. Why not stage the next tournament in Fiji, then, or Swaziland for that matter? The World Cup has developed into one of the world's major sports events and has outgrown small nation hosts, as 2011 quite clearly demonstrated. In Ireland the fans would be climbing over the top of each other. There are only two major cities and one major rugby stadium. The list of stadia they are likely to use was published in a prominent UK newspaper not so long ago, and comprised largely of creaky old Gaelic football and hurling venues - with almost half of them under 30,000 capacity. South Africa has dozens of rugby-purpose and football stadiums with a 30K capacity or over, spread around at least a dozen major cities. There is no comparison to Australia, which is a continent (but nonetheless staged a successful RWC). In South Africa fans could quite easily bus it between venues.

I guess that depends on your definition of "easily".

I don't think 2011 demonstrated that it's outgrown small nation hosts at all. Although isn't that a complete contradiction to you suggestion that the RWC should go around the wider world. Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

As for the stadia, if you had a passing interest in the RWC you'd have noticed that the most recent RWC had about half the venues with low-ish capacities.

Owain Glyndwr wrote:Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

Given all of that, it's amazing that people already do precisely that in the EPCR and Rabo - although I do easily believe that it's not stress free.
Of course, most will stay the night - but hey, it's Ireland, who the hell wouldn't want to stay for the evening? Most do so because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

Lizard wrote:Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

I did a day trip to Belfast in the summer for rather less happy reasons. It's eminently doable, though quite why you'd want to I'm not entirely sure. Travelling from Belfast to Dublin or Belfast to London/derry is relatively straightforward. Like NZ or SA you'll need a car if you're touring but that's about the height of the difficulty.

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

rowan wrote:The 2010 FIFa World Cup was the most profitable ever at the time, making almost 3.7 billion dollars for the organization, up almost 25% on Germany 2006. It has since been surpassed by 2014 Brazil, however. Almost 3 million people attended matches at the 2010 event. I wonder why the FIFA World Cup has never gone back to England, though they've bid a number of times since hosting it half a century ago.

I guess you missed the whole bribery scandal that's brought down the FIFA hierarchy then?

And the general response that was "Wait, what? Are you kidding me?" when England missed out on their most recent bid for a FIFA World Cup. Or Jack Warner, who was ostensibly the no. 2 man in FIFA at the time making insane claims like "England has never contributed anything to football, ever" while pocketing dirty money and expecting no one to notice.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

Lizard wrote:Exactly. Ireland would get massively up for it and in terms of ease of travel for English/Welsh/French fan is practically a home event. Time differences are no issue and weekend (or even day) trips would be an option (unlike SA). For those doing longer trips, following your team around a smaller country is actually preferable. Even the worst, All-Ireland schedule (playing pool games in Belfast, Dublin, Cork and Galway, for example) would be far better than Namibia's 2003 schedule (Gosford NSW, Sydney NSW, Adelaide SA, Launceston TAS) or anyone in Pool D who all started in Perth then flew across a continent to play in two separate Eastern capitals, thousands of km apart.

Have you ever been to Ireland? Don't under estimate how fecking long it takes to get places there. And there's no way anyone's doing a day trip. Even flying into Dublin from the UK, you're never going to get the timing right on flights to be able to rock up stress free before k.O. *AND* get home in the same evening.

I did a day trip to Belfast in the summer for rather less happy reasons. It's eminently doable, though quite why you'd want to I'm not entirely sure. Travelling from Belfast to Dublin or Belfast to London/derry is relatively straightforward. Like NZ or SA you'll need a car if you're touring but that's about the height of the difficulty.

I've done numerous day trips to Ireland, both flying and on the ferry. To be fair, the latter actually took more than 24 hours, but I did leave both termini in the same day.

You would also expect the likes of RyanAir to put on special flights to make it even easier.

Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

In fact, it seems quite clear to me that some are looking for any old reason for it NOT to be in South Africa. Yes, I think the tournament has outgrown small nation hosting. Average attendances at the 2011 World Cup were the lowest so far in the professional era, and lower even that South Africa in 1995. It was basically a case of sending the tournament back to its amateur roots in farmsville. Very uninspiring. But NZ hasn't actually bid for the 2023 World Cup, and neither has Australia, so they're irrelevant. So we look at the 4 official bidders and form our opinions on a number of factor, among them geography. I think most of us would like to see the event moved around the globe rather than hosted regularly in one spot, so a move to the Southern Hemisphere is surely preferable to a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere. That's not going to be the definitive criteria in the final analysis, but it is certainly a point in favour of the South African bid, and to suggest it isn't simply amounts to denialism.

rowan wrote:Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

In fact, it seems quite clear to me that some are looking for any old reason for it NOT to be in South Africa. Yes, I think the tournament has outgrown small nation hosting. Average attendances at the 2011 World Cup were the lowest so far in the professional era, and lower even that South Africa in 1995. It was basically a case of sending the tournament back to its amateur roots in farmsville. Very uninspiring. But NZ hasn't actually bid for the 2023 World Cup, and neither has Australia, so they're irrelevant. So we look at the 4 official bidders and form our opinions on a number of factor, among them geography. I think most of us would like to see the event moved around the globe rather than hosted regularly in one spot, so a move to the Southern Hemisphere is surely preferable to a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere. That's not going to be the definitive criteria in the final analysis, but it is certainly a point in favour of the South African bid, and to suggest it isn't simply amounts to denialism.

