2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

First topic message reminder :



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.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Hasnt mentioned Barnes or England !!!

Mentioning Barnes - even one of his fellow referees has said quite openly that Barnes is a naughty naughty boy!

The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

" Then if your going to talk about waiting times then it should be said that South Africa only waited five minutes to get the hosting rights for the 1995 tournament."


Like New Zealand & Australia in 87? This is purely grasping at straws now.

GunsGerms wrote:Japan is roughly on the same time zone as Australia and NZ so a WC there suits them much better than a WC in England or Ireland etc.

There are also obviously much more teams in the NH than the SH so alternating between the north and the south is a ridiculous idea.

Ireland co-hosted once in 1991 but in reality they only had pool games plus one quarter final. That is not the same as hosting the tournament at all. Not even close.

SA have hosted in 1995, Ireland have never hosted. Even if you count the co-hosting it was prior to when SA hosted. So by your logic it is Ireland's turn.

Why cant you compare Ireland to SA? Ireland regularly beat SA for a start (it was a hammering the last time they met), have a longer history of playing rugby, have both the oldest rugby stadium (Landsdowne) in the world and the oldest rugby pitch (Trinity college) in the world and is also home to World Rugby's headquarters. Ireland has better stadium, transport and hotel infrastructure than New Zealand and is a much safer country than SA.

Haha, I think you are underestimating the Irish bid a tad.

We've already gone over your first point. If you want to block Japan with NZ & Australia due to time zones, then you also need to block South Africa with France & Britain.

You're right, most of the tier 1 & 2 teams are in the NH. How many are currently ready to host a World Cup is another matter. But I agree the hemisphere rotation can't go on forever. Nonetheless we're here in the 2010s when it does still seem fairly appropriate. South Africa should at least get its second helpings before they move away from allowing previous hosts to stage it again. It is actually the only member of the IRB's core committee not to have been involved in hosting it more than once (as senior host or a junior partner), it is the only former winner not to have been involved in hosting more than once, it has bid four times so far this century, it is the antipodes of 2019 host Japan, it has arguably the best rugby-purpose stadia plus a whole bunch of recently upgraded & new football stadiums, and it is a rugby heartland, whereas no one can be certain how the tournament is going to be received in Japan (let alone Italy, if they get it).

I believe Ireland has so far hosted 12 World Cup games, including 3 playoffs. Some of the crowds were pitiful - as low as 3000 at one match. There is, of course, a reason that Ireland (like Scotland) have only been co-hosts in the past. They're simply not big enough countries - with big enough rugby-purpose stadia - to make a spectacular success of hosting it on their own. & that's quite aside from the typical weather conditions at the time of year RWC is usually staged.

Comparing Ireland's onfield performances to South Africa now? Ireland have won just 5 times from 22 encounters - and on each occasion at home. Of course if you play someone often enough you'll eventually beat them, especially on your home ground. Well, normally you will, but Ireland have NEVER actually managed to beat NZ, of course. Neither have they ever won a playoff game at the World Cup nor made the semi-finals. You also have a funny idea of a hammering. As for having a longer history of playing rugby, well India and Germany should certainly be up soon, since India was the first country outside of Europe where the game was played, and Germany was the first country outside of the British Isles. Brilliant logic this! & about Ireland being home to World Rugby HQ, that would put Switzerland at the front of the line to host a FIFA World Cup Next you start comparing Ireland to NZ, when we are talking about Ireland and SA ?? The final point is the only one that remotely makes sense. SA does have a major crime problem. But they hosted the 95 RWC without problems, they hosted the 2010 FIFA World Cup without problems, and they host a leg of the World 7s Series without problems, so it's very clear they know how to deal with this issue.

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn''t really matter though. Italy is the stand out if we want to broaden to newer untapped areas, Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries. No argument really.

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn't matter how many stadiums you have if no one wants to go there. Ireland is guaranteed bigger crowds due to its proximity to a greater number of rugby playing nations. Europe is a much bigger market than South Africa.

Don't think Italy would have any problems filling their stadia TBH: they're big on their sport, generally make decent numbers for the 6N, and you would have plenty of British/Irish who'd enjoy the chance to combine a nice holiday with some rugby.

Pretty sure Italy and Ireland could get away with charging more for tickets than SA too, which would be attractive to the IRB from a revenue point. Ireland of course would be great for hosting the WC, just for the atmosphere IMO.

Equally I'm not fussed about supposed security issues for SA. They hosted the football WC in 2010 and there were no issues then, and the cricket WC not that long before (2003) again with no issues (though there were problems with the matches scheduled for Zimbabwe).

Would really have no qualms with any of the three getting it, they'd all bring in different strengths. If pushed I'd go with Italy, simply for purposes of growing the game there...

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn't matter how many stadiums you have if no one wants to go there. Ireland is guaranteed bigger crowds due to its proximity to a greater number of rugby playing nations. Europe is a much bigger market than South Africa.

While I can understand a crime argument... you can't really be arguing that no one would want to go to South Africa for a world cup? Did any of the world cups we've hosted look particularly empty to you for you to come to this conclusion?

I didn't say no one would want to go I said if. The reason I said that is because SA isn't particularly close to any large major rugby playing nation so part of their job would be to draw crowds from overseas. It would be pointless to stage a world cup if only South Africans show up.

The 1995 WC didn't have that impressive attendance figures. Of all the QF, SF and Final games only 2 games the SA games have over 50k attendances.

GunsGerms wrote:I didn't say no one would want to go I said if. The reason I said that is because SA isn't particularly close to any large major rugby playing nation so part of their job would be to draw crowds from overseas. It would be pointless to stage a world cup if only South Africans show up.

The 1995 WC didn't have that impressive attendance figures. Of all the QF, SF and Final games only 2 games the SA games have over 50k attendances.

different time then. In 1991 only the home nations pulled more than 50k, with the exception of the semi final.

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

There are only so many stadia required in the first place. And, you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a day in Ireland which is an advantage as well as cheap and easy access to UK & France.

What is important though is the state of the economy. They could charge twice the price of tickets in Ireland as in SA and still fill all the stadia. As well as that, you have thousands of expats from NZ, SA & Australia all living in the UK who can fly in and out for individual games (one of the biggest cheap fare airlines in the world is an Irish airline who would be only too happy to facilitate easy access to Ireland from anywhere).

And the crime rate is just shocking in SA and it certainly isn't decreasing. Cape Town is the r*** and sexual assault capital of the world, while car jackings have increased by 12% in the last 2 years, so its not going away.

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn't matter how many stadiums you have if no one wants to go there. Ireland is guaranteed bigger crowds due to its proximity to a greater number of rugby playing nations. Europe is a much bigger market than South Africa.

I don't think there's any basis for suggesting no one wants to go to South Africa. & besides, they have a big enough population on their own - 50 million. Ireland, as you point out, would be reliant on its neighboring countries. You're arguments would also work against NZ (especially), Australia and basically every other non-European country in rugby terms. They're all pretty much isolated. But 1995 & 2010 showed us that SA can host successful World Cup tournaments, both they and Ireland would have little difficulty filling their stadiums, and so then it just comes down to how many stadiums you can fill. Having Europe on your back doorstep is fine and dandy, but if you've only got a few stadiums to fit them into there's going to be a lot of disappointment. Meanwhile, South Africa's neighbors are generally into rugby as well. Nambia is a World Cup regular and Zimbabwe played at the event twice, while Madagascar, Zambia and little Swaziland all have relatively big player communities. & then there's Kenya and Uganda a little further north, as I've already mentioned.

