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.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

But Ireland as co-hosted more than once. Not bad for a geographically tiny country which has never beaten the All Blacks, made the semis of a RWC or even won a single play-off match at the World Cup.

Team performance isn't relevant. If it is then SA's loss to Japan should rule them out or Ireland's recent head to head record v SA. Take your pick. SA's recent win/loss record is also far worse than Ireland's.

Ireland co-hosted once prior to SA hosting. Co-hosting, in other words being thrown a few token games here and there isn't the same as hosting.

Confident of winning a game in the summer tour guns? Difficult to tell yet. Got to see who next SA coach is, big bet is Rassie Erasmus which is good news for the boks. I think its possible but still think 0-3 is the most likely outcome. 3 close games but SA will be fresh, Ireland probably less so and still are coming to terms with their new side.

Yes I would be confident of winning one. The Boks has much greater depth so it is unlikely Ireland could win a series but I think we do have the players to outplay or outsmart SA in at least one test.

Probably the first test to catch the boks cold. Come game 2 to 3 (or penultimate and last of the season) I think you'll be hanging on for dear life and flying in players 35-45 on the preference list to cover the bench.

Probably the first yes. By the 2nd or third we would probably have to start our South African players Stander and Strauss and other 2nd choice players.

GunsGerms wrote:Probably the first yes. By the 2nd or third we would probably have to start our South African players Stander and Strauss and other 2nd choice players.

Think it would be advisable to leave CJ at home. Don't want to put more fire in the boks bellies.

As a fan (or just a regular human) how you would ever want to choose SA or Ireland over going to Italy.

Vote Italy!

Cyril wrote:As a fan (or just a regular human) how you would ever want to choose SA or Ireland over going to Italy.

Vote Italy!

Perhaps you should read the post at the top of the thread to answer that question. There are many, means reasons to choose SA. Africans are human as well, by the way.

Really? I will be in Johannesburg the week after next. I will analyse and confirm. Especially the women.

doctor_grey wrote:Really?  I will be in Johannesburg the week after next.  I will analyse and confirm.  Especially the women.

Genevieve Morton... that's a pepsi challenge for you.

I am a professional.  
I am ready for the challenge.  
All for science, mate, all for advancing humanity.
I am truly selfless.  

She is wonderful (I wonder what she makes for breakfast???)

doctor_grey wrote:Really?  I will be in Johannesburg the week after next.  I will analyse and confirm.  Especially the women.

Try not to get mugged, carjacked, murdered and raped . . .

Rowanbi wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Really?  I will be in Johannesburg the week after next.  I will analyse and confirm.  Especially the women.

Try not to get mugged, carjacked, murdered and raped . . .

get a life Rowanbi.... although for a chap like yourself maybe one of those above may be a pleasurable experience for you.

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Really?  I will be in Johannesburg the week after next.  I will analyse and confirm.  Especially the women.

Try not to get mugged, carjacked, murdered and raped . . .

get a life Rowanbi.... although for a chap like yourself maybe one of those above may be a pleasurable experience for you.

I suspect the satirical nature of that post eluded you . . .

Rowanbi wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Really?  I will be in Johannesburg the week after next.  I will analyse and confirm.  Especially the women.

Try not to get mugged, carjacked, murdered and raped . . .

get a life Rowanbi.... although for a chap like yourself maybe one of those above may be a pleasurable experience for you.

I suspect the satirical nature of that post eluded you . . .

Think you should look up the definition of satire.

Ooookay, so let's get this discussion (I use the term loosely) back on the tracks, shall we?

Now here's an interesting point: Following a series of setbacks to Japan's preparations for 2019, South Africa was apparently put on standby. SARU CEO Jurie Roux was called into meetings with World Rugby officials on the matter. The main issue, of course, related to the new National Stadium, which the Japanese delegation had assured would be ready for use. However, it appears that venue will not be available for use by 2019, after all. The new stadium was intended to be the centrepiece of the 2019 tournament, and its unavailability has already impacted on ticketing capacity and the tournament budget. World Rugby officials then sounded out South Africa - not Ireland, Italy or France - about their readiness to step in. Surely that provides some indication of what their preferance might be for 2023. Moreover, the SARU signalled their readiness, which is because, unlike Ireland and Italy, their vast array of facilities - notably stadia - are good to go. They hosted the FIFA World Cup not so long ago, of course. Also, these problems could not possibily bode well for Italy, as World Rugby will be disinclined to stage the event in another expansion market directly after Japan. Indeed, it would be reckless to do so.

