2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

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.

Interesting reading, but there are some bits in it where you're really stretching!

Rowanbi wrote: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.

Number of previous World Cup games played in Northern Ireland, which is 'technically' in the United Kingdom; 2 pool matches in  1991 and 1999, only one featuring a Tier 1 International side (Australia vs Romania in 1999 was the first ever international match I attended).

Number of previous World Cup games played in South Africa; 32 matches including quarter-finals, semi-finals and final.

I'm not against the World Cup returning to South Africa but you're not going to get much mileage of lumping us in with other countries, especially the likes of England. I might as well just say that the Tri-Nations teams have had it too recently.

What I want is for Ireland to get it in 2023. What I think is fair is if Italy and Argentina get it in that order.

P.S. Totally and completely agree that we should be playing the Tier 2 nations much, much more in between World Cups.

The economics of the IRB are entirely dependent on the RWC. They seem to have settled into an 8 year cycle, with alternate world cups going to a host nation that can deliver big ticket sales and TV revenue, followed by one that is either more developmental or just smaller.

Realistically, only a few countries can play the "big host" role. You need a combination of a large population, a time zone favourable to the big TV audiences and enough local interest to sell out the games.

The only two countries that definitely fit that bill and can guarantee the IRBs funding over the 8 year cycle are currently France and England. They have the overwhelming majority of the world's rugby watchers within two time zones and a short flight, with South Africa, as the next largest viewing market, also in a good time zone and a manageable flight away.

South Africa is also well-placed, but not quite as much because the European fans are farther away. Likewise, and Irish bid has many of the advantages of an English or French one, but lacks some of the infrastructure. A decisive factor in choosing between them is likely to be which bid is prepared to guarantee more income.

Italy could also work but it remains to be seen how far a soccer mad nation would turn out for it. Its first hosting is likely to be on the experimental half of the cycle.

Ditto Argentina. I would love to see an Argentinian RWC, but it's hard for everyone to get to and the infrastructure is questionable.

I would like to see the RWC go to more places, but in reality it will come back to a few big nations more regularly than to others.

Likewise top teams playing developing rugby nations. If we contrast Japan and Italy, it seems to me that regular access to top tier teams is less important than investment in good coaching. We need to raise playing standards before changing the schedule makes much sense. But I would be open to promotion and relegation in the Six Nations if there were strong enough contenders.

Notch wrote:Interesting reading, but there are some bits in it where you're really stretching!

Rowanbi wrote: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.

Number of previous World Cup games played in Northern Ireland, which is 'technically' in the United Kingdom; 2 pool matches in  1991 and 1999, only one featuring a Tier 1 International side (Australia vs Romania in 1999 was the first ever international match I attended).

Number of previous World Cup games played in South Africa; 32 matches including quarter-finals, semi-finals and final.

I'm not against the World Cup returning to South Africa but you're not going to get much mileage of lumping us in with other countries, especially the likes of England. I might as well just say that the Tri-Nations teams have had it too recently.

What I want is for Ireland to get it in 2023. What I think is fair is if Italy and Argentina get it in that order.

Yes, one of those games in Belfast drew only 9000 fans. There have actually been 12 games in Ireland in total, including three playoffs. One game south of the border only drew a crowd of 3000. But when I said an all-Ireland World Cup would technically mean the UK would be involved in hosting it for a 5th time, this was not to suggest North Ireland had been involved 5 times. They weren't involved last year, for example, though that event was staged entirely within the UK.

Comparing South Africa to Ireland in rugby is like comparing Brazil to Ireland in football. It's a much bigger country, has far more registered players, and has been a great deal more successful, winning two World Cups and finishing 3rd last year, for example, while Ireland has yet to make a RWC semi. So I'd say South Africa hosting one World Cup and Ireland co-hosting two pretty much balances out. The question is, does World Rugby want to globalize by rotating its showpiece event around the continents, or just keep sending it back to the same small corner of Europe every second time?

I think it's fair to talk about the Home Unions as a block when they are repeatedly co-hosting it. I'm sure Ireland will ship plenty of games to Britain if they get it too, as much as they'll claim otherwise during the bidding process. Australasia have also co-hosted once, so we can also talk about them in the same breath. But South Africa is on the other side of the world, so we can't really include them in any Southern Hemisphere block when talking about RWC hosting. Besides which, in 2023 it'll have been 12 years and 3 tournaments since a SANZAR nation hosted the World Cup, and almost 30 years since SA did.

9000 fans in Belfast for Zimbabwe vs Japan in 1991, essentially before the game went professional, is pretty, pretty good.

You can't play the card that South Africa aren't getting a fair shake and then suggest that they deserve the World Cup because they are a bigger nation than some of the other potential hosts. Or use attendance as the measure of success and then suggest Western Europe be excluded after the most attended World Cup ever. Clearly there are more concerns than just profitability and attendance, representational concerns, but going back to old turf doesn't much help with that either.

I think that moving the World Cup around is a great thing, I also think it has to be balanced with giving it to the nations who are in the Top 10 where there is the most interest. Between 4 and 6 of those nations are in Western Europe. One is in Africa. 1 in every 10 World Cups going to South Africa sounds fair, but if you want to talk about moving the competition to one of the many African countries who haven't hosted it I think that would be a wonderful initiative.