"Doesn''t really matter though. Italy is the stand out if we want to broaden to newer untapped areas, Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries. No argument really."

No, you don't have an argument. Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries? I've read the reverse in the British press, which suggests SA are favorites and Ireland may already have done a deal with them to secure 2027. Italy has the least qualifications, and I doubt they'll get it straight after Japan. But I'm 100% for them getting the 2027 tournament.

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?

If Japan aligns itself with South Africa in Super Rugby terms it clearly sees it's future as being with SANZAR, i.e there's more chance of Japan eventually joining the Rugby Championship than the six nations. Continental rotation simply does not apply in Rugby as unfortunately the game seems to be restricted to Northern Europe and their former colonies, predominantly ones with large populations of white people and therefore it makes little sense to move the world cup around Continents in the way that football does rather surely it makes sense to move the world cup fairly around existing and emerging rugby nations, for example Japan is the perfect place as it already has a large rugby following (surely increased following the South Africa game) and is easily accessible for the potentially huge South East Asian market. Hosting it in Britain and Ireland means the game will, hopefully, expand from its current upper and middle class niche.
I don't disagree that South Africa would be a good place to host it, but rather your notion that it is the only place or even more that the world cup is somehow owed to South Africa, anyone who has seen a game in South Africa, even just on TV, will know that, like any country with a passionate sporting fanbase, it could host a brilliant world cup; and from a social perspective could be wonderful furthermore geographically there are many arguments it is the only country in Africa that could realistically host the world cup and Africa is a relatively untapped continent in terms or rugby. However in South Africa there is also the issue of corrupt governance (which I admit is by no means unique to South Africa) but there are few things in the world I'd want to see less than the rugby world cup being trumpeted as a success for Jacob Zuma and for the image of Nelson Mandela and Francois Piennar being sullied by Jacob Zuma getting his mits on the trophy presentation. I appreciate this may be a controversial point of view and the argument that sport and politics should remain distinct the vast majority of the time and I really wish that Rugby could and eventually should be used positively in South Africa and Africa as a whole it is hard to view this as a possibility whilst the current regime exists.

Rowanbi, SA might have 10 times as many stadiums as Ireland but as Sin says there's only a need for a certain number of stadiums - and you don't need 40 stadiums.

For what it's worth this is a Wiki list of the stadiums in Ireland and their current capacity that have been mooted for our RWC bid. The ones with a * are Gaelic football stadiums which (with the exception of Croke Park) would need an upgrade to be fit for purpose. This has already started with the demolition of the GAA stadium in Cork and its planned rebuild. We're not talking about total rebuild of the other GAA stadiums, more installation of proper stands and infrastructure, so if Ireland was awarded the RWC I don't think stadiums are going to be an issue.

Croke Park (Dublin) * - 82,300 - 4th biggest in Europe
Thurles * (Tipperary) - 53,000
Aviva (Dublin) - 52,000
Limerick * - 49,500
Cork * - 44,000
Killarney * - 43,000
Galway * - 33,000
Thomond Park (Limerick) - 26,000
RDS (Dublin) - 25,000 (after planned expansion)
Kingspan (Belfast) - 18,000

Those capacity figures might change after stadiums are redeveloped, but there is a good mix of big stadiums for the major teams and mid-sized to smaller stadiums that could cope easily with the smaller teams (the sort of games that went to Exeter and Brighton) in the England RWC.

Add in proximity to the huge market in the UK and France - English, Welsh, Scots and French fans as well as the tens of thousand of Aus, NZ and SA expats in the UK, excellent cheap air and ferry links, an excellent motorway system, extensive bus and rail network in an island that is no more than 300 miles from north to south and 200 miles from west to east, excellent telecoms etc. Support from the two governments, the likelihood of substantial sponsorship from Irish corporates, an existing tourism structure and it's a good mix.

OK, we can't guarantee the rock hard pitches you have in the high veldt and weather in October can be a bit iffy, but I don't recollect bad weather impacting too much last October in England. Anywhere, rugby is a game supposed to be played in all weathers!

There's no doubt that SA would put on a great world cup, but there are issues to be addressed. While the Irish economy was broke it has now recovered and bar screw-ups by whoever is government in the Republic after next month's election it looks as if Ireland's economy will continue to grow in the years ahead. The SA economy is currently a bit of a basket case and isn't going to get much better as long as Zuma and his cronies are running the show.

And then there is the crime issue. Certainly there are parts of Irish cities I wouldn't go near and tourists should avoid and there is an anti-social element as in all countries, but in general violent crime in Ireland - based on murder/r***/assault stats - is a fraction of the level it seems to be in SA. Yes, the soccer world cup in SA was a success but I know a lot of people who went to that tournament and most said they felt uneasy a lot of the time.

As for Italy, I can't see how a RWC in October can work, given that most of the grounds that would be used are Serie A soccer grounds, and I can't see Serie A suspending their league to accomodate a RWC bid.

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

There are only so many stadia required in the first place. And, you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a day in Ireland which is an advantage as well as cheap and easy access to UK & France.

What is important though is the state of the economy. They could charge twice the price of tickets in Ireland as in SA and still fill all the stadia. As well as that, you have thousands of expats from NZ, SA & Australia all living in the UK who can fly in and out for individual games (one of the biggest cheap fare airlines in the world is an Irish airline who would be only too happy to facilitate easy access to Ireland from anywhere).

And the crime rate is just shocking in SA and it certainly isn't decreasing. Cape Town is the r*** and sexual assault capital of the world, while car jackings have increased by 12% in the last 2 years, so its not going away.

Yes, you'd need about a dozen stadiums for a modern World Cup. If the tournament is expanded, as World Rugby has suggested it may be, then you'd need a couple more. Aviva Stadium aside, Ireland would have to go to its Gaelic football and hurling stadiums, with a fair bit of work required to get them in order for such an event. By the time you got past the 6th or 7th stadiums, you'd be down to 20 & 25,000 capacities and less. In South Africa you have enough rugby-purpose stadia on their own with at least a dozen stadiums with between 40 & 60-plus thousand, and then you can add to that about the same number of football stadiums, including the 100,000 capacity Soccer City, one of the finest football stadiums in the world.

"And, you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a day in Ireland which is an advantage" The fans would be climbing all over each other. There are only 2 major cities on the Ireland. & what would the fans do, especially if it rained? Sit in the pub all day?

The crime rate again Once again, crime wasn't a problem at the 1995 RWC, it wasn't a problem at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, it's not a problem at the South African leg of the World 7s Series. They know how to deal with it. Besides, the US has a gun control problem and France has been hit by two major terrorist attacks recently. So I'm just wondering why it is that people are so paranoid about the security issues in an African nation...