Italy or Ireland are much better choices.

Rowanbi wrote:Ooookay, so let's get this discussion (I use the term loosely) back on the tracks, shall we?

Now here's an interesting point: Following a series of setbacks to Japan's preparations for 2019, South Africa was apparently put on standby. SARU CEO Jurie Roux was called into meetings with World Rugby officials on the matter. The main issue, of course, related to the new National Stadium, which the Japanese delegation had assured would be ready for use. However, it appears that venue will not be available for use by 2019, after all. The new stadium was intended to be the centrepiece of the 2019 tournament, and its unavailability has already impacted on ticketing capacity and the tournament budget. World Rugby officials then sounded out South Africa - not Ireland, Italy or France - about their readiness to step in. Surely that provides some indication of what their preferance might be for 2023. Moreover, the SARU signalled their readiness, which is because, unlike Ireland and Italy, their vast array of facilities - notably stadia - are good to go. They hosted the FIFA World Cup not so long ago, of course. Also, these problems could not possibily bode well for Italy, as World Rugby will be disinclined to stage the event in another expansion market directly after Japan. Indeed, it would be reckless to do so.

I'd imagine the reason why they asked SA is because SA had bid to host it, while Ireland or Italy had not. Only fair that the next best bid should get the opportunity.

Anyway, its sorted now.

World Rugby has approved a revised roadmap to underpin the successful delivery of a ground-breaking Rugby World Cup 2019 that will further the growth of rugby in Japan, across Asia and around the world.

Having undertaken a full review and analysis of the hosting model as a consequence of the loss of Tokyo's new National Stadium as a host venue, World Rugby's Executive Committee is satisfied that the revised vision proposed by the Japan Rugby 2019 organising committee, with the full support of the Japan Government, meets the required criteria set by owners Rugby World Cup Limited and the World Rugby Council.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/101763

Rowanbi wrote:

Cyril wrote:As a fan (or just a regular human) how you would ever want to choose SA or Ireland over going to Italy.

Vote Italy!

Perhaps you should read the post at the top of the thread to answer that question. There are many, means reasons to choose SA. Africans are human as well, by the way.

That's not a ringing endorsement. Humans are the worst kind of animal. Bad things normally happen when humans get involved.

Are you South African? If not, what nationality (just out of interest)?

Cyril wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

Cyril wrote:As a fan (or just a regular human) how you would ever want to choose SA or Ireland over going to Italy.

Vote Italy!

Perhaps you should read the post at the top of the thread to answer that question. There are many, means reasons to choose SA. Africans are human as well, by the way.

That's not a ringing endorsement. Humans are the worst kind of animal. Bad things normally happen when humans get involved.

Are you South African? If not, what nationality (just out of interest)?

He's never been to South Africa and he once spent a chilly April weekend in Ireland 16 years ago which is why he's such an expert on both countries.

Born in NZ, but had to leave after - ahem - a few internet trolling/privacy invasion issues about a person called Rowan Quinn around 2000. Continues to use her name as an online identity for some strange reason, resulting in him being banned from various online fora. Wonder why he chose the moniker Rowan"bi"? Trying to tell us something?

You'll find this same topic repeated on quite a few other online rugby forums. Instructive to read them.

Rowanbi wrote:That's not a ringing endorsement. Humans are the worst kind of animal. Bad things normally happen when humans get involved.


I might agree on that.

Are you South African? If not, what nationality (just out of interest)?
.

Grew up in NZ and played most of my rugby there, but wasn't born there and left a long time ago, initially to study in the US. Never been to South Africa. My only allegiance is to the game of rugby and what is in the best of interests of its global development

Taking the WC to Italy. Seriously though you should get back to the US and finish your degree. Education is good for the soul.

