RugbyRebels

The Rugby World Cup should return to South Africa in 2023, and the tournament should be expanded to 24 teams.

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.

It would also entail a return to the Six Nations for the fifth time in just ten tournaments, which is a little ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions.

Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border.

France, meanwhile, hosted the World Cup as recently as eight years ago, and was also a co-host in 1991 and 1999.

That leaves Italy, to my mind the most attractive of the European bids, as it is a newcomer to the heavyweight ranks with a large number of registered players. However, World Rugby might want to go with a more established rugby playing nation for its 10th World Cup. Japan is already facing problems as it prepares to stage the 2019 event, with its new Olympic Stadium having now been removed from the venue list.

As for South Africa, it has the biggest and best rugby-purpose stadia in the world - with the possible exception of England, which has just hosted the event for the second time. It has the second largest number of registered players (also behind England), and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation after New Zealand.

By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation will have grown up since the last time the tournament was held in South Africa. This, even though the 1995 installment was one of the most successful and spectacular World Cups to date.

So if New Zealand, Austrlalia and England can all host it twice, and France can be involved as either host or co-host on three occasions, why on earth shouldn't it return to South Africa in 2023? Why does World Rugby appear to have lost faith in the republic, having overlooked it for both 2011 and 2019?

It's time to break the cycle. The World Cup can not continue to return to Western Europe on every second occasion. That is a myopic approach and anathema to the globalization cause.

But it does need to return to the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 for what will be the first time in 12 years. Moreover, it needs to return to the African continent, one of the hotbeds of international rugby development in recent decades.

This leads me to my final point in South Africa's favour. World Rugby officials have raised the possibility of an expanded tournament, and this is undoubtedly overdue. Again, with its vast array of rugby-purpose stadia, South Africa's credentials are unsurpassed as a potential host nation for a 24-team World Cup.

The last - and only - increase in teams was from 16 to 20 in 1999. This appears to have been successful, judging by the improved performances of the fringe teams in New Zealand and England.

In fact, no centuries have been recorded since 2003, while Japan's stunning victory over the Springboks this year suggests the days of foregone conclusions is World Cup rugby may be drawing to a close.

That said, a lot of work needs to be done in the interim if the additional teams are going to be genuinely competitive. One of the biggest obstacles to the game's global development is the stratification of its international competitions.

Not only are the elite championships closed-shop, but there is little interaction between the top teams and the emerging nations in between World Cups. How on earth are the up-and-comers supposed to be competitive in the big exam if they have been denied the lessons to prepare in between?

New Zealand and Australia should be playing annual tests with the Pacific Islands and Japan, as should the Six Nations with their Eastern European neighbours. South Africa ought to engage Namibia in a 'Bledisloe Cup'-style annual trophy match, and Hong Kong and Korea should be playing in the Pacific Challenge tournament, alongside the Pacific Islands B teams and Argentina's 'Pampas,' with a possible view to future inclusion in the Pacific Nations Championship.

In addition to this, would it not be a fairly straightforward exercise for Six Nations teams to stop in for tests against Namibia and Uruguay enroute to South Africa and Argentina, respectively - as well as the Pacific Islands while touring New Zealand or Australia?

By the same token, how about the Southern Hemisphere teams playing Georgia, Romania or Russia on their Autumn tours to Europe? Argentina might even take on Spain or Portugal.

If rugby is to more forward, it needs to expand its World Cup, and this can only be successful with a more integrated international rugby calendar.

Good case, if a bit heavy on unwarranted assertions, which, while factually accurate aren't necessarily supportive of the case.

It doesn't matter that five out of ten cups have been held in 6N countries, because it should be at least half anyway, based upon any relevant criteria you care to mention.

It also doesn't matter that UK countries have been associated with so many cups, because in rugby terms we are different countries.

The odd situation where Ireland is set in two countries, one of which is part of the UK is also irrelevant, because again, it's a different country to the rest in rugby terms.

Success on the park is the least relevant point. In fact, I can't think of any reason to mention it.

The real case for RSA having another RWC is that there is more support and infrastructure for rugby there than anywhere else apart from England. It's a numbers game.