[quote="Rowanbi"]

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn't matter how many stadiums you have if no one wants to go there. Ireland is guaranteed bigger crowds due to its proximity to a greater number of rugby playing nations. Europe is a much bigger market than South Africa.

I don't think there's any basis for suggesting no one wants to go to South Africa. & besides, they have a big enough population on their own - 50 million.

People will go because they think it will be ok if staged it, but the IRB will not want to stage a tournament in a country that has a very poor crime rate. It would be irresponsible of them.

Ireland, as you point out, would be reliant on its neighboring countries. You're arguments would also work against NZ (especially), Australia and basically every other non-European country in rugby terms. They're all pretty much isolated. But 1995 & 2010 showed us that SA can host successful World Cup tournaments, both they and Ireland would have little difficulty filling their stadiums, and so then it just comes down to how many stadiums you can fill. Having Europe on your back doorstep is fine and dandy, but if you've only got a few stadiums to fit them into there's going to be a lot of disappointment. Meanwhile, South Africa's neighbors are generally into rugby as well. Nambia is a World Cup regular and Zimbabwe played at the event twice, while Madagascar, Zambia and little Swaziland all have relatively big player communities. & then there's Kenya and Uganda a little further north, as I've already mentioned.

I didn't make the point that Ireland would be reliant on other countries. My point is that its easy access for people to attend from all over the world so that it won't be just depending on Irish people to attend games. You talk about there being 50m people in South Africa - about 90% of those couldn't afford to go to any games. The white population of SA is 4.5m - less than the population of the island of Ireland.

Is soccer city included in SA's bid? Anyone know? If not the next biggest stadium is approx. 60k in capacity. Small for a final.

Also I wonder will the current investigations under going regarding corruption surrounding SA's 2010 football world cup harm their chances and if not will World Rugby really allow a country so fond of vuvuzelas to host such a big tournament?

Rowanbi wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn't matter how many stadiums you have if no one wants to go there. Ireland is guaranteed bigger crowds due to its proximity to a greater number of rugby playing nations. Europe is a much bigger market than South Africa.

I don't think there's any basis for suggesting no one wants to go to South Africa. & besides, they have a big enough population on their own - 50 million. Ireland, as you point out, would be reliant on its neighboring countries. You're arguments would also work against NZ (especially), Australia and basically every other non-European country in rugby terms. They're all pretty much isolated. But 1995 & 2010 showed us that SA can host successful World Cup tournaments, both they and Ireland would have little difficulty filling their stadiums, and so then it just comes down to how many stadiums you can fill. Having Europe on your back doorstep is fine and dandy, but if you've only got a few stadiums to fit them into there's going to be a lot of disappointment. Meanwhile, South Africa's neighbors are generally into rugby as well. Nambia is a World Cup regular and Zimbabwe played at the event twice, while Madagascar, Zambia and little Swaziland all have relatively big player communities. & then there's Kenya and Uganda a little further north, as I've already mentioned.

"Doesn''t really matter though. Italy is the stand out if we want to broaden to newer untapped areas, Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries. No argument really."

No, you don't have an argument. Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries? I've read the reverse in the British press, which suggests SA are favorites and Ireland may already have done a deal with them to secure 2027. Italy has the least qualifications, and I doubt they'll get it straight after Japan. But I'm 100% for them getting the 2027 tournament.

Quentin/anti Rowan - are you really going to try and have this discussion all over again on yet another forum?  Where you ignore factual information/alternative viewpoints from others, and just endlessly repeat your opinion that South Africa should get 2023.

You've done the weather bit - saying Ireland is dreary and wet in October.
You've done the stadiums bit with only two cities and old creaking stadiums everywhere, despite being provided with information to the contrary both here and on other fora.
You've been given tourism visitor figures that show Ireland and SA have similar tourism numbers despite their huge difference in physical landmass.
And you've done your schtick about Ireland really being part of the UK, or a small corner of Europe, etc etc, and it should really go to another continent, surprise, surprise, South Africa.

Rowanbi

Cast your mind back to the RWC in NZ in 2011. The four biggest stadiums were Eden Park Auckland (60,000), Wellington (40,000), Hamilton (36,000) and Dunedin (30,000). After that, you're down to a clutch of stadiums ranging from 25,000 in Rotorua down to 15,000 in New Plymouth. Don't recollect NZ's apparently modest stadium capacity resulting in a disasterous RWC. So that's the stadium argument put to bed.

As to the comment as to what the fans would do it it rains. I could be very thin-skinned and take umbrage at that sort of patronising comment but then I ask myself why do millions come to Ireland every year on their holidays. Sure lots of them come for our pubs but believe it or not we have a lot of other things that attract visitors (up 8% last year) - we even have some beatuiful scenery in Ireland (amazing isn't it), we've got a music and arts scene that is thriving. We've got great food and of course we have great drink. You should come and take a look

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

There are only so many stadia required in the first place. And, you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a day in Ireland which is an advantage as well as cheap and easy access to UK & France.

What is important though is the state of the economy. They could charge twice the price of tickets in Ireland as in SA and still fill all the stadia. As well as that, you have thousands of expats from NZ, SA & Australia all living in the UK who can fly in and out for individual games (one of the biggest cheap fare airlines in the world is an Irish airline who would be only too happy to facilitate easy access to Ireland from anywhere).

And the crime rate is just shocking in SA and it certainly isn't decreasing. Cape Town is the r*** and sexual assault capital of the world, while car jackings have increased by 12% in the last 2 years, so its not going away.

Yes, you'd need about a dozen stadiums for a modern World Cup. If the tournament is expanded, as World Rugby has suggested it may be, then you'd need a couple more. Aviva Stadium aside, Ireland would have to go to its Gaelic football and hurling stadiums, with a fair bit of work required to get them in order for such an event. By the time you got past the 6th or 7th stadiums, you'd be down to 20 & 25,000 capacities and less. In South Africa you have enough rugby-purpose stadia on their own with at least a dozen stadiums with between 40 & 60-plus thousand, and then you can add to that about the same number of football stadiums, including the 100,000 capacity Soccer City, one of the finest football stadiums in the world.

Agreement has been reached with the GAA for the use of their stadia. No different to the RFU using Football stadia.
Cork stadia is being redeveloped at the moment (with or without a world cup)
The only other redevelopment required is better media facilities in the stadium in Thurles.
Belfast is building a new stadium
RDS is being redeveloped with or without a world cup.

"And, you can drive from one end of the country to the other in a day in Ireland which is an advantage"   The fans would be climbing all over each other. There are only 2 major cities on the Ireland. & what would the fans do, especially if it rained? Sit in the pub all day?

Ireland gets about 6 million* visitors here every year, they all seem to enjoy themselves. Plenty of challenging golf courses, though I'd imagine what would happen is that very few would stay for 3 or 4 weeks, and would be far more likely to fly in and out.

The crime rate again Once again, crime wasn't a problem at the 1995 RWC, it wasn't a problem at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, it's not a problem at the South African leg of the World 7s Series. They know how to deal with it. Besides, the US has a gun control problem and France has been hit by two major terrorist attacks recently. So I'm just wondering why it is that people are so paranoid about the security issues in an African nation...

