Just how big will the 2015 WC be ?

There is an interesting article on the BBC, the last world cup in 2011 is ranked the 4th highest behind London's Olympics, the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and 2012 Paralympics. So do we think that the next one could be bigger ?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/30326825

The world cup is bound to be bigger than the NZ one as the UK is much more accessable. However, I dont think it will be much bigger. Not sure too many people will travel if they dont have tickets and there is obviously a limit to trhe number of tickets you can issue.

I have no doubt England will be great hosts but Im really disapointed with ticket prices. They are just too much.

Do you think the t.v audiences will be bigger around the world ?

Lorddowlais of course it will be bigger than the NZ RWC. I think it will be the biggest of the lot.

Particularly the delightfully competitive Pool A adds extra spice too -England,Wales and Australia.

These games are big but in a rugby world cup in England with England's relationship with Wales and Australia - it's even more significant.

Australia in particular owe England a bit of payback for 2003 and 2007.

So what are we saying, the next rugby world cup will overtake and emulate the para olympics to be the third biggest event ? I truly hope so.

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais  of course it will be bigger than the NZ RWC. I think it will be the biggest of the lot.

Particularly the delightfully competitive Pool A adds extra spice too -England,Wales and Australia.

These games are big but in a rugby world cup in England with England's relationship with Wales and Australia - it's even more significant.

Australia in particular owe England a bit of payback for 2003 and 2007.

I think every WC so far has surpassed the last hasnt it?

If England go out in the group stages it could end up the worst RWC...the whole public will lose interest.

Just out of interest, does anyone know what the equivalent ticket prices were in 2011?

Not sure, but according to an article on the English bid they had the highest number of tickets available and the second lowest price. So I expect the Japanese ones to be massive and the same with any future bids, mainly due to the match fee needing to be covered.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais  of course it will be bigger than the NZ RWC. I think it will be the biggest of the lot.

Particularly the delightfully competitive Pool A adds extra spice too -England,Wales and Australia.

These games are big but in a rugby world cup in England with England's relationship with Wales and Australia - it's even more significant.

Australia in particular owe England a bit of payback for 2003 and 2007.

I think every WC so far has surpassed the last hasnt it?

No, New Zealand was a huge drop compared to France - no surprises there.

True geordiefalcon but I don't think England will go out early.

Interesting looking at the progress of the hosts -

1987 - NZ - winner
1991 - England - finalist
1995 - SA - winner - beating NZ
1999- Wales- quarter finalists
2003- Australia - finalist - beating NZ on the way
2007- France- semis - also beating NZ.
2011 - NZ - winner

Interesting that 3 times the host has knocked out NZ. England have never beaten NZ in a world cup but at Twickenham....it's possible....

England are also a strong RWC contender with 1 RWC win, 2 other finals and have always made it at least to the quarter finals - plus of course they have home advantage.

I think the IRB run a system of a "money spinner" then a "loss leader" rota - NZ didn't make a huge amount of money for them, then  England to make money, Japan will be a break even and then the next one will have to be a money maker.

Irish Londoner who would you say the money makers are?

Everything is twice as expensive in Japan, I stopped over on the way to Australia during my young free and single days, god what has happened to me, nothing is cheap in Japan, also they like to eat everything almost raw, the culture is breath taking in Japan, and it will be a breath of fresh air for rugby union, just make sure you have got plenty of money with you.

HammerofThunor wrote:Not sure, but according to an article on the English bid they had the highest number of tickets available and the second lowest price.  So I expect the Japanese ones to be massive and the same with any future bids, mainly due to the match fee needing to be covered.

Can't remember the exact figure. But anything major was expensive. I can't remember if it was $500 or $1000 for a ticket to the semis and the finals. Halve it to get an approximate cost at today's exchange. Went to the Wales v France semi and the final. Well worth it.

Irish Londoner wrote:I think the IRB run a system of a "money spinner" then a "loss leader" rota - NZ didn't make a huge amount of money for them, then  England to make money, Japan will be a break even and then the next one will have to be a money maker.

What figures do you have to back this up?

IRB dont make anything from ticket sales. All gates go to host nation. IRB charge the host a fee before a ball is kicked and make the rest in sponsorship. They earn the same regardless of where the tournament is hosted.