Being a near halfway house between the South and the North is another factor in its favour.

I'm not against another cup in RSA, but you have to overcome the objections of countries that haven't hosted one yet.

UKHamlet wrote:Good case, if a bit heavy on unwarranted assertions, which, while factually accurate aren't necessarily supportive of the case.

It doesn't matter that five out of ten cups have been held in 6N countries, because it should be at least half anyway, based upon any relevant criteria you care to mention.

It also doesn't matter that UK countries have been associated with so many cups, because in rugby terms we are different countries.

The odd situation where Ireland is set in two countries, one of which is part of the UK is also irrelevant, because again, it's a different country to the rest in rugby terms.

Success on the park is the least relevant point. In fact, I can't think of any reason to mention it.

The real case for RSA having another RWC is that there is more support and infrastructure for rugby there than anywhere else apart from England. It's a numbers game.

Being a near halfway house between the South and the North is another factor in its favour.

I'm not against another cup in RSA, but you have to overcome the objections of countries that haven't hosted one yet.

I'm pretty sure that Ireland is easier to get to from NZ/Oz than even Joburg. Quickest journey I spotted on a quick google is 32 hours. Ireland has more rugby fans on its doorstep that SA by a long way: all of Europe and the E coast of N America isn't so far either. SA is not easy for anyone to get to, save other South africans and even then...

Splitting between SH and NH is convenient for someone who wants to make an argument for a SH host, but there are only 4 countries in the SH sensibly capable of hosting a RWC, as opposed to at least 10 in the NH.

As you say the biggest argument for countries other than SA is that we haven't had a go yet. That wouldn't matter if there were a lack of interest or we didn't have the stadia or the countries were simply gawdaful and unlikely to be receptive to incoming rugby fans but that simply isn't true of Ireland or Italy. For obvious reasons I want it to be Ireland who gets 2023 (see the sig) but I can see pretty much no reason for it to go to SA in preference to Italy.

I would love to see the tournament take place in South America, as that is realistically the only territory that could host one outside of the SANZAR nations. Other than Argentina, I reckon Brazil could probably do a pretty good tournament, as they have the infrastructure and have a track record, having put on a pretty decent FIFA World Cup recently.

Maybe not in 2023, but 31 or thereabouts, probably, if the Americas Rugby Cup is a success.

Other than South America, the USA and Canada would probably put on some decent tournaments - the US already have some pretty impressive stadia, and they have a track record of pretty solid attendance if there's enough hoopla about it. Canada can also provide some great venues, like the Big O in Montreal or the Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton.

I just feel that after granting hosting rights to Japan, who fall outside of the traditional rugby power structure, it would feel like a bit of a step backwards to suddenly take it back to a traditional powerhouse like South Africa.

But yeah, if it has to be in Europe, Ireland would be a pretty good host if the GAA venues are available, although it would be nice to have it happen on this end on the planet.