12,000 car jackings two years ago in SA with tourists being prime targets. And the crime is getting worse. The situation 25 years ago doesn't really matter now.

edit: 8.5 million visitors last year.

Some of the "creaking" "138 year old" stadia to be used:

Croke Park 83,000 - has been used before for two Six Nations Championships - opened in 1884. Complete redevelopment completed in 2005.
Lansdowne Road 53,000 - used for both rugby and soccer internationals (built 2010)
Casement Park 32,000 - due to be upgraded to 40,000 as part of a current £138m stadium redevelopment programme in NI (completed 2017/18)
Windsor Park 20,000 - upgraded in 2015
Ravenhill - 18,000 upgrade in 2015
Pairc Ui Chaoimh - 53,000 upgrade ongoing - 2017
RDS, Dublin - 18,000 current - €20m upgrade starting in 2016 to 25,000
Thomond Park 25,000 - complete redevelopment finished in 2008
Pearse Stadium - Galway - 26,000
McHale Park, Castlebar - 49,000 completely redeveloped in 2011
Gaelic Grounds, Limerick - 49,500
Fitzgerald Stadium, Killarney - 43,000
Simple Stadium, Thurles, 53,000 - upgrade completed in 2009.

An estimate has been put together upgrade the relevant stadia to include any additional seating required, media facilities, etc. All of the stadia are used regularly each year so no white elephants.

During the summer months, the GAA regularly gets in 1.5 million people attending games across various stadia each year. Last year in Dublin with the RWC warm up games and the top GAA matches, there were approx 850,000 attendances over 10 weeks. Regular occurrence.

Some stats for Northern Ireland in 2014 - source (Tourism Statistics Branch, NISRA) - Northern Ireland is approximately one-sixth of the island of Ireland in size.

in 2014 overnight trips by all visitors (domestic and external) stood at 4.5 million, up 11% on 2013.
in 2014 external (outside NI) overnight trips increased by 4% to 2.2m.
over 15 million visits were made to local visitor attractions in 2014, a 3% increase on 2013. The top attractions of Giant’s Causeway (0.788 million visits) and Titanic Belfast (0.634 million visits) both experienced 5% increases;
hotel room occupancy stood at 65% up from 64% in 2013. In total 1.85 million hotel room nights were sold in 2014;
last year, 69 cruise ships docked with up to 121,000 passengers/crew on board. The number of cruise ships docking here has doubled over the last three years

2.2m foreign visitors in Northern Ireland. 7.7m in the Republic of Ireland (Tourism Ireland report) - projected to be 12.3m in 2024 by World Travel & Tourism Council
Total foreign visitors to South Africa in 2014 - 9.6m (Tourism Dept of SA) - projected to be 13.4m in 2024 (WTTC estimate)

No room for a 20 (or 24) team tournament? Ireland too small?


In 2003, Ireland was awarded the hosting of the Special Olympics - the first time it was held outside of the USA.

7,000 athletes with their families from 130 different countries across 15 different sporting disciplines. Plus their fans.

177 towns and cities put together a Host Nation programme for each of the participating country teams and made them their own in each location right across the island.

The country has hosted Ryder Cups (40,000 visitors a day), the Solheim women's cup, Giro d'Italia stages, etc, etc. The numbers expected for a RWC in Ireland would be around 400,000 - that'll be about 3% of projected total annual visitors in 2023.

South Africa has bigger population, more passionate fans

Let's look at South Africa's record of passion/attendance at RWC matches, where they are only one of 20 teams participating. And RWC 1995 is the only yardstick for that.

Oddly, despite the passion Rowan observed on his TV - since he's never actually been to South Africa - according to data provided on the RWC Wikipedia page, the 1995 tournament was the second least successful in filling stadia - 77% of available capacity. In a minor contrast, the ones that Ireland were involved with "hosting" marginally were 79% and 83%. The most recent one in England achieved a staggering 95% of capacity, apparently.

In addition, re his earlier criticism about low attendances at 2 matches (3,000 & 9,500) held in Ireland in two different world cups, it's notable that the 3,000 attendance was for a match played the day before Ireland met Australia in the same ground in 1999, Lansdowne Road, and that 9,500 in Ravenhill for a match between Japan and Zimbabwe was when Ravenhill was 12,300 capacity in 1991.

In contrast, in South Africa at RWC 1995,
Can v Rom (8,000),
Aus v Can (16,000),
Aus v Rom (15,000),
Italy v Western Sam (7,800),
W Sam v Arg (7,900),
Arg v Italy (7,500),
Japan v Wal (15,000),
Irl v Jap (15,000),
Far v Ivory Coast (10,000)

were a feature of the pool stages with some of the stadia used (e.g. Boet Erasmus) only filled to 25% capacit. Remarkably, a quarter-final between France and Ireland only had 20,000 attending in a 52,00 seater. Even more remarkably, some of south Africa's own games did not get full houses either e.g. SA v France.

SA however, has not just had problems of under-filled stadia at sports matches, of more concern is where overcrowding has been allowed to happen. You also need to consider the 2001 stampede at a match at Ellis Park that killed 43 people due to overcrowding as a result of security guards being bribed and allowing ticketless people into the ground. It tragically mirrored a similar overcrowding disaster in 1991 at a nearby stadium in which 41 people were crushed to death.

Re RWC1995 and its undeniable component of passion, though not necessarily matched in attendances, presumably Quentin/Rowan acknowledges the context and history behind that tournament - re apartheid and Mandela's ascendancy. Given his background in sports writing, what's his view on whether the same circumstances would apply in 2023, or would the increasingly strident SA government manage to alienate the largely white fanbase with their transition programmes?

Qatar equates to a small fraction of Ireland's territory. If they can host the FIFA World Cup, I'm sure Ireland would have no trouble coping with the comparatively low influx of supporters and tourists a RWC draws.

Knowsit17 wrote:Qatar equates to a small fraction of Ireland's territory. If they can host the FIFA World Cup, I'm sure Ireland would have no trouble coping with the comparatively low influx of supporters and tourists a RWC draws.

And it's not chilly or wet in Qatar either.....

Rowanbi wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:The big problem I would have with SA is the crime rate which would put people off travelling to SA.

Other issue as well is would they be able to say get 89,000 to a game between Ireland and Romania in South Africa? (which was the attendance in 2015 rugby world cup in Wembley)?

As for any doubts about the attendances in Ireland - there is a row going on at the moment about the date for the general election. Some want it on the Thursday and some the Friday at the end of February - the reason they want it on a Thursday is so that people will be able to go to/watch the England v Ireland rugby match on the Saturday. (others want it on the Friday so young people/students could go home from college for the weekend on the Friday and also vote).

Probably only country in the world is New Zealand that this would happen.

I have no doubt both SA and Ireland would fill their stadia for a RWC. Italy - not so sure, especially in the middle of the Serie A. But which country, SA or Ireland, is the greater number of stadia to fill? That's SA hands down. It's got 10 times the population of Ireland, 10 times as many cities, and 10 times as many stadiums.