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Ooookay, so let's get this discussion (I use the term loosely) back on the tracks, shall we?

Now here's an interesting point: Following a series of setbacks to Japan's preparations for 2019, South Africa was apparently put on standby. SARU CEO Jurie Roux was called into meetings with World Rugby officials on the matter. The main issue, of course, related to the new National Stadium, which the Japanese delegation had assured would be ready for use. However, it appears that venue will not be available for use by 2019, after all. The new stadium was intended to be the centrepiece of the 2019 tournament, and its unavailability has already impacted on ticketing capacity and the tournament budget. World Rugby officials then sounded out South Africa - not Ireland, Italy or France - about their readiness to step in. Surely that provides some indication of what their preferance might be for 2023. Moreover, the SARU signalled their readiness, which is because, unlike Ireland and Italy, their vast array of facilities - notably stadia - are good to go. They hosted the FIFA World Cup not so long ago, of course. Also, these problems could not possibily bode well for Italy, as World Rugby will be disinclined to stage the event in another expansion market directly after Japan. Indeed, it would be reckless to do so.

I'd imagine the reason why they asked SA is because SA had bid to host it, while Ireland or Italy had not. Only fair that the next best bid should get the opportunity.

Anyway, its sorted now.

World Rugby has approved a revised roadmap to underpin the successful delivery of a ground-breaking Rugby World Cup 2019 that will further the growth of rugby in Japan, across Asia and around the world.

Having undertaken a full review and analysis of the hosting model as a consequence of the loss of Tokyo's new National Stadium as a host venue, World Rugby's Executive Committee is satisfied that the revised vision proposed by the Japan Rugby 2019 organising committee, with the full support of the Japan Government, meets the required criteria set by owners Rugby World Cup Limited and the World Rugby Council.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/101763

I believe the bidding stage at that time had only reached the provisional stage, with World Rugby receiving expressions of interest from the four nations which subsequently tended official bids, along with Argentina, the US & Russia - which didn't.

Yes, the Japanese crisis has been resolved to World Rugby's satisfaction. But still they might think twice before awarding it to another 'developing' nation again. Returning it firstly to a rugby heartland - guaranteed to succeed - would be prudent.

Rowanbi wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Ooookay, so let's get this discussion (I use the term loosely) back on the tracks, shall we?

Now here's an interesting point: Following a series of setbacks to Japan's preparations for 2019, South Africa was apparently put on standby. SARU CEO Jurie Roux was called into meetings with World Rugby officials on the matter. The main issue, of course, related to the new National Stadium, which the Japanese delegation had assured would be ready for use. However, it appears that venue will not be available for use by 2019, after all. The new stadium was intended to be the centrepiece of the 2019 tournament, and its unavailability has already impacted on ticketing capacity and the tournament budget. World Rugby officials then sounded out South Africa - not Ireland, Italy or France - about their readiness to step in. Surely that provides some indication of what their preferance might be for 2023. Moreover, the SARU signalled their readiness, which is because, unlike Ireland and Italy, their vast array of facilities - notably stadia - are good to go. They hosted the FIFA World Cup not so long ago, of course. Also, these problems could not possibily bode well for Italy, as World Rugby will be disinclined to stage the event in another expansion market directly after Japan. Indeed, it would be reckless to do so.

I'd imagine the reason why they asked SA is because SA had bid to host it, while Ireland or Italy had not. Only fair that the next best bid should get the opportunity.

Anyway, its sorted now.

World Rugby has approved a revised roadmap to underpin the successful delivery of a ground-breaking Rugby World Cup 2019 that will further the growth of rugby in Japan, across Asia and around the world.

Having undertaken a full review and analysis of the hosting model as a consequence of the loss of Tokyo's new National Stadium as a host venue, World Rugby's Executive Committee is satisfied that the revised vision proposed by the Japan Rugby 2019 organising committee, with the full support of the Japan Government, meets the required criteria set by owners Rugby World Cup Limited and the World Rugby Council.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/101763

I believe the bidding stage at that time had only reached the provisional stage, with World Rugby receiving expressions of interest from the four nations which subsequently tended official bids, along with Argentina, the US & Russia - which didn't.