Almost four decades after admitting France to the fold, World Rugby has failed to kick on and introduce more non-English speaking nations to its core committee. Of the eight unions which hold the balance of power with two votes apiece, seven represent countries which were once part of the British Empire; France being the exception. Moreover, while the organisation now boasts 100 members and 17 affiliate unions, South Africa is the only country on the the central committee with a non-white majority. In 1991 four more members were added to the World Rugby council, including three non-English speaking countries. However, quarter of a century later the newcomers still only have one vote apiece, giving them second class status. Fiji has no direct representation, even though World Rugby statistics show they have more registered players than core committee member Scotland. So what is it about rugby that it refuses to fully embrace the non-white, non-English speaking nations of the world? Could it be the legacy of a sport which had its origins in the exclusive environment of the public school system during the height of the British Empire? Following the collapse of the apartheid system South Africa were awarded hosting rights to the first World Cup they were actually eligible to compete in. President Nelson Mandela handing over the trophy to his countrymen, after their dramatic win over New Zealand in the final, remains one of the sport's most iconic moments. That was 21 years ago. The transition to majority rule was still at a superficial stage and had barely impacted on the local rugby community. But a great deal has changed since then, and somehow the SARFU - even South Africa itself - appears to have fallen out of favour with rest of the World Rugby core committee. While both New Zealand and England have both hosted the World Cup tournament twice, and France and Australia have both served as host nation and co-host nation, South Africa has bid three times to stage the tournament again this century and been overlooked on each occasion. Their rugby stadiums are second to none, they have a vast array of football stadia upgraded not so long ago for the FIFA World Cup, they have the second largest rugby community in the world (behind England) and they remain one of the game's major super powers. Meanwhile, the rugby's showpiece event has been returned to Britain or France on every second occasion. Beyond this, there is the issue of international rugby scheduling. Relatively few fixtures are played by the tier 1 nations against their tier 2 and 3 opponents. In fact, the tier system itself is fairly new and only serves to compound the problem by separating the haves from the have nots. They are certainly not based on form alone, for Fiji and Samoa cannot be rated inferior to Italy. All the tiers really do is provide a convenient excuse for the so-called elite to go on ignoring the rest of the rugby community most of the time between World Cups - when they actually need them to make up the numbers and help turn a tidy profit. Moreover, rugby's two major annual international championships remain closed shop. The 6 Nations and the Rugby Championship do not include promotion-relegation, meaning there is no way for any other teams to become involved. The addition of Italy at the turn of the century was the former competition's first expansion in 90 years! Little wonder, therefore, that we are seeing more or less the same teams popping up in the World Cup quarter-finals every four years, and that no tier 2 team has managed to reach that stage at the last two editions. Surely it's time for the sport to kick on and create a more democratic administration, open up its annual championships to all worthy contenders, encourage a more integrated scheduling programme, and introduce continental rotation of its quadrennial world championship instead of sending it back to Europe every seond time.

Continental rotation? So SA hosts it at least twice as often as NZ and Oz and 7 or 8 times as often as England and France? That sounds entirely fair...

So Rowan, are you South African and are these all your own posts or copied from somewhere else

It's not quite right to say that adding Italy was the 5/6N's "first expansion in 90 years." Although France first joined what had been the Home Nations Championship from 1910, they were uninvited after 1931 for being generally naughty boys, and not allowed back in until 1947, the first tournament after WWII.

Continental rotation? So SA hosts it at least twice as often as NZ and Oz and 7 or 8 times as often as England and France? That sounds entirely fair..

Only if you have myopic or pessimistic view of the games future. More countries will presumably come to the fore in Africa, Asia and the Americas eventually. What I'd envisage in the foresseable future would be something like this: 2023 - South Africa, 2027 - Italy, 2031 - Argentina, 2035 - USA, 2039 - Eastern Europe or France, 2043 - Far East or Australia, 2047 - Africa

are you South African and are these all your own posts or copied from somewhere else

I am not South African. I grew up in New Zealand and played most of my rugby there. Yes, these are my own post. My only allegiance is to the game itself and what is in the best interests of its global development.

It's not quite right to say that adding Italy was the 5/6N's "first expansion in 90 years.

It was expanded in 1910 to include France. France's re-asmission notwithstanding, it was not expanded again for the another 90 years.

rowan wrote:Continental rotation? So SA hosts it at least twice as often as NZ and Oz and 7 or 8 times as often as England and France? That sounds entirely fair..

Only if you have myopic or pessimistic view of the games future. More countries will presumably come to the fore in Africa, Asia and the Americas eventually. What I'd envisage in the foresseable future would be something like this: 2023 - South Africa, 2027 - Italy, 2031 - Argentina, 2035 - USA, 2039 - Eastern Europe or France, 2043 - Far East or Australia, 2047 - Africa

There's non-pessimism and then there's overblown optimism. Assuming that "More countries will presumably come to the fore in Africa, Asia and the Americas eventually" is unrealistic. In Africa, there is a history of teams bubbling up to the fringes of tier 2 but never sticking. Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Uganda, Tunisia, Morocco and lately Madagascar have all been the next big thing but it's never stuck. The rugby reason is that Namibia's symbiotic relationship with South Africa means that more often than not it has been strong enough to win the African qualifying spot but will never get any better than that. The other reason is the lack of money (and corruption that any money breeds). East/South Asia, Japan excepted, is a laughing stock although there is some promise in ex-Soviet central Asia. South America might be your best bet with a fairly strong tradition in Uruguay and Argentina heading in the right direction as a role model. In North America, Canada has gone backwards in the pro-era and USA is plainly going to focus on 7s.