Doesn't matter how many stadiums you have if no one wants to go there. Ireland is guaranteed bigger crowds due to its proximity to a greater number of rugby playing nations. Europe is a much bigger market than South Africa.

I don't think there's any basis for suggesting no one wants to go to South Africa. & besides, they have a big enough population on their own - 50 million. Ireland, as you point out, would be reliant on its neighboring countries. You're arguments would also work against NZ (especially), Australia and basically every other non-European country in rugby terms. They're all pretty much isolated. But 1995 & 2010 showed us that SA can host successful World Cup tournaments, both they and Ireland would have little difficulty filling their stadiums, and so then it just comes down to how many stadiums you can fill. Having Europe on your back doorstep is fine and dandy, but if you've only got a few stadiums to fit them into there's going to be a lot of disappointment. Meanwhile, South Africa's neighbors are generally into rugby as well. Nambia is a World Cup regular and Zimbabwe played at the event twice, while Madagascar, Zambia and little Swaziland all have relatively big player communities. & then there's Kenya and Uganda a little further north, as I've already mentioned.

"Doesn''t really matter though. Italy is the stand out if we want to broaden to newer untapped areas, Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries. No argument really."

No, you don't have an argument. Ireland is the clear choice for the established countries? I've read the reverse in the British press, which suggests SA are favorites and Ireland may already have done a deal with them to secure 2027. Italy has the least qualifications, and I doubt they'll get it straight after Japan. But I'm 100% for them getting the 2027 tournament.

I agree theres no argument. They should choose Italy have Ireland as a back up and if they can't host who knows. Maybe invite England or NZ to host as an emergency solution.

Has to be italy

They have the stadia

They have a passionate rugby heritage

They haven't had RWC

And then it should be Argentina and the USA before any of the big nations get it back again.

I can't believe people are questioning whether Ireland could sell out their stadiums. This is a country that invaded Poland for Euro 2012 and have already made 375,000 applications for France 2016 tickets. Not to mention we take over Vegas for a week every time McGregor fights.

We are sport mad and love nothing more than jumping on a band wagon. Each stadium could be sold out twice over if we get the WC.

I can't believe people are questioning whether Ireland could sell out their stadiums. This is a country that invaded Poland for Euro 2012 and have already made 375,000 applications for France 2016 tickets. Not to mention we take over Vegas for a week every time McGregor fights.



I've already stated a couple of times my confidence in both SA and Ireland being able to fill out their stadiums, so the question just comes down to who has the most stadiums to fill. That's a no-contest, obviously.

Rugby as unfortunately the game seems to be restricted to Northern Europe and their former colonies, predominantly ones with large populations of white people

Exactly. South Africa is the only member of the central committee with a non-white majority. All the more reason to send it back to the African continent after a 3 decades' absence.

However in South Africa there is also the issue of corrupt governance (which I admit is by no means unique to South Africa) but there are few things in the world I'd want to see less than the rugby world cup being trumpeted as a success for Jacob Zuma and for the image of Nelson Mandela and Francois Piennar being sullied by Jacob Zuma getting his mits on the trophy presentation.

Corrupt governance, I agree, and, no, this is not unique to South Africa. I personally have a few grievances about England hosting it last year given Cameron's warmongering foreign policy, contributing to the current refugee crisis. As for Zuma getting his mits on it, Saffas certainly didn't seemed to mind too much in 2007 . . .

Croke Park (Dublin) * - 82,300 - 4th biggest in Europe
Thurles * (Tipperary) - 53,000
Aviva (Dublin) - 52,000
Limerick * - 49,500
Cork * - 44,000
Killarney * - 43,000
Galway * - 33,000
Thomond Park (Limerick) - 26,000
RDS (Dublin) - 25,000 (after planned expansion)
Kingspan (Belfast) - 18,000

Ok, let's compare the above . . . with the following (posted earlier):

1 Soccer City 94,736 Johannesburg Gauteng South Africa national football team, Kaizer Chiefs 2 Ellis Park Stadium 62,567 Johannesburg Gauteng Lions, Golden Lions 3 Odi Stadium 60,000 Mabopane Gauteng Garankuwa United (4 Phakisa Freeway 60,000 Welkom Free State Motor Racing) 5 Mmabatho Stadium 59,000 Mahikeng North West training ground for North-West University 6 Cape Town Stadium 55,000 Cape Town Western Cape Ajax Cape Town 7 Moses Mabhida Stadium 54,000 Durban KwaZulu-Natal Amazulu 8 Kings Park Stadium 52,000 Durban KwaZulu-Natal Sharks, Natal Sharks 9 Loftus Versfeld Stadium 51,762 Pretoria Gauteng Bulls, Blue Bulls 10 Newlands Stadium 51,100 Cape Town Western Cape South Africa national rugby union team, Stormers, Western Province 11 Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium 48,459 Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape Southern Kings, Eastern Province Kings 12 Royal Bafokeng Stadium 42,000 Rustenburg North West Platinum Stars 13 Peter Mokaba Stadium 41,733 Polokwane Limpopo Polokwane City 14 Mbombela Stadium 40,929 Nelspruit Mpumalanga Pumas, Mpumalanga Black Aces 15 Free State Stadium 40,911 Bloemfontein Free State Bloemfontein Celtic F.C., Central Cheetahs, Free State Cheetahs 16 Orlando Stadium 40,000 Soweto Gauteng Orlando Pirates F.C. 17 Johannesburg Stadium 37,500 Johannesburg Gauteng training ground for Lions and Golden Lions 18 Charles Mopeli Stadium 35,000 Phuthaditjhaba Free State Maluti FET College F.C. 19 Wanderers Stadium 34,000 Johannesburg Gauteng Proteas, Highveld Lions cricket team, Gauteng cricket team 20 EPRU Stadium 33,852 Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape no current tenant 21 Athlone Stadium 30,000 Cape Town Western Cape Santos Rand Stadium 30,000 Johannesburg Gauteng training ground for Orlando Pirates Olympia Park 30,000 Rustenburg North West no current tenant

s soccer city included in SA's bid? Anyone know? If not the next biggest stadium is approx. 60k in capacity. Small for a final.

I doubt that's been confirmed yet. But Ellis Park is certainly big enough for a RWC final. It's bigger than Eden Park, which has hosted two. I can't see how anybody could possibly try and use stadia capacity as an argument against SA when they have arguably the best - and light years ahead of Ireland (as demonstrated above).

Also I wonder will the current investigations under going regarding corruption surrounding SA's 2010 football world cup harm their chances and if not will World Rugby really allow a country so fond of vuvuzelas to host such a big tournament?

Firstly, I think it's the FIFA officials who are being investigated, not the SA association. There's certainly no indication of that. They were actually robbed in 2006 by an extremely dubious decision by NZ's Oceania delegate to vote for Germany in defiance of his association's wishes. Besides which, football has nothing to do with rugby, and the vuvuzelas comment again indicates there is a fair bit of straw-clutching going on here.

Qatar equates to a small fraction of Ireland's territory. If they can host the FIFA World Cup, I'm sure Ireland would have no trouble coping with the comparatively low influx of supporters and tourists a RWC draws.