Yes, the Japanese crisis has been resolved to World Rugby's satisfaction. But still they might think twice before awarding it to another 'developing' nation again. Returning it firstly to a rugby heartland - guaranteed to succeed - would be prudent.

IRB confirms record RWC bid response
(IRB.COM) Friday 8 May 2009

 
 
Four Unions will bid to host Rugby World Cup 2015 or 2019
The International Rugby Board has confirmed that four Unions will bid to host either Rugby World Cup 2015 or 2019.

England, Italy, Japan and South Africa have formally submitted detailed tenders for Rugby World Cup 2015, while all with the exception of England have confirmed their intention to bid for the 2019 tournament. The deadline for tender submissions to the IRB at its Dublin headquarters was 5pm (UK time) on May 8.

Rowanbi wrote:Ooookay, so let's get this discussion (I use the term loosely) back on the tracks, shall we?

Now here's an interesting point: Following a series of setbacks to Japan's preparations for 2019, South Africa was apparently put on standby. SARU CEO Jurie Roux was called into meetings with World Rugby officials on the matter. The main issue, of course, related to the new National Stadium, which the Japanese delegation had assured would be ready for use. However, it appears that venue will not be available for use by 2019, after all. The new stadium was intended to be the centrepiece of the 2019 tournament, and its unavailability has already impacted on ticketing capacity and the tournament budget. World Rugby officials then sounded out South Africa - not Ireland, Italy or France - about their readiness to step in. Surely that provides some indication of what their preferance might be for 2023. Moreover, the SARU signalled their readiness, which is because, unlike Ireland and Italy, their vast array of facilities - notably stadia - are good to go. They hosted the FIFA World Cup not so long ago, of course. Also, these problems could not possibily bode well for Italy, as World Rugby will be disinclined to stage the event in another expansion market directly after Japan. Indeed, it would be reckless to do so.

No it doesn't really. It just means that SA are the one country that would be ready to step in in 2019 whereas the others wouldn't be ready until 2023. If anything it indicates to me that SA is likely to be left out in the reckoning for 2023 and this might be a way to make up for that.

GunsGerms wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Ooookay, so let's get this discussion (I use the term loosely) back on the tracks, shall we?

Now here's an interesting point: Following a series of setbacks to Japan's preparations for 2019, South Africa was apparently put on standby. SARU CEO Jurie Roux was called into meetings with World Rugby officials on the matter. The main issue, of course, related to the new National Stadium, which the Japanese delegation had assured would be ready for use. However, it appears that venue will not be available for use by 2019, after all. The new stadium was intended to be the centrepiece of the 2019 tournament, and its unavailability has already impacted on ticketing capacity and the tournament budget. World Rugby officials then sounded out South Africa - not Ireland, Italy or France - about their readiness to step in. Surely that provides some indication of what their preferance might be for 2023. Moreover, the SARU signalled their readiness, which is because, unlike Ireland and Italy, their vast array of facilities - notably stadia - are good to go. They hosted the FIFA World Cup not so long ago, of course. Also, these problems could not possibily bode well for Italy, as World Rugby will be disinclined to stage the event in another expansion market directly after Japan. Indeed, it would be reckless to do so.

No it doesn't really. It just means that SA are the one country that would be ready to step in in 2019 whereas the others wouldn't be ready until 2023. If anything it indicates to me that SA is likely to be left out in the reckoning for 2023 and this might be a way to make up for that.

Your first comment I agree with. SA are the one nation of the four which could stage it tomorrow, if necessary. That's because all their fine stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup - and a few new stadiums were built. Your second comment is a baseless assumption which clearly flies in the face of reason.

Italy could hold it tomorrow if we're basing it on facilities and not organisation obviously.

Rowanbi wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:That's not a ringing endorsement. Humans are the worst kind of animal. Bad things normally happen when humans get involved.


I might agree on that.

Are you South African? If not, what nationality (just out of interest)?
.