The biggest opportunity for growth in rugby is plainly in Europe which has the money, structure and ability. Of the best 10 teams outside of RWC2015 participants, 6 are European, 2 Asian, 1 South American and 1 African.

There's still the funding problem. The only way to improve non-RWC teams (for want of a better term) is cash from World Rugby. That means that the RWC needs to remain a cash cow. The idea of having teams worse (in some cases much worse) than Georgia, Namibia and Uruguay is not one that will have TV companies reaching for their cheque book, and holding successive RWCs outside the mainstream countries (and in particular outside of the 5N) will reduce the money to be made. It's not a fact I am happy about but it's true.

Rather than screw up the one thing that makes WR any money, I think the more important thing is to increase the number of tests between RC/6N teams and the rest of the top 20, and provide clear, achievable paths into the 6N and RC.

I also quite like the idea of a 2nd tier World tournament, involving say those that missed automatic qualifying for the next RWC (bottom 2 in each pool) plus the next best 8 teams. Imagine the 2017 Hugo Porta Trophy being contested by Romania, Russia, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Canada, United States, Uruguay, Chile, Namibia, Kenya, Hong Kong and Korea.

I don't think it is unrealistic to suggest more countries will come to the fore in continents other than Europe. World Rugby has stated its objective to encourage this, and while there is a major flaw in the system which impedes integration at the top level, te organization has at least done a great deal to foster the game's development at grass roots level - mostly with use of World Cup proceeds. This has seen countless new nations become registered members during the World Cup era - notably in Africa, in fact. The Africa Cup was established at the turn of the century and has produced seven or eight different finalists - and most of them have beaten Namibia on at least one occasion. Also, South Africa has invited various African nations to participate in its provincial competitions, Namibia will do so this year, I believe, while Namibian & Zimbabwean teams compete in the republic's Danie Craven schoolboys tournament. Undoubtedly their are financial constraints, but that applies to many tier 3 unions (who make up the vast majority of World Rugby's membership), and also once applied to African football. But all the tier 3 teams need is opportunity, and more of it. Lack of funds is not going to stop naturally talented individuals come through, attracting attention and ultimately picking up professional contracts abroad. I believe a number of Kenyans have already played in South African provincial competition.

Yes, South America might also be a good bet. Brazil, in particular, appears to be one of the fastest-rising nations in world rugby right now and came within just a few points of RWC-qualifiers Uruguay the other night. Their playing numbers have literally doubled over the last several years or so, and currently stand at around 10,000. Colombia is another South American showing promice, dominating CONSUR B competition and producing some fine individual players such as charismatic skipper Sebastian Gil. Argentina is doing a lot of good work on the continent, engaging CONSUR A teams either in regular competition or playoffs against the competition winner, and now fielding its B team in the new Americans Rugby Championship - which includes Chile and Brazil. Inv addition to this, Uruguay and Chile have been involved in Argentinian provincial competitions, and still are, I believe. There has also been talk of getting Brazil and Paraguay involved.

I'm not sure I agree with you about Asia. Kazakhstan showed some promise a few years ago with outstanding skipper Timur Masarov (a hulking back-rower with Zinzan Brooke-like mobility and skills) leading the front, and Russian-based Anton Rudoy another world class player on the flank. But they've declined dramatically since Masarov's retirement due to lack of player depth and domestic infrastructure. Hong Kong and Korea are going nowhere fast, agreed, and we can forget about the Middle East for a long, long time. There is, however, considerably potential in South and South-East Asia. Sri Lanka is now one of the largest rugby playing nations in the world in terms of registered player numbers, and they have a fairly lucrative domestic competition which is drawing a large number of players from the Pacific Islands and even Africa these days. Thailand also has a large number of registered players.

As for North America, Canada may well be the sleeping giant of international rugby right now, but I think we've seen some improvement from the US at both XVs and 7s levels, while Mexico has been an exciting newcomer to Central American competition and has shown some real promise.