LordDowlais wrote:Everything is twice as expensive in Japan, I stopped over on the way to Australia during my young free and single days, god what has happened to me, nothing is cheap in Japan, also they like to eat everything almost raw, the culture is breath taking in Japan, and it will be a breath of fresh air for rugby union, just make sure you have got plenty of money with you.

Its actually not that expensive

Here you go - 20pc plus cheaper than London !

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&city1=London&country2=Japan&city2=Tokyo

Also i was reading somethinmg like 87pc of tv revenues comes from only 5 countries eng/sco/wales/ire/france, as a result there has to be some pressure to expand the game (and place the wc in) with countries with large populations ie Japan. makes sense

GunsGerms wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:I think the IRB run a system of a "money spinner" then a "loss leader" rota - NZ didn't make a huge amount of money for them, then  England to make money, Japan will be a break even and then the next one will have to be a money maker.

What figures do you have to back this up?

IRB dont make anything from ticket sales. All gates go to host nation. IRB charge the host a fee before a ball is kicked and make the rest in sponsorship. They earn the same regardless of where the tournament is hosted.

http://www.espn.co.uk/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/161660.html

Made about 3% less than France 2007 and about £10M more than forecast, which is the same amount as the tournament fee for 2015.  England's bid claimed something ridiculous like £300M but that was probably turnover, which was £142M in 2011. But we know these English fellas like to pluck numbers from their arses.

EDIT: not quite true about the IRB earning the same whereever it is. Sponsorship and TV money is based on viewing figures, which will be larger in the large markets. Not many casual viewers will watch a game on at 7am. Since western Europe is one of the biggest markets, being around GMT helps.

alive555 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Everything is twice as expensive in Japan, I stopped over on the way to Australia during my young free and single days, god what has happened to me, nothing is cheap in Japan, also they like to eat everything almost raw, the culture is breath taking in Japan, and it will be a breath of fresh air for rugby union, just make sure you have got plenty of money with you.

Its actually not that expensive

Here you go - 20pc plus cheaper than London !

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&city1=London&country2=Japan&city2=Tokyo

Also i was reading somethinmg like 87pc of tv revenues comes from only 5 countries eng/sco/wales/ire/france, as a result there has to be some pressure to expand the game (and place the wc in) with countries with large populations ie Japan. makes sense

Things might have changed then, I am talking almost 20yrs ago.

New Zealand sold 1.35m tickets to pass their £140 million target and more than 133,000 supporters travelled into New Zealand, nearly double the original forecast. The tournament is estimated to have boosted economic activity in New Zealand by more than £260 million.
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/161660.html#rWzXHDLCo8eqHcjG.99

Surely if England sell all or close to the potential 2.3m tickets then they will blow NZ's figure out of the water if it's a similar price they are selling for....

There's another thread somewhere where I did the digging and the maths and RWC2015 will end up filling the IRB's coffers far more than RWC2011. It will sell more tickets, at a higher price, which funds a higher tournament fee and IIRC the IRB also takes a cut of any surplus once the RFU has covered its costs. In addition to that, the sponsorship and TV revenue generally go up for each tournament.

2011 definitely made less than 2015 and the IRB has traditionally followed a pattern of alternating major markets with smaller ones (nz - ENG - sa - WAL (with games spread around the other home nations) - aus - FRA - nz - ENG ...). Putting it bluntly, the critical thing is proximity to England and France, because that's the only place where you have two very large groups of fans - if games are within their reach, you can sell a lot of tickets.

Is it the 3rd or 4th largest event in the world? Probably not by most measures. But what it does have is typically being the biggest event in any year that it is held, and a very loyal fanbase who will generally fill the stadiums, making pricing and capacity the limits on what you can earn.

Aside from how 'big' the tournament will be, I really hope that it helps spread rugby outside the English rugby heartlands. The northern teams based in Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle could really do with the boost.

I imagine it will be a big tournament but remember that being big doesn't mean it will be great. Their have been many sold out world cups which have been yawnfests.

The fans will sell out most games that is assured but what will the rugby be like?
95-03 were great tournaments. 2007-2011 were a bit of a let down in terms of the quality of the matches. If the weather is anything like it was this autumn we could be in for a borefest... boring boring rugby etc the armchair fan may say.

The hosts need to do well for a tournament to set it alight, not only progress but play in a way which would attract the non rugby public.