Maybe instead of going back to South Africa we should be talking about Kenya as a future host?

With the world being such a big place we should be willing to share this tournament but we should also defer to those nations who haven't hosted many games. Either we go for new nations or we go for established nations who haven't hosted very many matches.

If we go for attendance alone it will never leave Western Europe. If we go for diversity alone, we will be touring countries with proportionally less interest and rugby fans. If we go for territorial concerns we will just be going from the SH to the NH every four years and excluding various developing nations.

It's tough to decide but my philosophy is we should not go for a nation that has previously been the sole host in 2023. That rules out Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, France and England. Arguably Wales if you choose to look at it like that.

Notch wrote:9000 fans in Belfast for Zimbabwe vs Japan in 1991, essentially before the game went professional, is pretty, pretty good.

You can't play the card that South Africa aren't getting a fair shake and then suggest that they deserve the World Cup because they are a bigger nation than some of the other potential hosts. Or use attendance as the measure of success and then suggest Western Europe be excluded after the most attended World Cup ever. Clearly there are more concerns than just profitability and attendance, representational concerns, but going back to old turf doesn't much help with that either.

I think that moving the World Cup around is a great thing, I also think it has to be balanced with giving it to the nations who are in the Top 10 where there is the most interest. Between 4 and 6 of those nations are in Western Europe. One is in Africa. 1 in every 10 World Cups going to South Africa sounds fair, but if you want to talk about moving the competition to one of the many African countries who haven't hosted it I think that would be a wonderful initiative.

Maybe instead of going back to South Africa we should be talking about Kenya as a future host?

Well, technically we're comparing South Africa to Ireland, so I think we can discuss the advantages of population, geography, attendances, etc. If we compare South Africa to England or France, that's a different story, it comes out about even, but then we would be making the assumption it would be another Home Unions (& France?) tournament, and not really an Irish World Cup at all. Realistic perhaps, but not the basis Ireland are campaigning on.

Regrettably no other African nation would be able to host it in 2023, and no other African nation has bid. Italy is the only 'virgin' among the candidates, but I agree with an earlier comment that it should be alternated between new nations and traditional heartlands at this stage, and it should also alternate between the hemispheres, given the north has the population but the south overwhelmingly dominates the game. That seems fair.

Here is the breakdown of games in terms of hosting;

New Zealand; 19 in 1987, 48 matches in 2011, 67 matches in total
France; 8 matches in 1991, 8 matches in 1999, 42 matches in 2007, 58 matches in total
Australia; 10 in 1987, 48 matches in 2003, 58 matches in total
England; 7 matches in 1991, 9 matches in 1999, 41 matches in 2015, 57 matches in total
South Africa; 32 matches in 1995, 32 matches in total
Wales; 7 matches in 1991, 9 matches in 1999, 4 matches in 2007, 7 matches in 2015, 27 matches in total
Scotland; 5 matches in 1991, 8 matches in 1999, 2 matches in 2007, 15 matches in total
Ireland; 5 matches in 1991, 7 matches in 1999, 12 matches in total

Italy; 0 matches
Argentina; 0 matches
USA; 0 matches
Japan; 0 matches
Every other country in the World; 0 matches

To be honest, those 8 nations who have hosted before? They have no automatic right to host again. They would all be decent commercial choices though.

I would like someone to double check my maths on the hosting, but thats the approximate total. It'll be a long time before we should go back to New Zealand, France, Australia or England.

A lot of the arguments in the OP and in other places I've read seem to be based on hemisphere. What's this hang up with hemispheres??? It's just a line around the planet. It's arbitrary. That should not be used as a reason to award or not award a World Cup, in my opinion. It should perhaps cycle between established and emerging nations, regardless of hemisphere. Although that may be the way it's done currently? So if it goes to England one time and then USA the next, I think that's fine.

The OP also mentions the 100 unions as part of the IRB. I'm sure 100% of these would be keen to host, but you have to ask yourself how many would actually be able to to? Is it at all feasible, for example, to host the World Cup in Samoa or Tonga? It would be nice but would it potentially bankrupt the whole country? And I don't mean that in a condescending way, but the costs of these things are often prohibitive. And for the IRB - if they're making a loss by letting a small/poor nation host then that's less money that can be invested in the global game, which is what they do with a lot of profits made from the WC. It's this showpiece event that generates money to be distributed to expand the game and improve the emerging nations. Unfortunately that does vastly reduce the suitable, willing and able hosts from 100 to perhaps a number early in the double figures - maybe up to 15 nations? It's then inevitable that we revisit some nations sooner rather than later, especially when we have complex political nations (E.g. UK and its 4 nations) well established in rugby who are able to band together to run an event. Sad but true.