& we can all see how well-received FIFA's decision to stage its showpiece event in Qatar has been  

Cast your mind back to the RWC in NZ in 2011. The four biggest stadiums were Eden Park Auckland (60,000), Wellington (40,000), Hamilton (36,000) and Dunedin (30,000). After that, you're down to a clutch of stadiums ranging from 25,000 in Rotorua down to 15,000 in New Plymouth. Don't recollect NZ's apparently modest stadium capacity resulting in a disasterous RWC. So that's the stadium argument put to bed.

I was personally against NZ hosting it in 2011 and I personally thought it was a pretty uninspiring tournament. Rugby going back to small nation farmsville, like a giant step backward. Ireland would be another small nation tournament, and a LOT smaller if we're talkiing about geography - and the size of the local rugby community.

As to the comment as to what the fans would do it it rains. I could be very thin-skinned and take umbrage at that sort of patronising comment but then I ask myself why do millions come to Ireland every year on their holidays. Sure lots of them come for our pubs but believe it or not we have a lot of other things that attract visitors (up 8% last year) - we even have some beatuiful scenery in Ireland (amazing isn't it), we've got a music and arts scene that is thriving. We've got great food and of course we have great drink. You should come and take a look

Do they all come in October when the temperature averages 10 in Dublin and 9 in Belfast and there's a more than 50% chance of rain in both cities? If so, I think it was a fair question to ask - what will the fans do in the rain besides sit in the pub?

according to data provided on the RWC Wikipedia page, the 1995 tournament was the second least successful in filling stadia

Really? What was the least successful in this respect? Anyway, that was the amateur era. Currently, as I've already pointed out, South Africa is drawing the best crowds of any nation in the world to club competition. & at the end of the day, they have the second biggest rugby community in the world - about 4 times the size of Ireland's, so I think that's fairly good indicator of passion in the present.

n addition, re his earlier criticism about low attendances at 2 matches (3,000 & 9,500) held in Ireland in two different world cups, it's notable that the 3,000 attendance was for a match played the day before Ireland met Australia in the same ground in 1999, Lansdowne Road, and that 9,500 in Ravenhill for a match between Japan and Zimbabwe was when Ravenhill was 12,300 capacity in 1991.

Okay, so we can make excuses about Ireland (but no SA, apparently). & we have already been over that match in Belfast in 1991. 9,000 for the only game played in the whole of Northern Ireland at that World Cup - 3,000 short of capacity. & the stadium's capacity was that low because evidently Northern Ireland just really isn't that interested in the oval ball game.

Yet only a minority wants SA.

1. We get it, SA has more large-scale stadiums than Ireland. The criteria for a nation's ability to host isn't which has more, it's which have enough. With the GAA agreement + planned stadium construction/expansion, Ireland will have the official capacity needed to stage the tournament regardless of however many SA have. The question of who has more stadia doesn't even come into it. It's irrelevant, in other words.

2. I never recall hearing stories of Cameron spending £13m taxpayers' money on luxury estates up in the hills.

3. The point about Qatar has nothing to do with the justification of awarding it to them. I was pointing out that if they do end up successfully hosting it, hosting the RWC would be a cakewalk for Ireland by comparison. It was in response to your assertions of people in Ireland having to live on top of one another, which are just fundamentally small-minded in nature to put it kindly.

4. SA has a disproportionately bigger population than Ireland, so how is it any wonder the rugby community is also much bigger? Interestingly enough, SA has almost ten times the population of Ireland compared to four times the rugby community, suggesting rugby is far more popular per capita in Ireland than it is in SA and that despite it being the 3rd or 4th most popular sport.

5. You cite a lack of fairness in not handing the event to SA while simultaneously arguing for a complete marginalisation of nations smaller than SA. Enough said.

Knowsit17 wrote:1. We get it, SA has more large-scale stadiums than Ireland. The criteria for a nation's ability to host isn't which has more, it's which have enough. With the GAA agreement + planned stadium construction/expansion, Ireland will have the official capacity needed to stage the tournament regardless of however many SA have. The question of who has more stadia doesn't even come into it. It's irrelevant, in other words.

2. I never recall hearing stories of Cameron spending £13m taxpayers' money on luxury estates up in the hills.

3. The point about Qatar has nothing to do with the justification of awarding it to them. I was pointing out that if they do end up successfully hosting it, hosting the RWC would be a cakewalk for Ireland by comparison. It was in response to your assertions of people in Ireland having to live on top of one another, which are just fundamentally small-minded in nature to put it kindly.

4. SA has a disproportionately bigger population than Ireland, so how is it any wonder the rugby community is also much bigger? Interestingly enough, SA has almost ten times the population of Ireland compared to four times the rugby community, suggesting rugby is far more popular per capita in Ireland than it is in SA and that despite it being the 3rd or 4th most popular sport.

5. You cite a lack of fairness in not handing the event to SA while simultaneously arguing for a complete marginalisation of nations smaller than SA. Enough said.

1 - It's not me who keeps bring up the stadia issue. Scroll back and you'll see that all I'm doing is responding to comments that seem to imply Ireland as a sparkling array of massive good-to-go venues for a Rugby World Cup. That's far from the truth. But South Africa clearly does.

2 - Isn't bombing people and supporting proxy wars worse?

3 - I understood the point about Qatar. & I've read in the press just what an absurd decision this was, due in no small part to its microscopic dimensions. FIFA is being investigated over it now and heads have already rolled. They've done everything but take the World Cup back off Qatar - which they should rightfully do. So I don't think that's the best example of small nations being able to hold World Cups. Nonetheless, I think I've already stated that Ireland and SA would both be able to stage the RWC successfully. But do we really want another small nation RWC? Do we really want another RWC in the Home Unions? Do we really want a RWC in on an island with only two major cities and one major rugby stadium? Do we really want a RWC likely to be held in wet and chilly conditions?

4 - Doesn't change the fact that SA's rugby playing community is 4 times bigger than Ireland's. & you could apply the same logic to England and France, for that matter. In fact, France is several rungs further down the ladder - and Italy some distance beyond that, while Japan shouldn't have even been in the frame. Meanwhile, Tonga, Samoa and Fiji, respectively, should be next in line to host the tournament if this is the primay criteria.

The following figures represent the percentage of citizens registered as rugby players by country according to World Rugby stats:

Tonga 14
Samoa 10.7
Fiji 7.2
New Zealand 3
Wales 2.4
Ireland 1.6
Swaziland 1
Australia 0.95
Scotland 0.7
England 0.68
South Africa 0.6
Namibia 0.6
Botswana 0.5
France 0.43
Sri Lanka 0.23
Uruguay 0.2
PNG 0.2
Hong Kong 0.18
Singapore 0.18
Georgia 0.17
Zimbabwe 0.17
Tunisia 0.16
Malaysia 0.16
Italy 0.14
Argentina 0.13
Solomans 0.13
Malta 0.1
Moldova 0.085
Japan 0.08
Madagascar 0.08
Zambia 0.08
Canada 0.07
Portugal 0.07
Belgium 0.07
Spain 0.065
Netherlands 0.065
Lithuania 0.06
Uganda 0.06
Senegal 0.05
Switzerland 0.05
Czech. 0.04
USA 0.034
Romania 0.034
Sweden 0.03
Denmark 0.03
Hungary 0.03
UAE 0.03
Kenya 0.02
Cameroon 0.02
Bulgaria 0.02
Serbia 0.02
Taiwan 0.02
Thailand 0.018
Poland 0.018
Russia 0.016
Kazakhstan 0.016
Morocco 0.015
Germany 0.012
Chile 0.01
Ivory Coast 0.009
Ukraine 0.005
Korea 0.0039
Brazil 0.0024
Pakistan 0.002
India 0.0007
China 0.00004

5 - No offense, but this comment makes no sense to me.