People like me sometimes love a 15-12 penalty kick match with high tension, big mauls and scrums etc... but it turns the wider public off and that is who the game, the tournament needs to attract to be the sort of success that people in 30 years still talk about.

London 2012 was a great example. Team GB did well above their station coming 3rd with 29 Gold medals and had some inspirational days/moments ala their 3 golds on the track on one Saturday. 1 of those was completely out of the blue. That's what is required.

Can England bring that sort of play?

Perhaps.

The fact that England are probably playing zero of their matches outside of Twickenham doesn't help.

If England were serious about trying to expand their appeal they would certainly field a game or 2 each season at say St. James Park or Old Trafford. Not the once a season rubbish.

beshocked wrote:New Zealand sold 1.35m tickets to pass their £140 million target and more than 133,000 supporters travelled into New Zealand, nearly double the original forecast. The tournament is estimated to have boosted economic activity in New Zealand by more than £260 million.
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/161660.html#rWzXHDLCo8eqHcjG.99

Surely if England sell all or close to the potential 2.3m tickets then they will blow NZ's figure out of the water if it's a similar price they are selling for....

Yes but the IRB doesnt get any gate receipt profits. They make their money from selling their product to networks all over the world and the sponsorship that comes with that. It makes zero difference to the IRB is England sell more tickets that NZ.

Look at the revenue section on the WC wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup

Their source is the IRB annual review (audit).

Revenue:

The IRB have improved their profits based on sponsorship and broadcasting each WC regardless of where it is held. In terms of their profit it doesnt appear to matter where it is held.

There is no such thing as a cash cow.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:New Zealand sold 1.35m tickets to pass their £140 million target and more than 133,000 supporters travelled into New Zealand, nearly double the original forecast. The tournament is estimated to have boosted economic activity in New Zealand by more than £260 million.
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/161660.html#rWzXHDLCo8eqHcjG.99

Surely if England sell all or close to the potential 2.3m tickets then they will blow NZ's figure out of the water if it's a similar price they are selling for....

Yes but the IRB doesnt get any gate receipt profits. They make their money from selling their product to networks all over the world and the sponsorship that comes with that. It makes zero difference to the IRB is England sell more tickets that NZ.

Yes, but it makes all the difference when you are selling the tele rights to a bigger audience, the WC is being held in England, that means the public interest will be higher in England, 55million people potentially in England who will want to watch England in the WC is a bigger bargaining tool than trying to sell to 5 million people in New Zealand to watch New Zealand, or 6 million in Ireland wanting to watch Ireland, for me this will be the biggest WC ever because it is being held in England, the only way you will surpass this is if france get it, or North America get it and the interest rockets.

No Lord Dowlais the WC being in England doesnt have much difference on broadcasting at all. Look at the broadcasting revenue figures for each world cup. The IRB have increased them year on year as the popularity of the sport has grown.

Guns, I based that on firstly what the RFU had "bid" to host the thing, which is a larger amount than NZ paid I understand- they have to promise the IRB a certain amount and with more tickets meaning more income, they'l have arrangement in place so that they get more at various thresholds once the base costs have been covered, also (and this is probably more important in the UK market), they will be in line for a cut of the merchandising revenue (shirts, and all the rest) which given the comparative populations will be very good compared to NZ, and of course like their FIFA/IOC counterparts will be enjoying a nice stay in some of the best hotels in the world.

Irish Londoner wrote:Guns, I based that on firstly what the RFU had "bid" to host the thing, which is a larger amount than NZ paid I understand- they have to promise the IRB a certain amount and with more tickets meaning more income, they'l have arrangement in place so that they get more at various thresholds once the base costs have been covered, also (and this is probably more important in the UK market), they will be in line for a cut of the merchandising revenue (shirts, and all the rest) which given the comparative populations will be very good compared to NZ, and of course like their FIFA/IOC counterparts will be enjoying a nice stay in some of the best hotels in the world.

Yes you do have to offer a bid alright that is a fair point and it is based on potential host nation profit but when you factor in the revenue from TV and Sponsorship the difference in overall IRB revenue is fairly minimal really as far as I can tell.

Do you know what the winning bids have been? Im guessing they have increased year on year. Most bids are supplemented by govt funding and where a host nation isnt going to make a massive amount in tickets sales they can offset this by the boost to the economy that such a big boost in tourism brings. This was the case for NZ for their WC but interestingly Brazil did not see a big increase in tourism for their football WC as they already had large monthly tourism numbers yet the traditional tourists stayed away while the WC was on.