Notch wrote:Here is the breakdown of games in terms of hosting;

New Zealand; 19 in 1987, 48 matches in 2011, 67 matches in total
France; 8 matches in 1991, 8 matches in 1999, 42 matches in 2007, 58 matches in total
Australia; 10 in 1987, 48 matches in 2003, 58 matches in total
England; 7 matches in 1991, 9 matches in 1999, 41 matches in 2015, 57 matches in total
South Africa; 32 matches in 1995, 32 matches in total
Wales; 7 matches in 1991, 9 matches in 1999, 4 matches in 2007, 7 matches in 2015,  27 matches in total
Scotland; 5 matches in 1991, 8 matches in 1999, 2 matches in 2007, 15 matches in total
Ireland; 5 matches in 1991, 7 matches in 1999, 12 matches in total

Italy; 0 matches
Argentina; 0 matches
USA; 0 matches
Japan; 0 matches
Every other country in the World; 0 matches

To be honest, those 8 nations who have hosted before? They have no automatic right to host again. They would all be decent commercial choices though.

Yes, South Africa down in fifth place there despite being the second biggest rugby nation on earth in terms of registered players, and the second most successful. It is also the only former winner not to have hosted it twice, of course.

"9000 fans in Belfast for Zimbabwe vs Japan in 1991, essentially before the game went professional, is pretty, pretty good."

Not if we consider it was the only game the whole of North Ireland hosted in that tournament. If NZ has shipped a game to Fiji in 2011 I'm pretty sure it would have filled Suva stadium (cap. 25K), even if it had been Russia and the US or something...

If it happened today it would probably sell out. You can't compare 1991 to 2015 in terms of where rugby is in Ireland. For a start the capacity of the ground wasn't much larger than 9000 at that point. It's now a comfortable 18,500 and could be sold out for any given World Cup game. It's likely to be a minor venue only.

I would love to have seen World Cup games in Fiji. Certainly one of the have nots of World Rugby. In terms of Ireland, we may be the most neglected of the top level teams in terms of hosting games bar Argentina and Italy but we can acknowledge we're still way ahead of teams like Fiji and say they should get some opportunities.

Let's say we don't want to include anyone else in our cosy little club we'll limit it to the 10 teams in the major competitions. With 10 teams to get around and 4 years before tournaments that still makes it 2035 before South Africa are 'due' another shot at hosting.

Ireland aren't 'due' anything- no-one is- but we've never been the sole hosts, we haven't even been the main hosts. You have Ireland, Italy, Argentina and Scotland to get through before we start cycling back through the other nations again. If you want to write us all off you must hate the fact Japan is getting it!

Griff wrote:A lot of the arguments in the OP and in other places I've read seem to be based on hemisphere. What's this hang up with hemispheres??? It's just a line around the planet. It's arbitrary. That should not be used as a reason to award or not award a World Cup, in my opinion. It should perhaps cycle between established and emerging nations, regardless of hemisphere. Although that may be the way it's done currently? So if it goes to England one time and then USA the next, I think that's fine.

The OP also mentions the 100 unions as part of the IRB. I'm sure 100% of these would be keen to host, but you have to ask yourself how many would actually be able to to? Is it at all feasible, for example, to host the World Cup in Samoa or Tonga? It would be nice but would it potentially bankrupt the whole country? And I don't mean that in a condescending way, but the costs of these things are often prohibitive. And for the IRB - if they're making a loss by letting a small/poor nation host then that's less money that can be invested in the global game, which is what they do with a lot of profits made from the WC. It's this showpiece event that generates money to be distributed to expand the game and improve the emerging nations. Unfortunately that does vastly reduce the suitable, willing and able hosts from 100 to perhaps a number early in the double figures - maybe up to 15 nations? It's then inevitable that we revisit some nations sooner rather than later, especially when we have complex political nations (E.g. UK and its 4 nations) well established in rugby who are able to band together to run an event. Sad but true.

I think the hemisphere thing is a part of international rugby tradition. This was reflected at the IRB Centennial celebrations 30 years ago when a fixture was staged between a SANZAR team and a 5 Nations selection. We have the Home Unions combining as the Lions for tours of the SANZAR nations, and then we have the Autumn tours when the SANZAR trio visit France and the Home Unions. & now Argentina and Italy have joined the fray. So the clash of the hemispheres has always been a popular point of discussion and debate, and very much a feature of our game. That's why it makes sense to alternate as much as possible. FIFA's big rivalry used to be between Europe and the Americas, so they alternated their World Cup between the two continents right up until the turn of the century.

I'm not sure what your point is with FIFA's 100-plus member nations not being able to host a RWC. I mentioned this detail in relation to the elitism of the established heirarchy, both on and off the field.

Notch wrote:If it happened today it would probably sell out. You can't compare 1991 to 2015 in terms of where rugby is in Ireland. For a start the capacity of the ground wasn't much larger than 9000 at that point. It's now a comfortable 18,500 and could be sold out for any given World Cup game. It's likely to be a minor venue only.

I would love to have seen World Cup games in Fiji. Certainly one of the have nots of World Rugby. In terms of Ireland, we may be the most neglected of the top level teams in terms of hosting games bar Argentina and Italy but we can acknowledge we're still way ahead of teams like Fiji and say they should get some opportunities.

Let's say we don't want to include anyone else in our cosy little club we'll limit it to the 10 teams in the major competitions. With 10 teams to get around and 4 years before tournaments that still makes it 2035 before South Africa are 'due' another shot at hosting.