So there is undeniably vast potential outside of Europe, if the opportunities are provided. In Europe itself, the only nation that really seems to have progressed a great deal in the World Cup era is Georgia. Romania, like the Canadians, has struggled to retain its former glories of the amateur era, while Russia and the Iberians appear to be fairly stagnant.

As regards a 2nd tier World Cup tournament, the 2019 RWC-qualifiers will actaully culminate in a tournament of this nature involving four teams. Who knows, if it's successful, they may increase it to 8, 12 or even 16 in the future. One thing I'm not in favor of is a 'B World Cup.' For one thing, it would not be a world championship at all, of course, and for another it would be likely to generate little interest due to the comparative low qualities of the team. What second tier nations really need is more regular exposure to top level opposition - rather than just meeting them every four years at the RWC. It's like taking the big exam without having received the necessary lessons to prepare. In rugby, more than most other sports, your standards are largely determined by the standard of opposition you regularly face.

It will be interesting to see if Argentina maintains its keenness to help others of gets subsumed by the same self-interest that plagues the other 6N/RC nations. I would hope that it is enlightened enough to see the value in stronger local opposition. Brazil was supposed to be the next big thing a few years back, but Chile seems to have taken the lead. I hope that the Americas championship is give a bit more time to bed in and succeed than previous Americas-based tournaments.

No, Chile used to be a lot stronger than Brazil. It has always been South America's number 3 team, while Brazil and Paraguay have vied for 4th. But now that gap is closing and Brazil actually beat Chile in South American competition last year. Brazil is definitely on the rise and Olympic 7s ought to provide a further boost for the sport there. Chile is stagnant at best.

So, you planning on actually providing a compelling reason as to why the tournament should shift from continent to continent besides wildly optimistic speculation?

It's the best way to promote the sport internationally - one of World Rugby's self-proclaimed objectives. It levels the playing field by providing different teams with different styles the opportunity now and then to perform in an environment which suits them, rather than return to the freezing cold and slugh & mud of northern Europe for every second tournament. It also spreads the wealth around, as the tournament is a tried and trust money spinner for the local economies of those nations fortunate enough to host a World Cup. Many more reasons too, but these are the main ones.

Right, so how's it going to be financed? It's a "tried and true" money-spinner because they've been held in territories where there has been a long-term rugby presence - including Japan, actually.

rowan wrote:It's the best way to promote the sport internationally - one of World Rugby's self-proclaimed objectives. It levels the playing field by providing different teams with different styles the opportunity now and then to perform in an environment which suits them, rather than return to the freezing cold and slugh & mud of northern Europe for every second tournament. It also spreads the wealth around, as the tournament is a tried and trust money spinner for the local economies of those nations fortunate enough to host a World Cup. Many more reasons too, but these are the main ones.

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?

Right, so how's it going to be financed? It's a "tried and true" money-spinner because they've been held in territories where there has been a long-term rugby presence - including Japan, actually.


The only thing World Rugby needs to concern itself with is whether the successful bidder is able to pay the hosting fee. No country would bid if it were unable to do so. Therefore this is a non-issue. I expect to see Argentina and the US make official bids to host the tournament within the next decade or two.

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.

rowan wrote: The only thing World Rugby needs to concern itself with is whether the successful bidder is able to pay the hosting fee. No country would bid if it were unable to do so. Therefore this is a non-issue. I expect to see Argentina and the US make official bids to host the tournament within the next decade or two.

That's not right, I'm afraid. The fee is a guaranteed minimum that World Rugby gets, but a tournament in, say, England can return much, much more. Basically, the Host gets to keep gate receipts (minus the fee) but all the merchandising, advertising, broadcast rights etc go directly to World Rugby. For instance, in 2015, England and Wales' hosting fee was £80 million* but World Rugby actually made £150 million**.

*http://www.totalsportek.com/money/rugby ... -expected/
**http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34578804

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.