The only income directly available to the host Union is ticket sales and out of that they have to house, feed, move and provide training facilities for the participants, provide tickets, prawn sandwiches etc for participants' hangers-on and IRB dignitaries, sponsors etc. They then have to pay the substantial tournament fee to the IRB, so, indirectly, IRB do benefit from ticket sales.

The other possible income to the host Union would be indirectly from Government grant or subsidy. The UK government declined that opportunity, along with declining to reintroduce the anti-tout laws that were in force for the Olympics. It may have been different if there were a devolved English government.

GunsGerms wrote:No Lord Dowlais the WC being in England doesnt have much difference on broadcasting at all. Look at the broadcasting revenue figures for each world cup. The IRB have increased them year on year as the popularity of the sport has grown.

Looking at Australia to France to New Zealand

Braodcasting £60M (+£22M) £82m (+£11M) £93M
Sponsorship £16M (+£12M) £28M (+£1M) £29M

So the increase from Australia to France was +33M
The increase from France to New Zealand was +12M

Not enough there to really show that location DOES matter but you're trying to say that it shows that location DOESN'T matter? Not sure how you're twisting that.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:The only income directly available to the host Union is ticket sales and out of that they have to house, feed, move and provide training facilities for the participants, provide tickets, prawn sandwiches etc for participants' hangers-on and IRB dignitaries, sponsors etc. They then have to pay the substantial tournament fee to the IRB, so, indirectly, IRB do benefit from ticket sales.

The other possible income to the host Union would be indirectly from Government grant or subsidy. The UK government declined that opportunity, along with declining to reintroduce the anti-tout laws that were in force for the Olympics. It may have been different if there were a devolved English government.

Although that doesn't affect how much the IRB take. They get the fixed tournament fee, with the union or government stumping the shortfall, if there is one.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:The UK government declined that opportunity, along with declining to reintroduce the anti-tout laws that were in force for the Olympics. It may have been different if there were a devolved English government.

Slightly confused by this one - did the Northern Irish, PC or Scots Nat MPs refuse to support it in Parliament as otherwise I don't see how an English government would have made a difference?

I will be absolutely astounded if the English rugby union did not make a profit from their own world cup, Great Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, and England is a big part of that, there will be hefty profits that's for sure, the one question I would like to ask, who gets the profits for the games being played in Cardiff ?

HammerofThunor wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:No Lord Dowlais the WC being in England doesnt have much difference on broadcasting at all. Look at the broadcasting revenue figures for each world cup. The IRB have increased them year on year as the popularity of the sport has grown.

Looking at Australia to France to New Zealand

Braodcasting   £60M (+£22M) £82m (+£11M) £93M
Sponsorship    £16M (+£12M) £28M (+£1M) £29M

So the increase from Australia to France was +33M
The increase from France to New Zealand was +12M

Not enough there to really show that location DOES matter but you're trying to say that it shows that location DOESN'T matter? Not sure how you're twisting that.

I havent seen much to suggest that location does matter. The key would be to see the bid offers of the failed bids I suppose and see what the difference is. Im guessing it isnt that much though when you add it all up.

All Im saying is that the notion that some countries are cash cows doesnt really add up when you factor everything in and look at the finances of all world cups.

Depends on the agreement.

GunsGerms wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:No Lord Dowlais the WC being in England doesnt have much difference on broadcasting at all. Look at the broadcasting revenue figures for each world cup. The IRB have increased them year on year as the popularity of the sport has grown.

Looking at Australia to France to New Zealand

Braodcasting   £60M (+£22M) £82m (+£11M) £93M
Sponsorship    £16M (+£12M) £28M (+£1M) £29M

So the increase from Australia to France was +33M
The increase from France to New Zealand was +12M

Not enough there to really show that location DOES matter but you're trying to say that it shows that location DOESN'T matter? Not sure how you're twisting that.

I havent seen much to suggest that location does matter. The key would be to see the bid offers of the failed bids I suppose and see what the difference is. Im guessing it isnt that much though when you add it all up.

All Im saying is that the notion that some countries are cash cows doesnt really add up when you factor everything in and look at the finances of all world cups.