Ireland aren't 'due' anything- no-one is- but we've never been the sole hosts, we haven't even been the main hosts. You have Ireland, Italy, Argentina and Scotland to get through before we start cycling back through the other nations again. If you want to write us all off you must hate the fact Japan is getting it!

Your first paragraph is fair comment. Times have changed. However, the modest size of the stadium can't really be held up as an excuse, because that obviously reflected how little interest there really is/was in the island's second biggest city.

Yes, I had dearly hoped NZ would at least allocate the 3rd place playoff to Fiji or something. Trouble was, Fiji was still under a miltary coup at the time and wasn't even able to send a full-strength team because of this. Real shame for the 2011 tournament that was.

How do you figure out SA aren't due another RWC until 2035? That's full 40 years after they hosted their last one. Australia (though only a junior partner in 87) only had to wait 16 years to host it again (solo), NZ and England (as senior host) waited 24 years, and France and the Celtic nations have already been involved on multiple occasions. You really can't compare SA with its 50 million population, approx. 360,000 registered players and vast array of rugby-purpose stadia to the likes of Ireland and Scotland, sorry. If those two geographically tiny nations have never been a senior host nation, there's probably a very good reason.

"Italy; 0 matches
Argentina; 0 matches
USA; 0 matches
Japan; 0 matches
Every other country in the World; 0 matches"

Japan will host in 2019, of course, while Italy is the only country on that list which has bid for 2023. Personally I'd be delighted to see Italy awarded the 2027 tournament and Argentina follow in 2031. The sport has a lot of work to do in the US before a RWC could be held there, particularly in terms of raising its profile. Pro Rugby kicks of there this year, of course, so maybe by the 2040s they'll be ready. & that's not so far away - the same distance in time from 2016 as the first two World Cups in 87 & 91 basically.

Quite simple. If we rotate it amongst the 10 top nations and each one hosts in every cycle, we get a cycle of 40 years.

You seem to be arguing against elitism and suggesting that the tournament should go to a big nation 'just because' which is nice when you get to decide what a big nation is. Just because the organisers have favoured the SH we should continue to do so? Surely if you were arguing against elitism you would be advocating for a trip to Italy. South Africa doesn't deserve special treatment. They get a LOT of big sporting events. It's barely been five years since the World Cup, there's the Cricket World Cup in 2003, they had the Rugby World Cup in 1995. It's very, very hard to feel sorry for them.

I dont think theres much to be gained by bringing FIFA intot the discussion, Their system seems to be to alternate between the country paying the biggest bribes and the country paying the second biggest bribes.

.

Notch wrote:Quite simple. If we rotate it amongst the 10 top nations and each one hosts in every cycle, we get a cycle of 40 years.

You seem to be arguing against elitism and suggesting that the tournament should go to a big nation 'just because'. Surely if you were arguing against elitism you would be advocating for a trip to Italy.

Elitism in terms of scheduling and the closed-shop nature of the Rugby Championship and 6 Nations, yes. When it comes to the RWC I believe World Rugby must base its decisions first and foremost on economic practicalities. The bigger the profits, the more funding for developing rugby nations, so ultimately that's in the interests of globalizing the sport anyway. Beyond that, continental rotation of the tournament needs to be adhered to as much as possible for the same reason. I've already mentioned I would support Italy wholeheartedly for 2027 - but not 2023 precisely because it would mean a 3rd straight tournament in the Northern Hemisphere, and a 5th in Western Europe. Meanwhile, Africa will have been forced to wait more than 30 years if it misses out on 2023. That would also make 4 rejected bids this century for the only nation on the central committee with a non-white majority. In addition to this, once again, Italy right after Japan might be a little reckless. If World Rugby went with the usual dates, that would place the tournament right in the midst of the Serie A.

Rowanbi wrote:

Griff wrote:A lot of the arguments in the OP and in other places I've read seem to be based on hemisphere. What's this hang up with hemispheres??? It's just a line around the planet. It's arbitrary. That should not be used as a reason to award or not award a World Cup, in my opinion. It should perhaps cycle between established and emerging nations, regardless of hemisphere. Although that may be the way it's done currently? So if it goes to England one time and then USA the next, I think that's fine.

The OP also mentions the 100 unions as part of the IRB. I'm sure 100% of these would be keen to host, but you have to ask yourself how many would actually be able to to? Is it at all feasible, for example, to host the World Cup in Samoa or Tonga? It would be nice but would it potentially bankrupt the whole country? And I don't mean that in a condescending way, but the costs of these things are often prohibitive. And for the IRB - if they're making a loss by letting a small/poor nation host then that's less money that can be invested in the global game, which is what they do with a lot of profits made from the WC. It's this showpiece event that generates money to be distributed to expand the game and improve the emerging nations. Unfortunately that does vastly reduce the suitable, willing and able hosts from 100 to perhaps a number early in the double figures - maybe up to 15 nations? It's then inevitable that we revisit some nations sooner rather than later, especially when we have complex political nations (E.g. UK and its 4 nations) well established in rugby who are able to band together to run an event. Sad but true.