May as well just swap between England and France.

according to data provided on the RWC Wikipedia page, the 1995 tournament was the second least successful in filling stadia

Really? What was the least successful in this respect?

Ok, I went to the page and answered this question for myself. The least successsful was NZ in 1987. In spite of this NZ received the event again in 2011. Of course, we must remember there were fewer games back in the 80s and 90s, and that South Africa has the larger stadia to fill. In fact, there was an overall rise of 9% in attendance in 1995 from 1991, and the average attendance was in fact superior to NZ's in 2011 So it seems there's been some cherry picking going on here, to be honest.

Meanwhile, I mentioned earlier that I found the 2011 RWC somewhat uninspriring. The stats you led me to back this up, showing that average attendances dropped by a whopping 35% from 2007, and that revenue from the tournament was also lower, notably in terms of gate takings. That might also answer your question No. 5 about why I don't support small nation tournaments.

You think you'll get it?

1. I haven't observed anyone trying to argue that Ireland's stadia is/will be better than SA's. Only that it will be sufficient to host the event.

2. This isn't a politics forum so I can't go into the fundamentals of the eastern debacle here. All I'll say is that 'proxy war' alone doesn't come close to describing the full spectrum. It's an incredibly multi-layered phenomenon to say the least. Debating it would be incredibly time-consuming and doubtless invite an avalanche of disagreement.

3. There are advantages and disadvantages to having the event in either a small or large nation. As cited by several, inter-venue travel in Ireland would be much easier due to the size of the area and fairly cheap travel links. That's not to say there aren't perks to having it in SA but if scenery and weather were decisive factors some places would never get the chance to host.

4. I was never claiming community size should be a decisive factor either. Like I said, the disparity between populations makes that claim redundant. If the table you copied is to be taken as an indication of relative popularity, it just proves my point with Ireland (1.6%) ahead of SA (0.6%). Again, if numerical support was a decisive factor, places with smaller populations would never get to host.

Would Tonga, Fiji and Samoa have the capacity to host even if they banded together?

Rowanbi, its rather surprising that South Africa don't have a Women's Rugby team (just noticed they are not in the Top 10 countries from rankings announced today).

http://www.worldrugby.org/rankings#wru

Why would that be?

Holy Internet, Batman!  We still knocking this around with no agreements in sight?
This topic has been knocked up more than a £50 prostitute.

Lookie boys,
Ireland would be great, part of the Rugby heartland  (given that 20% of the matches would magically end up at the MS)
SA would be great too, part of the Rugby heartland (given that 20% of the matches would magically end up at the MS)
Italy would be terrific, a different Rugby experience (yes, 20% of the matches would be at the MS)
Aw heck, put it in US and/or Canada - they are full of ultra-modern big boy stadiums, something no other potential host nation can even dream about (with 20% of the matches in MS).

This trolling discussion will go round and round and round because Rowan has been trolling it around various rugby message boards and eventually been given short shrift when people figure it out.

Note the username Rowanbi. Wonder what bi means?

Feel free to google the names Rowan Quinn and Quentin Poulson.

Holy Internet, Batman!  We still knocking this around with no agreements in sight?

I'm enjoying the discussion  

Knowsit17 wrote:1. I haven't observed anyone trying to argue that Ireland's stadia is/will be better than SA's. Only that it will be sufficient to host the event.

2. This isn't a politics forum so I can't go into the fundamentals of the eastern debacle here. All I'll say is that 'proxy war' alone doesn't come close to describing the full spectrum. It's an incredibly multi-layered phenomenon to say the least. Debating it would be incredibly time-consuming and doubtless invite an avalanche of disagreement.

3. There are advantages and disadvantages to having the event in either a small or large nation. As cited by several, inter-venue travel in Ireland would be much easier due to the size of the area and fairly cheap travel links. That's not to say there aren't perks to having it in SA but if scenery and weather were decisive factors some places would never get the chance to host.

4. I was never claiming community size should be a decisive factor either. Like I said, the disparity between populations makes that claim redundant. If the table you copied is to be taken as an indication of relative popularity, it just proves my point with Ireland (1.6%) ahead of SA (0.6%). Again, if numerical support was a decisive factor, places with smaller populations would never get to host.

Would Tonga, Fiji and Samoa have the capacity to host even if they banded together?

1 - I understand that. But if we're going to talk stadia we have to compare the two, and it's a no-contest, as I've demonstrated.

2 - I wasn't the one who brought up politics. I was responding to it. I happen to live in the Middle East and am fully cognizant of the conflicts and their backgrounds.

3 - If you prefer somewhere that's easy to travel around you could conceivably look at Fiji. They have a 25K capacity stadium in Suva. But, no, it wouldn't be a good idea. Small nation tournaments are simply not profitable, as shown in the Wikipedia stats on NZ's 2 RWCs (see my previous post). South Africa is not so giant that it would be particularly difficult to get around. Fans could bus it between venues, unlike Australia 2003 - which was nonetheless a fine tournament. I think weather is a factor, personally. Not the primary criteria, of course, but you wouldn't want to stage it in the tropics, and you wouldn't want to stage it in Siberia or Alaska either. Ireland's climate is not that extreme, but I don't think it's an entirely irrelevant detail.

4 - I think relative popularity is a fair point, but ultimately it is trumped by overall numbers, because we're comparing two nations, and one has four times as many registered players as the other, indicating four times as much potential support. As mentioned earlier, if we looked solely at the relative popularity, the Pacific Islands should be next in line and Japan shouldn't be hosting at all. But the bottom line is Japan does have a large rugby community overall - certainly large enough to provided sufficient support for a RWC - while Samoa & Tonga clearly don't.

Also, by your method of evaluation, Uruguay would have to come before Argentina. But they won't. Too small and don't have nearly as many appropriate stadiums.

As for a combined Pacific Islands hosting the event, it wouldn't be impossible. The bulk of the games would have to be in Fiji, with as many as possible in the Suva Nation Stadium, while Samoa and Tonga might get to host their own group games and nothing more (due to the limited size of their national stadiums). But forget about profits. This one would likely run up a huge deficit.

Rowanbi, its rather surprising that South Africa don't have a Women's Rugby team (just noticed they are not in the Top 10 countries from rankings announced today).


I seem to recall they had one, and according to Wiki they do. If they're not ranked in the top 10 that probably indicates they're not very good. Just a guess there, of course

When will be banned again? Are the mods on holiday?

I guess using race and politics from SA adds a certain flavour to his usual WUMs.