So France generated £33M more than Australia did 4 years before. New Zealand only generated £12M more than France did 4 years before. You don't see anything in that that could suggest that location MIGHT have something to do with it? It certainly could back up that idea, even if it doesn't 'prove' it.

Just to put some more in there:

The 'Welsh' RWC in 1999 made £35M more than the South African one did in 1995. The Australian one in 2003 made £18M more than the Welsh one. So it goes +£35M, +£18M, +£33M, +£12M. The biggest jumps are when the WC moved to France or UK and Ireland. The trend is that location DOES make a difference to Sponsorship and Broacasting. Although there may be something else in there (only just went pro in '95, etc). But currently it seems location DOES matter, and I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it doesn't. Not facts anyway.

LordDowlais wrote:I will be absolutely astounded if the English rugby union did not make a profit from their own world cup, Great Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, and England is a big part of that, there will be hefty profits that's for sure, the one question I would like to ask, who gets the profits for the games being played in Cardiff ?

The profit on the gate money will go to the RFU as organisers, however I'm sure the WRU will do very nicely out of it, there'll be the costs of "renting" the Mill Stad and then all the income from the various sideshows - catering, bars, executive boxes, souvenirs, etc.  Same arrangement will probably apply at the various grounds around the country - e.g. Glaws will make a few bob on the back of the games at Kingsholm, whereas rugby in Newcastle, Leeds and Leicester will have to sit to one side and watch Newcastle United, Leeds United and Leicester City cream off the rest to fund their clubs.

HammerofThunor wrote:

So France generated £33M more than Australia did 4 years before. New Zealand only generated £12M more than France did 4 years before.  You don't see anything in that that could suggest that location MIGHT have something to do with it? It certainly could back up that idea, even if it doesn't 'prove' it.

Just to put some more in there:

The 'Welsh' RWC in 1999 made £35M more than the South African one did in 1995.  The Australian one in 2003 made £18M more than the Welsh one.  So it goes +£35M, +£18M, +£33M, +£12M.  The biggest jumps are when the WC moved to France or UK and Ireland.  The trend is that location DOES make a difference to Sponsorship and Broacasting. Although there may be something else in there (only just went pro in '95, etc).  But currently it seems location DOES matter, and I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it doesn't. Not facts anyway.

The WC in France was held during a boom period while the NZ one was held during a global recession.

The point Im making is the IRB makes a pre-agreed fixed amount which only accounts for half of their over all revenue the rest doesnt rely on location as it is based on global TV and sponsorship deals.

You seem to be confusing figures that the IRB makes with figures the tournament makes overall.

GunsGerms wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

So France generated £33M more than Australia did 4 years before. New Zealand only generated £12M more than France did 4 years before.  You don't see anything in that that could suggest that location MIGHT have something to do with it? It certainly could back up that idea, even if it doesn't 'prove' it.

Just to put some more in there:

The 'Welsh' RWC in 1999 made £35M more than the South African one did in 1995.  The Australian one in 2003 made £18M more than the Welsh one.  So it goes +£35M, +£18M, +£33M, +£12M.  The biggest jumps are when the WC moved to France or UK and Ireland.  The trend is that location DOES make a difference to Sponsorship and Broacasting. Although there may be something else in there (only just went pro in '95, etc).  But currently it seems location DOES matter, and I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it doesn't. Not facts anyway.

The WC in France was held during a boom period while the NZ one was held during a global recession.

The point Im making is the IRB makes a pre-agreed fixed amount which only accounts for half of their over all revenue the rest doesnt rely on location as it is based on global TV and sponsorship deals.

You seem to be confusing figures that the IRB makes with figures the tournament makes overall.

However wouldn't you agree that more people would tune in to a match at say 3pm rather than 6am?

The rugby core is based around 4 nations in 2 timezones. UK, Ireland, France, South Africa. They account for the largest rugby populations in the sport and are all lumped together time-wise. That's a market of prime time TV to near 200 million people.

Compare that to the 200 millions people when a match is on at 6am. Sure the die hard fans will tune in but what about the arm chair fans?

Why is it that the Olympics daily schedules are often based around the American and European markets... prime time TV and maximum revenue.

GunsGerms wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

So France generated £33M more than Australia did 4 years before. New Zealand only generated £12M more than France did 4 years before.  You don't see anything in that that could suggest that location MIGHT have something to do with it? It certainly could back up that idea, even if it doesn't 'prove' it.