I think the hemisphere thing is a part of international rugby tradition. This was reflected at the IRB Centennial celebrations 30 years ago when a fixture was staged between a SANZAR team and a 5 Nations selection.  We have the Home Unions combining as the Lions for tours of the SANZAR nations, and then we have the Autumn tours when the SANZAR trio visit France and the Home Unions. & now Argentina and Italy have joined the fray.  So the clash of the hemispheres has always been a popular point of discussion and debate, and very much a feature of our game. That's why it makes sense to alternate as much as possible. FIFA's big rivalry used to be between Europe and the Americas, so they alternated their World Cup between the two continents right up until the turn of the century.

I'm not sure what your point is with FIFA's 100-plus member nations not being able to host a RWC. I mentioned this detail in relation to the elitism of the established heirarchy, both on and off the field.

FIFA??? I was responding to you in your opening post. You said that "it is a bit ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions." I was merely pointing out that out of that 100 there are probably only 15 nations who could run a World Cup, and perhaps less who would actually want to. The reality is that a World Cup is likely to lose millions of £. England, I believe, was pretty rare recently with a profitable world cup. So we might look to the likes of Argentina and Italy for a world cup, and I'd love to see one staged there, but what is the appetite of the country to take a multi million pound hit? I'm not sure that there are many willing to do it. Certainly not many out of the 100 affiliated member nations you mention.

I'd also love to see one in SA, but after the football World Cup which promised so much to the people, promised prosperity and funding to the townships that never materialised, I wonder what the political response would be to another very costly tournament which deflects money out of the national public budget. Look at Rio and the riots there because of the cost of the football word cup and olympics. It's not always as easy as saying 'they haven't staged it, let's go there'.

If the tournament were to be awarded to SA then there definitely are "Social issues" that have to be taken into consideration.

My opinion is that 2010 was a successful tournament. Also, FIFA gave it a 9 out of 10, near-perfect, while analysts said this would help improve perceptions of Africa and help development throughout the continent as a whole. FIFA surveys suggested the tournament had "done wonders for South Africans' confidence and optimism. Author John Carlin, in 'Playing the Enemy,' rated it an even better tournament than the 1995 RWC, South African president Jacob Zuma described the event as "one of the greatest achievements of the post-apartheid era," and said the fans were the "true stars," uniting to show the world that the country and the continent were capable of hosting world class events. Nine major cities hosted the event in 10 superb stadiums which generally exceeded tournament requirements. Soccer City was subsequently named winner of 'Design and Construction' at the prestigious international Leaf Awards. Sepp Blatter described it as one of the most beautiful stadiums in the world. Durban's 'Surf City' was among the many hits with the touring fans. South Africa reaped major rewards from tourism during the event. Over a million visitors arrived during the first week of the tournament alone. The opening match set a record TV viewing audience for South Africa, while ratings were also particularly high in Europe, North and South America and China. Crime did not effect the tournament.

aucklandlaurie wrote:If the tournament were to be awarded to SA then there definitely are "Social issues" that have to be taken into consideration.

I'm very much in favour of expanding into Africa but Africa and South Africa are not synonymous- no more that Europe is with any of its individual nations. South Africa need to include Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia to really be able to make the case that this is about being inclusive otherwise it really comes off as being the big boys keeping it to themselves. The truth is there are 6 of the top 10 nations in Western Europe and South Africa don't deserve it purely in terms of not having had it before. Scotland, Ireland and Italy can all rightly claim they've had even less of a go at it. I do not want to see another South African World Cup but an African World Cup would be wonderful. We should be trying to move onto new frontiers not just rewarding the most powerful and influential nations.

But then, we're making decisions based on economic practicalities apparently- off you're doing that then ignoring Western Europe is strange. Japan and Ireland or Italy are being lumped in together now- hardly similar in terms of time zone, continent, audience etc. Japan is much close to Australia or New Zealand. In fact if we're to keep up rotating this tournament between teams from the Six Nations and teams from the SH competitions Japan is much closer to Super Rugby.

Rowanbi wrote:My opinion is that 2010 was a successful tournament. Also, FIFA gave it a 9 out of 10, near-perfect, while analysts said this would help improve perceptions of Africa and help development throughout the continent as a whole. FIFA surveys suggested the tournament had "done wonders for South Africans' confidence and optimism. Author John Carlin, in 'Playing the Enemy,' rated it an even better tournament than the 1995 RWC, South African president Jacob Zuma described the event as "one of the greatest achievements of the post-apartheid era," and said the fans were the "true stars," uniting to show the world that the country and the continent were capable of hosting world class events. Nine major cities hosted the event in 10 superb stadiums which generally exceeded tournament requirements. Soccer City was subsequently named winner of 'Design and Construction' at the prestigious international Leaf Awards. Sepp Blatter described it as one of the most beautiful stadiums in the world. Durban's 'Surf City' was among the many hits with the touring fans. South Africa reaped major rewards from tourism during the event. Over a million visitors arrived during the first week of the tournament alone. The opening match set a record  TV viewing audience for South Africa, while ratings were also particularly high in Europe, North and South America and China. Crime did not effect the tournament.

aucklandlaurie wrote:If the tournament were to be awarded to SA then there definitely are "Social issues" that have to be taken into consideration.