Cyril wrote:When will be banned again? Are the mods on holiday?

I guess using race and politics from SA adds a certain flavour to his usual WUMs.

It's not Ghost. Different this time.

1. "But if we're going to talk stadia we have to compare the two" Why? The only relevant question is will Ireland have the capacity to host it, yes or no. We already know SA has the capacity but the fact that they'll be able to host future tournaments (whereas Ireland might not) might count against them this time.

2. I didn't start the politics debate either. Pretty sure you were discussing it before I first commented on this thread. Out of curiosity do you live in Iraq/Syria? Do you have contacts amongst all participating factions to inform you on the intricacies of the situation?

3. There's a notable difference between Ireland and Fiji. Just because both are smaller than SA doesn't make them comparable. You simply couldn't house a WC final in a 25k stadium. Ireland has the advantage of being one solid landmass rather than hundreds of minuscule islands by comparison. It's just hard to see how Fiji could possibly accomodate the infrastructure needed to host a modern world cup.
You've said yourself that climate and scenery shouldn't be primary criteria. They can be taken into account, I agree, though it's never a necessity.

4. As I've explained, I simply don't think population size should play a crucial part either. If it did an awful lot of potential hosts would ultimately lose out on the basis that they'd generate sufficient commercial success rather than outstanding commercial success. This is not the principal that has guided the process so far and I hope that continues.

Knowsit17 wrote:1. "But if we're going to talk stadia we have to compare the two" Why? The only relevant question is will Ireland have the capacity to host it, yes or no. We already know SA has the capacity but the fact that they'll be able to host future tournaments (whereas Ireland might not) might count against them this time.

2. I didn't start the politics debate either. Pretty sure you were discussing it before I first commented on this thread. Out of curiosity do you live in Iraq/Syria? Do you have contacts amongst all participating factions to inform you on the intricacies of the situation?

3. There's a notable difference between Ireland and Fiji. Just because both are smaller than SA doesn't make them comparable. You simply couldn't house a WC final in a 25k stadium. Ireland has the advantage of being one solid landmass rather than hundreds of minuscule islands by comparison. It's just hard to see how Fiji could possibly accomodate the infrastructure needed to host a modern world cup.
You've said yourself that climate and scenery shouldn't be primary criteria. They can be taken into account, I agree, though it's never a necessity.

4. As I've explained, I simply don't think population size should play a crucial part either. If it did an awful lot of potential hosts would ultimately lose out on the basis that they'd generate sufficient commercial success rather than outstanding commercial success. This is not the principal that has guided the process so far and I hope that continues.

You're continuing to feed the troll.

He doesn't care what you say.  It'll just keep going - over and over.  He's based in Turkey currently.  Born in NZ.

See here - http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/37127-2023-(expanded)-Rugby-World-Cup-for-South-Africa/page2

Knowsit17 wrote:1. "But if we're going to talk stadia we have to compare the two" Why? The only relevant question is will Ireland have the capacity to host it, yes or no. We already know SA has the capacity but the fact that they'll be able to host future tournaments (whereas Ireland might not) might count against them this time.

2. I didn't start the politics debate either. Pretty sure you were discussing it before I first commented on this thread. Out of curiosity do you live in Iraq/Syria? Do you have contacts amongst all participating factions to inform you on the intricacies of the situation?

3. There's a notable difference between Ireland and Fiji. Just because both are smaller than SA doesn't make them comparable. You simply couldn't house a WC final in a 25k stadium. Ireland has the advantage of being one solid landmass rather than hundreds of minuscule islands by comparison. It's just hard to see how Fiji could possibly accomodate the infrastructure needed to host a modern world cup.
You've said yourself that climate and scenery shouldn't be primary criteria. They can be taken into account, I agree, though it's never a necessity.

4. As I've explained, I simply don't think population size should play a crucial part either. If it did an awful lot of potential hosts would ultimately lose out on the basis that they'd generate sufficient commercial success rather than outstanding commercial success. This is not the principal that has guided the process so far and I hope that continues.

1 - Ireland would have to do quite a bit of work on their Gaelic football and hurling stadiums, from what I've read. If that's carried out in good time, yes, they'll have the stadia. But there's no getting away from the fact South Africa will still have vastly more, bigger stadiums.

2 - I live in Turkey and I do some freelance journalism on political issues in the Middle East. So, yes, I have my contacts.

3 - I was just following the trajectory you seemed to be on. If small nation tournaments are ok by you, what's the limit? The bulk of Fiji's population is on Viti Levu, with Vanua Levu home to most of the rest. It's not so different to NZ in this respect, where most of the population is in the North Island, with the South Island home to most of the rest. Fiji could conceivably host a World Cup, but it would be terrible due to the islands' tiny dimensions and also the lack of quality stadia.

4 - World Rugby likes to boast that its World Cup is the third biggest sports event in the world after the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics. I'm not so sure about that, but I don't begrudge their ebullience either. I remember all the skepticism before the first World Cup, particularly coming out of the Northern Hemisphere. The Home Unions - including Ireland - were dead set against it, in fact. New Zealand & Australia were the driving force, and received backing from France and also South Africa (even though they knew they wouldn't be able to play in it at the time). But the tournament has proved a resounding success, exceeding everyone's expectations. With the notable exception of 2011, a small nation event that was basically a homage to its most successful member nation, it has gone from strength to strength with every tournament. Indeed, what we saw five years ago was that it had basically outgrown New Zealand. It has become much too big for the likes of the Celtic nations as well. The best they can hope for in the future is co-host status, something they've already had plenty of experience at.

Pot Hale wrote:

Cyril wrote:When will be banned again? Are the mods on holiday?

I guess using race and politics from SA adds a certain flavour to his usual WUMs.

It's not Ghost.  Different this time.

It really is.

Cyril wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Cyril wrote:When will be banned again? Are the mods on holiday?

I guess using race and politics from SA adds a certain flavour to his usual WUMs.

It's not Ghost.  Different this time.

It really is.

Feeling intellectually threatened again eh Cyril?

The last thing rugby needs is a repeat of 1995, waitresses poisoning the All Blacks just isnt on, in fact Id say that South Africa should not be given hosting rights to another World cup ever.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
The last thing rugby needs is a repeat of 1995, waitresses poisoning the All Blacks just isnt on, in fact Id say that South Africa should not be given hosting rights to another World cup ever.

You never beat the All Blacks, of course, you only score more points than they do

I personally don't believe the Suzie stories, and although some of the New Zealand players may well have suffered a bout of foodpoisoning prior to the final (these things can happen when travelling), they were beaten fair and square in the final. Simply, South Africa was the one team that figured how to stop Jonah. The big guy never actually scored a try against the Boks. A defining moment in that 95 final was when the South African halfback Joost Van Der Westhuizen stopped Jonah in his tracks. The giant winger himself acknowledged this, and can be seen reminiscing about it while visiting Joost (now inflicted with motor neurone disease) in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIpv_KrT4_w

So I think it's time for the Kiwis to let 1995 go. We don't hear the French or South Africans whinging about the refereeing at the 2011 RWC, though both have plenty of grounds for doing so.