Just to put some more in there:

The 'Welsh' RWC in 1999 made £35M more than the South African one did in 1995.  The Australian one in 2003 made £18M more than the Welsh one.  So it goes +£35M, +£18M, +£33M, +£12M.  The biggest jumps are when the WC moved to France or UK and Ireland.  The trend is that location DOES make a difference to Sponsorship and Broacasting. Although there may be something else in there (only just went pro in '95, etc).  But currently it seems location DOES matter, and I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest it doesn't. Not facts anyway.

The WC in France was held during a boom period while the NZ one was held during a global recession.

The point Im making is the IRB makes a pre-agreed fixed amount which only accounts for half of their over all revenue the rest doesnt rely on location as it is based on global TV and sponsorship deals.

You seem to be confusing figures that the IRB makes with figures the tournament makes overall.

No I'm not. I'm quoted the numbers YOU posted for the sponsorship and broadcast revenues generated. These show a clear correlation with location. That doesn't mean causation but at the there's been nothing to refute it other than "it's not linked to location" over and over. There is NO evdience whatsoever that sponsorship and broadcast money is independent of location. At none that have been provided. One clear reason for this trend to exist is because the time of broadcast fits best with the largest consumer base in Europe, which benefits TV money and also sponsorship.

GunsGerms wrote:
The WC in France was held during a boom period while the NZ one was held during a global recession.

The point Im making is the IRB makes a pre-agreed fixed amount which only accounts for half of their over all revenue the rest doesnt rely on location as it is based on global TV and sponsorship deals.

You seem to be confusing figures that the IRB makes with figures the tournament makes overall.

I think the recession is a valid point, but even the fixed fee requested by the IRB has jumped a lot between NZ in '11 and now in England (£55.6m to £80m). Even allowing for inflation a 44% rise is a big one, enough to put many nations out of the running without serious government backing.

In response to the Millenium Stadium queries - I seem to recall reading that the RFU are paying £10m to rent for those games. Better than a poke in the eye, but looking at what's left ticket wise (i.e. not much) they may come to regret not pushing for a share of ticket revenue! I think the RFU are going to make a very good return on their host status.

Big wrote:I think the RFU are going to make a very good return on their host status

And so they should, it is their world cup afterall, I just think the WRU made sure they covered what they would lose without playing the AI when you think about it.

LordDowlais wrote:

Big wrote:I think the RFU are going to make a very good return on their host status

And so they should, it is their world cup afterall, I just think the WRU made sure they covered what they would lose without playing the AI when you think about it.

The SARU had expected a loss (covered by the government) for their bid. So it's not automatic...

Unless you mean they do well out of MS hosting some games

Em...don't things in this world of ours always get bigger?

Just look at the dates given above in the initial post.............2011, 2014, 2013.   All recent, all using the very best that technology can give in terms of sponsorship deals, social media involvement, always increasing broadcasting fees, ever increasing transportation ease though air, sea and land.

Things have a way of getting bigger all the time as technology keeps increasing the real-time audiences.  Even the weather is getting in on the act and tries to be always bigger and better in record terms than the year before.  In 2040, people will be asking will the next big sporting event be bigger than 2034, 2039 or 2035.

SecretFly wrote:Em...don't things in this world of ours always get bigger?

Just look at the dates given above in the initial post.............2011, 2014, 2013.   All recent, all using the very best that technology can give in terms of sponsorship deals, social media involvement, always increasing broadcasting fees, ever increasing transportation ease though air, sea and land.

Things have a way of getting bigger all the time as technology keeps increasing the real-time audiences.  Even the weather is getting in on the act and tries to be always bigger and better in record terms than the year before.  In 2040, people will be asking will the next big sporting event be bigger than 2034, 2039 or 2035.

The most highly viewed soccer world cup in history was the 1994 tournament.. 6 tournaments and 20 years past. Not all one way traffic.

I don't expect this world cup to be beaten for attendance for an awful long time.... probably until France or England re-host come 2039 or whenever.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Em...don't things in this world of ours always get bigger?

Just look at the dates given above in the initial post.............2011, 2014, 2013.   All recent, all using the very best that technology can give in terms of sponsorship deals, social media involvement, always increasing broadcasting fees, ever increasing transportation ease though air, sea and land.