Now theres one capable of a discerning opinion.

Notch wrote:Here is the breakdown of games in terms of hosting;

New Zealand; 19 in 1987, 48 matches in 2011, 67 matches in total
France; 8 matches in 1991, 8 matches in 1999, 42 matches in 2007, 58 matches in total
Australia; 10 in 1987, 48 matches in 2003, 58 matches in total
England; 7 matches in 1991, 9 matches in 1999, 41 matches in 2015, 57 matches in total
South Africa; 32 matches in 1995, 32 matches in total
Wales; 7 matches in 1991, 9 matches in 1999, 4 matches in 2007, 7 matches in 2015,  27 matches in total
Scotland; 5 matches in 1991, 8 matches in 1999, 2 matches in 2007, 15 matches in total
Ireland; 5 matches in 1991, 7 matches in 1999, 12 matches in total

Italy; 0 matches
Argentina; 0 matches
USA; 0 matches
Japan; 0 matches
Every other country in the World; 0 matches

To be honest, those 8 nations who have hosted before? They have no automatic right to host again. They would all be decent commercial choices though.

To me, the RWC is commmonly located for business reasons: growth, exposure, cash, experience. The 2015 RWC was in England, and part of the mission was to made money which was not possible in NZ. Clearly, it would be a great Rugby experience if landed in SA. However, I think Italy would be a better choice. More money, more exposure, and growth for the game in Italy. Plus it would provide a unique experience.

"If the tournament were to be awarded to SA then there definitely are "Social issues" that have to be taken into consideration."

Can you elaborate on this comment?

Notch wrote:I'm very much in favour of expanding into Africa but Africa and South Africa are not synonymous- no more that Europe is with any of its individual nations. South Africa need to include Kenya, Zimbabwe and Namibia to really be able to make the case that this is about being inclusive otherwise it really comes off as being the big boys keeping it to themselves. The truth is there are 6 of the top 10 nations in Western Europe and South Africa don't deserve it purely in terms of not having had it before. Scotland, Ireland and Italy can all rightly claim they've had even less of a go at it. I do not want to see another South African World Cup but an African World Cup would be wonderful. We should be trying to move onto new frontiers not just rewarding the most powerful and influential nations.

But then, we're making decisions based on economic practicalities apparently- off you're doing that then ignoring Western Europe is strange. Japan and Ireland or Italy are being lumped in together now- hardly similar in terms of time zone, continent, audience etc. Japan is much close to Australia or New Zealand. In fact if we're to keep up rotating this tournament between teams from the Six Nations and teams from the SH competitions Japan is much closer to Super Rugby.

South Africa do a fair bit for these other African nations, if that's what you mean. Namibia are involved in their domestic competition, and Zimbabwe also plays in the annual Danie Craven schoolboys tournament. I believe Zimbabwe and Kenya have also participated in SA's senior provincial competition in the past, as did Ivory Coast in preparation for the 1995 RWC. South African provinces and 7s teams regularly play in neighboring African countries. & many of these nations actually have large player communities; they simply lack the funding and opportunities to be successful. A World Cup in Africa would have a ripple effect in Namibia and Zimbabwe, on through rugby-mad Madagascar and Zambia, and right up to 7s-mad Kenya and African Cup division 1 newcomer Uganda.

Comparing Ireland and Scotland to South Africa in rugby is like comparing them to Brazil in football. They are far smaller, both geographically and population-wise, their rugby playing communities are far smaller, they don't have a fraction as many rugby-purpose stadiums, and frankly speaking their weather sucks at the time of the year the RWC is generally held. According to the Irish meteorological service we could expect 10 and 9 degree temperatures in Dublin and Belfast respectively, 3 and 2 hours of sunshine, and a 60% and 74% chance of rain. In SA the average temperature in October is in the high teens, there's an average of 9 hours' sunshine and only a 2% chance of rain.

So you're saying it should only be in hot countries who can afford to run it?! Hardly opening the World Cup up to all!

Rowan there are any number of social issues that SARU would have to consider and manage, mostly there relationship with the South African Government, who are demanding racial quotas when it comes to team selection, are incapable at even maintaining an effective electricity grid and run a country where a convenient blind eye is turned to crime.

"But then, we're making decisions based on economic practicalities apparently- off you're doing that then ignoring Western Europe is strange. Japan and Ireland or Italy are being lumped in together now- hardly similar in terms of time zone, continent, audience etc. Japan is much close to Australia or New Zealand. In fact if we're to keep up rotating this tournament between teams from the Six Nations and teams from the SH competitions Japan is much closer to Super Rugby."

Japan is the antipodes of South Africa. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion Japan, Ireland and Italy were being lumped together. Japan and Italy are both developing nations, yes, and Ireland and Italy are both Western European nations, yes, but I don't believe I've attempted to lump the 3 of them together in any way. Similarly, SA and Australasia cannot be put in the same block in terms of potential RWC hosts, because NZ and SA are on the other side of the world from each other.

"So you're saying it should only be in hot countries who can afford to run it?! Hardly opening the World Cup up to all!"