Yes, because the RWC has been held only in the UK and France, every 4 years since 1987. Who can forget The Iceman Michael Jones scoring the first ever Rugby World Cup try against Italy at the Parc des Princes, or John Kirwan's epic run at the same ground? Or France pulling off the first of their almost customary RWC upsets by dumping out pre-tournament favourites Australa in their semifinal fixture played at Cardiff Arms Park? Or Nelson Mandela walking out on to the Twickenham pitch to congratulate winning captain Francois Pienaar? Or Jannie de Beer spamming the English with drop goals at the Stade Ernest-Wallon, and Stephen Larkham's epic droppie in the semi-final between the Wallabies and Springboks at a packed Stade Velodrome? Or Wilkinson's extra-time drop goal a Twickenham to win it for England in 2003? Or Richie McCaw battling through the 2011 tournament one-legged, hiding out in his London hotel room and refusing to limp in public?

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.

How much of the proceeds actually go to World Rugby? If the host nation pays for the right to stage the tournament, wouldn't they get the lion's share of the proceeds from ticket sales, at least? & the major financial benefit to the host nation comes from the visiting fans and the amount they inject into the local economy. Besides, England has not bid this time and France staged it only 8 years ago - so are surely only in the running this time to strengthen their hand for a likely bid to host the 2027 event (perhaps with Italy as a junior partner). I don't thin Ireland can be described as a money-pit, can it? It only has two major cities and one major rugby stadium. South Africa, with dozens of major cities and rugby stadiums, would probably make more. That is unless Ireland (like other European hosts before them), reneges on its promise to host the event indendently and ships a bunch of games to Britain and possible France. I personally suspect that would be the case. Therefore what we are really seeing is the British Isles and Ireland hosting the tournament time and again, last time under the banner of England, this time under the banner of Ireland, and next time it'll likely be under the banner of Scotland. But it's all one small geographical region, a fifth the size of South Africa and smaller even than New Zealand, and three of those four countries actually have the same government. This would be akin to the Olympics going to Sao Paul in 2024, Salvador in 2032 and Brasilia in 2040. They're all different cities after all...

rowan wrote:How much of the proceeds actually go to World Rugby? If the host nation pays for the right to stage the tournament, wouldn't they get the lion's share of the proceeds from ticket sales, at least? & the major financial benefit to the host nation comes from the visiting fans and the amount they inject into the local economy. Besides, England has not bid this time and France staged it only 8 years ago - so are surely only in the running this time to strengthen their hand for a likely bid to host the 2027 event (perhaps with Italy as a junior partner). I don't thin Ireland can be described as a money-pit, can it? It only has two major cities and one major rugby stadium. South Africa, with dozens of major cities and rugby stadiums, would probably make more. That is unless Ireland (like other European hosts before them), reneges on its promise to host the event indendently and ships a bunch of games to Britain and possible France. I personally suspect that would be the case. Therefore what we are really seeing is the British Isles and Ireland hosting the tournament time and again, last time under the banner of England, this time under the banner of Ireland, and next time it'll likely be under the banner of Scotland. But it's all one small geographical region, a fifth the size of South Africa and smaller even than New Zealand, and three of those four countries actually have the same government. This would be akin to the Olympics going to Sao Paul in 2024, Salvador in 2032 and Brasilia in 2040. They're all different cities after all...

I'll let Liz deal with the other financials but I'll deal with this. The money is made from bums on seats and tv and merchandising. An Ireland RWC will have exactly the same access to the French and English tv markets that a French or English RWC would have. The merchandising equally would be the same. The only question then is bums on seats Ireland will be using the GAA stadia. Here's a list of the capacities which makes it easily the equal of the English RWC array of stadia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... y_capacity. Anyone who thinks that a RWC in Ireland wouldn't be popular for the Irish public as well as rugby tourists just hasn't a clue. The lack of major cities is an irrelevance.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'll let Liz deal with the other financials but I'll deal with this. The money is made from bums on seats and tv and merchandising. An Ireland RWC will have exactly the same access to the French and English tv markets that a French or English RWC would have. The merchandising equally would be the same. The only question then is bums on seats Ireland will be using the GAA stadia. Here's a list of the capacities which makes it easily the equal of the English RWC array of stadia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... y_capacity. Anyone who thinks that a RWC in Ireland wouldn't be popular for the Irish public as well as rugby tourists just hasn't a clue. The lack of major cities is an irrelevance.

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.