Things have a way of getting bigger all the time as technology keeps increasing the real-time audiences.  Even the weather is getting in on the act and tries to be always bigger and better in record terms than the year before.  In 2040, people will be asking will the next big sporting event be bigger than 2034, 2039 or 2035.

The most highly viewed soccer world cup in history was the 1994 tournament.. 6 tournaments and 20 years past. Not all one way traffic.

I don't expect this world cup to be beaten for attendance for an awful long time.... probably until France or England re-host come 2039 or whenever.

Rehost???  No way.... we'll want to be increasing the profile of rugby in the little places of the world by then.  We won't be wanting England or France again!  It'll be somewhere where the game needs growing for the love of the little peoples, somewhere like China or Brazil

BTW...1994 was biggest because we were in it.....

Big wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
The WC in France was held during a boom period while the NZ one was held during a global recession.

The point Im making is the IRB makes a pre-agreed fixed amount which only accounts for half of their over all revenue the rest doesnt rely on location as it is based on global TV and sponsorship deals.

You seem to be confusing figures that the IRB makes with figures the tournament makes overall.

I think the recession is a valid point, but even the fixed fee requested by the IRB has jumped a lot between NZ in '11 and now in England (£55.6m to £80m).  Even allowing for inflation a 44% rise is a big one, enough to put many nations out of the running without serious government backing.

In response to the Millenium Stadium queries - I seem to recall reading that the RFU are paying £10m to rent for those games.  Better than a poke in the eye, but looking at what's left ticket wise (i.e. not much) they may come to regret not pushing for a share of ticket revenue!  I think the RFU are going to make a very good return on their host status.

The fixed fee goes up every year though as does attendance more or less as popularity grows. Once again Im not saying that a wealthy country wont potentially attract greater gates but rather because it is a fixed fee and because there are other significant revenue streams it doesnt seem to be that big a consideration when looking at potential bidders especially if the bids are close enough in value.

Ireland for example will probably make a similar bid to England but make less profit for themselves. Even if you break even or make a small loss it is still worth hosting the tournament because you have upgraded all your facilities, boosted the morale of the nation, put yourself on the world map and had a good time doing it.

Judging by the fact they'll be using some of the biggest and most reputed football stadiums in the country (one may disagree with the notion of staging rugby games at football stadiums or vice versa but it's a separate issue), which not only means greater viewing capacity but also the opportunity to appeal to football fans themselves to take part in and outside the stadium, I feel it'll almost certainly be 'bigger' than 2011. Logistically anyway.

Having said that, it's somewhat hard to say what attendance will be like when smaller or developing teams play one another i.e. when Uruguay play Fiji. When people ask 'how big', do they mean generally or from the perspectives of specific groups of fans? I guess these lower profile games will indicate the validity of the claim that the sport, with RWC as its vanguard, is on the rise in global popularity.

I forget, how did the figures look the last time it was staged in Europe (France 2007)?

fa0019 wrote:
The most highly viewed soccer world cup in history was the 1994 tournament..

Just back to this Fa.  As we've all alluded to, Big is relative.   But just on that 1994 record.  I did a little research.  Highest viewed WC in history?   The only allusion I can get is Highest Attendance ever at 3.6 million.  That's in the grounds, at the game.

In terms of most viewed I doubt that '94 would still holds that record.  The 2014 world cup had 5 million people who attended the outside parties in the host cities alone, watching their game on big screens.  Then the actual attendance figures added to that, then the worldwide TV audience.  I'd guess that the increase in broadcasting technology since 1994 would make 2014 easily beat the worldwide viewership that '94 enjoyed.  And that's not irrelevent in terms of Biggness of the event itself in the host country as the worldwide audience is very much part of the overall income stream that decides just how big the event was in real terms.
I'd be surprised if 1994 still held the viewership record.

I seem to recall the figure of 1 billion people watching the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final

The vast majority of the rugby fans in the world are in or beside the UTC Timezone, so surely TV audience and therefore sponsorship should always be a lot bigger when it's held in the UK or Ireland (UTC), Italy or France (UTC+01:00) or even South Africa (UTC+02:00).

New Zealand and Australia don't make sense in terms of TV audience I'd say, since games have to be played at far from peak viewing times where most of the fans are.