Not really. I don't think a tropical country would make an ideal host nation for a Rugby World Cup any more than would countries in the far north of Europe, where it generally gets dark mid-afternoon at the time of the year the tournament is generally held. It won't be the defining factor, of course, but it is something World Rugby would be silly not to at least factor into the reckoning. It's not just about the players either. It's actually more about the travelling supporters.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowan there are any number of social issues that SARU would have to consider and manage, mostly there relationship with the South African Government, who are demanding racial quotas when it comes to team selection, are incapable at even maintaining an effective electricity grid and run a country where a convenient blind eye is turned to crime.

If these racial quotas come in they should be banned from every tournament across the world. This is racism!

You don't think painting it as 3 NH nations in a row is lumping us in together?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowan there are any number of social issues that SARU would have to consider and manage, mostly there relationship with the South African Government, who are demanding racial quotas when it comes to team selection, are incapable at even maintaining an effective electricity grid and run a country where a convenient blind eye is turned to crime.

The quotas are about affirmative action I'm not sure it's a whole lot different to the Maori team. To be honest, I have some reservations about both concepts, but we can see how universally popular the Maori team are, so obviously i's not a problem for the decision-makers in this context.

Corruption & crime: SA currently hosts a leg of the international 7s series, it hosts rugby tests regularly, and it also hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup without being effected by crime. This would be a bit like arguing against major events in the US because of the gun control problem, or in France because of the recent terrorist strikes.

Personally I would like to see Ireland or Argentina or Italy have a go at hosting the event, Im not sure if they have the stadia, but at least they have supported the tournament since its inception.

Notch wrote:You don't think painting it as 3 NH nations in a row is lumping us in together?

Oh, in that context fair enough I thought you meant something entirely different. But if you're referring to my comments about alternating the tournament between the hemispheres then there's an awful lot more countries lumped in together than that.

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowan there are any number of social issues that SARU would have to consider and manage, mostly there relationship with the South African Government, who are demanding racial quotas when it comes to team selection, are incapable at even maintaining an effective electricity grid and run a country where a convenient blind eye is turned to crime.

The quotas are about affirmative action I'm not sure it's a whole lot different to the Maori team. To be honest, I have some reservations about both concepts, but we can see how universally popular the Maori team are, so obviously i's not a problem for the decision-makers in this context.

Corruption & crime: SA currently hosts a leg of the international 7s series, it hosts rugby tests regularly, and it also hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup without being effected by crime. This would be a bit like arguing against major events in the US because of the gun control problem, or in France because of the recent terrorist strikes.

The Maori are completely different, they don't have full test status. I don't see how anyone could be in favour of their national team having racial quotas.

Regardless of my personal view on the quotas, I think that's a domestic issue South African rugby needs to sort out for itself. I certainly don't think it will effect their 2023 bid - and neither should it.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Rowan there are any number of social issues that SARU would have to consider and manage, mostly there relationship with the South African Government, who are demanding racial quotas when it comes to team selection, are incapable at even maintaining an effective electricity grid and run a country where a convenient blind eye is turned to crime.

The quotas are about affirmative action I'm not sure it's a whole lot different to the Maori team. To be honest, I have some reservations about both concepts, but we can see how universally popular the Maori team are, so obviously i's not a problem for the decision-makers in this context.

Corruption & crime: SA currently hosts a leg of the international 7s series, it hosts rugby tests regularly, and it also hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup without being effected by crime. This would be a bit like arguing against major events in the US because of the gun control problem, or in France because of the recent terrorist strikes.

The Maori are completely different, they don't have full test status. I don't see how anyone could be in favour of their national team having racial quotas.

Especially all the Samoans in Auckland.

Perhaps South Africa should host it in perpetuity, maybe it should be called the South African invitational or maybe we should accept that achieving the perfect world cup is impossible; rugby is not a big enough sport that every World Cup will be a huge economic and social success, for every world cup that takes the game to further communities or smaller (in Geographic and economic terms) countries we need to have one that goes to a country like England or France.

Also your theory about Japan being Northern Hemisphere does not really apply in Rugby terms, they compete in Super Rugby for a start. There are 10 established Rugby Nations of these Australia, New Zealand, England and South Africa have hosted World Cups on their own, if we rule out the first two in this argument as one was effectively Southern Hemisphere and the other Northern (obviously South Africa were excluded for political terms) then Wales and France have been main hosts leaving Scotland, Ireland, Italy and Argentina. Then you add in the fact that rugby is a far more global game than it was in 1987 and we have to expand beyond these 10 nations then it adds in countries like Japan.

"Not really. I don't think a tropical country would make an ideal host nation for a Rugby World Cup any more than would countries in the far north of Europe, where it generally gets dark mid-afternoon at the time of the year the tournament is generally held. It won't be the defining factor, of course, but it is something World Rugby would be silly not to at least factor into the reckoning. It's not just about the players either. It's actually more about the travelling supporters.[/quote]"

You were talking about Ireland though I think? It doesn't get dark in mid afternoon even in deepest winter there, let along October. Perhaps dark at 6pm in October? Plus they have lights in Ireland you know! Travelling fans will be just fine there.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Personally I would like to see Ireland or Argentina or Italy have a go at hosting the event, Im not sure if they have the stadia, but at least they have supported the tournament since its inception.