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

rowan wrote:Now it simply seems that your looking for any old reason for it to be South Africa every time. Needs to be SH, but can't be NZ they're too small, right?

In fact, it seems quite clear to me that some are looking for any old reason for it NOT to be in South Africa. Yes, I think the tournament has outgrown small nation hosting. Average attendances at the 2011 World Cup were the lowest so far in the professional era, and lower even that South Africa in 1995. It was basically a case of sending the tournament back to its amateur roots in farmsville. Very uninspiring. But NZ hasn't actually bid for the 2023 World Cup, and neither has Australia, so they're irrelevant. So we look at the 4 official bidders and form our opinions on a number of factor, among them geography. I think most of us would like to see the event moved around the globe rather than hosted regularly in one spot, so a move to the Southern Hemisphere is surely preferable to a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere. That's not going to be the definitive criteria in the final analysis, but it is certainly a point in favour of the South African bid, and to suggest it isn't simply amounts to denialism.

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

If you consider the SH as being only NZ, AU and SA, then it probably is SA's turn in 2027. Aussie and NZ have each sole-hosted once and together once. If Argentina maintain their current standards, I would argue that in fact they should be ahead in the queue.

Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

Small countries have small grounds. Half the stadiums Ireland are expected to use should they host in 2023 are under 30K capacity.

Fact: Japan is in the NH. It is practically the antipodes of South Africa, and about as far from Australia & NZ as Britain and France are from SA.

The NH's population is not the issue, it is the rugby-playing population and the number of suitable host nations. In this respect the hemispheric divide is much more evenly balanced. Though I'm not suggest it should alternate between the hemispheres indefinitely. That cycle has already ended, with Japan gaining 2019. But long-term there needs to be a continental rotation of the event to promote and foster the game internationally.

rowan wrote:Average attendances in NZ were lower because NZ has small grounds, not because NZ is a small country.

Lumping Japan in to NH and pretending that there is a commonality between a RWC in Japan and Ireland/Italy is disingenuous at best. Given that near 90% of the worlds population lives in the NH, the argument that it's the SH's turn, whilst conveniently ignoring that South Africa has actually held it before can't even kindly be called disingenuous.

Small countries have small grounds. Half the stadiums Ireland are expected to use should they host in 2023 are under 30K capacity.

Fact: Japan is in the NH. It is practically the antipodes of South Africa, and about as far from Australia & NZ as Britain and France are from SA.

The NH's population is not the issue, it is the rugby-playing population and the number of suitable host nations. In this respect the hemispheric divide is much more evenly balanced. Though I'm not suggest it should alternate between the hemispheres indefinitely. That cycle has already ended, with Japan gaining 2019. But long-term there needs to be a continental rotation of the event to promote and foster the game internationally.

Repetition does not improve argument. Since you refuse to engage with the range of grounds I just won't bother making the point any more.

So despite suggesting that we should look to widen the rugby world you only want to look at the rugby playing world. That's contradictory but fine. In which case alternating hemispheres is a ludicrous idea because there are not equal numbers of rugby playing countries in the hemispheres capable of or interested in hosting the RWC.

You've now rowed back from pretty much every point you've made on the subject - other than "SA should host the cup". I'm not sure there's any more to be said. Do engage with the actual rugby discussions on the games you watch. It's always good to have a different perspective.

I think Ireland are feeling a bit of a backlash from the shared hosting for votes that happens in the NH. In the last 2 NH world cups, New Zealand has played France in a Quarter Final in Cardiff. The first was in a world cup being played in France, the second in a world cup being played in England.

So long as the NH keep giving each other home field advatage (yes, aware that France managed to play away from home in their own WC) other nations will see NH 6 Nations hosted tournaments as an old tie carve up.

canta_brian wrote:I think Ireland are feeling a bit of a backlash from the shared hosting for votes that happens in the NH. In the last 2 NH world cups, New Zealand has played France in a Quarter Final in Cardiff. The first was in a world cup being played in France, the second in a world cup being played in England.

So long as the NH keep giving each other home field advatage (yes, aware that France managed to play away from home in their own WC) other nations will see NH 6 Nations hosted tournaments as an old tie carve up.

Ireland's not been part of one of those for some time though - in fact only really once, in 1999, since the 1991 tournament was a jointly held one. In any event there isn't any handing of home advantage because the ticket process is the same for all venues and the "home" team is drawn by lot. I can see the wisdom in using the best rugby stadium in the world when it's a very short distace away and closer than other venues in the same country.