I'm all for Argentina and Italy too, only in 2031 & 2027 respectively. The former hasn't officially bid for the 2023 tournament, despite Agustin Pichot's pledge to bring the event to Argentina. I've already explained my views on Italy.

"Also your theory about Japan being Northern Hemisphere does not really apply in Rugby terms,"

It applies in any terms. Japan is the antipodes of South Africa. It's as far from NZ & Australia as Britain is from SA, as well. Super Rugby?? Totally irrelevant to a discussion about RWC hosts and continental rotation. Do I see some grasping at straws going on here?

In looking back at the last tournament, the weather actually had very little effect on the vast majority of games,and the playing surfaces in England and most definitely Millenium stadium have improved out of sight.

Maybe Argentina didn't bid because they can't afford it as a nation and/or union? Which goes back to the point that, while it would be great to have a World Cup in small emerging nations, in reality a lot of them are priced out of it. While it shouldn't be about the richest, the 'haves and the have nots', etc. who is going to foot the bill? The IRB? No chance!

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Personally I would like to see Ireland or Argentina or Italy have a go at hosting the event, Im not sure if they have the stadia, but at least they have supported the tournament since its inception.

I'm all for Argentina and Italy too, only in 2031 & 2027 respectively. The former hasn't officially bid for the 2023 tournament, despite Agustin Pichot's pledge to bring the event to Argentina. I've already explained my views on Italy.

"Also your theory about Japan being Northern Hemisphere does not really apply in Rugby terms,"

It applies in any terms. Japan is the antipodes of South Africa. It's as far from NZ & Australia as Britain is from SA, as well. Super Rugby?? Totally irrelevant to a discussion about RWC hosts and continental rotation. Do I see some grasping at straws going on here?

Just because someone raises a point that you had not raised, doesnt make it a clutched straw.

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Personally I would like to see Ireland or Argentina or Italy have a go at hosting the event, Im not sure if they have the stadia, but at least they have supported the tournament since its inception.

I'm all for Argentina and Italy too, only in 2031 & 2027 respectively. The former hasn't officially bid for the 2023 tournament, despite Agustin Pichot's pledge to bring the event to Argentina. I've already explained my views on Italy.

"Also your theory about Japan being Northern Hemisphere does not really apply in Rugby terms,"

It applies in any terms. Japan is the antipodes of South Africa. It's as far from NZ & Australia as Britain is from SA, as well. Super Rugby?? Totally irrelevant to a discussion about RWC hosts and continental rotation. Do I see some grasping at straws going on here?

Japan is diametrically opposed to SA?

aucklandlaurie wrote: In looking back at the last tournament, the weather actually had very little effect on the vast majority of games,and the playing surfaces in England and most definitely Millenium stadium have improved out of sight.

The weather in the south of the UK is entirely different to the weather in north. Compare 13 degrees, 5 hours of sunshine and 40% chance of rain in London during October, for example, to 9 degrees, 2 hours of sunshine and a 74% chance of rain in Belfast. If the entire tournament were held in Ireland and they had a Poopie Autumn, it would almost certainly be a horrible tournament. Could happen.

"Japan is diametrically opposed to SA?"

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: In looking back at the last tournament, the weather actually had very little effect on the vast majority of games,and the playing surfaces in England and most definitely Millenium stadium have improved out of sight.

The weather in the south of the UK is entirely different to the weather in north. Compare 13 degrees, 5 hours of sunshine and 40% chance of rain in London during October, for example, to 9 degrees, 2 hours of sunshine and a 74% chance of rain in Belfast. If the entire tournament were held in Ireland and they had a Poopie Autumn, it would almost certainly be a horrible tournament. Could happen.

"Japan is diametrically opposed to SA?"

So if Octber is a S H I t month in Ireland then why couldnt they just bring it forward a month and hold it in September?

Japan 36N 138E
South Africa 29s 24e

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: In looking back at the last tournament, the weather actually had very little effect on the vast majority of games,and the playing surfaces in England and most definitely Millenium stadium have improved out of sight.

The weather in the south of the UK is entirely different to the weather in north. Compare 13 degrees, 5 hours of sunshine and 40% chance of rain in London during October, for example, to 9 degrees, 2 hours of sunshine and a 74% chance of rain in Belfast. If the entire tournament were held in Ireland and they had a Poopie Autumn, it would almost certainly be a horrible tournament. Could happen.

"Japan is diametrically opposed to SA?"

Maybe in the North the weather isn't as good, but your saying the 'entire tournament held in Ireland' so I'm guessing you mean all of Ireland. South Ireland (e.g. Cork) is in line with Cardiff and London. Similar/same weather and light I would imagine.

Ireland doesn't have stadiums to host a world cup thanks to the GAA not being able to upgrade their stadiums (seriously where are the millions they are making going to?) plus it would mean Wales getting two QFs and a Semi I think? We don't want a repeat of what happened to France where we get through to a QF and have to play it in Wales.