Grew up in NZ and played most of my rugby there, but wasn't born there and left a long time ago, initially to study in the US. Never been to South Africa. My only allegiance is to the game of rugby and what is in the best of interests of its global development

So do you travel on a New Zealand passport?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Italy could hold it tomorrow if we're basing it on facilities and not organisation obviously.

Not that Italy couldn't host it but a lot of their stadiums aren't actually that great. A lot of them have running tracks around them and have sectioned off parts in the stadium due to the fans having to be separated.

Of the two countries that have hosted it previously, both France and South Africa have existing, usable stadia facilities, given they have hosted sporting world cup/European events previously.  

Whilst neither Ireland nor Italy have hosted the event, both have a stadium infrastructure that can be amended/upgraded in sufficient time for delivering a tournament.  For 2023, the issue is not whether bidding countries have the infrastructure now, it is about having them available, suitable and ready at the time of the RWC event.

Linked to that is the number, type and capacity of stadia that would be proposed to be used.  In the last two RWC, the stadia capacity available were markedly different:
RWC 2011 - 341,000 total capacity across its 12 stadia (Christchurch the 13th stadium could not be used)
RWC 2015 - 612,000 total capacity across its 13 stadia.

NZ achieved 85% attendance of its total available capacity across all matches. (total: 1,732,000)
Eng achieved 95% attendance of its total available capacity across all matches. (total:2,600,741)

A feature of these two most recent tournaments - presumably derived from previous experience and knowledge - was the use of 2-3 'pillar' stadia to host the biggest number of matches.  
In New Zealand's case, these were Eden Park (60k  x 11 matches) and Wellington (40k x 9 matches).
In England's case, these were Twickenham (81k x 10 matches) and Millennium (74k x 8 matches).  Olympic had 56k x 5 matches.  Perhaps surprisingly, Wembley, its largest stadium was only used twice.

Two of the smallest stadia (18k & 15k) in NZ had four matches; the two smallest in England (12k & 16k) had 7 matches between them.

The challenges for bid planners encompasses not just the number of stadia, but also their location, easy access, sufficient tourist infrastructure, and be of proportionate size to match the likely attendance, and create a worthwhile experience for the visiting fan.

For the two countries being discussed the most in this topic - Ireland and South Africa - an estimate of the stadia capacity and numbers look like this:

South Africa's previous RWC in 1995 had only 77% attendance of its total capacity available - the second lowest to date.   Its more recent international matches against its regular opponents in the Rugby Championship - NZ, Aus & Arg - follow a similar pattern in regular attendance: full or nearly full for New Zealand, and a marked fall-off for Aus and Argentina.  A similar, and even more marked drop occurs when the team is other than these.g., the Lions tour of 2009, and Wales summer tour in 2013.

Whilst the stadia that SA might propose in their bid have not yet been publicised, a look at the stadia used in the 2010 Soccer World Cup is instructive in terms of modern stadia, location and these are likely to form part of any bid by SARU.  
In all, 10 stadia were selected for use:

FNB (85), Capetown (64), Durban (63), Ellis Park (56), Nelson M (46), Pretoria (43), Polokwane (42), Nelspruit (41), Bloemfontein (41), Rustenberg (39).  Two or three smaller stadia would likely be added to this list to cater for smaller attendance games.  Using that selection, the total capacity is 520,000 with possibly another 50k added to that for the smaller stadia.

The Soccer World Cup attendances achieved were 92% average of available capacity - a strong endorsement for the hosting nation.   It has a soccer-mad majority population, and its worldwide popularity ensured a high number of foreign visitors.  It concentrated all the WC games into ten stadia for the 32 teams involved.

Ireland's stadia offering is likely to comprise 12-13 stadia including Croke Park (83), Lansdowne (53), Semple (53), Gaelic Grounds (50), Fitzgerald (50), Pairc Ui Chaoimh (45), McHale (42), Casement (40 tbf), Nowlan Park (25), Thomond (25), RDS (25 tbf), Pearse (26), and Ravenhill (20).

This would provide a total available capacity of 535,000 - a surprisingly large number for a country of its size in comparison to the other bidding countries - France, Italy and SA.

Ireland's record in getting full attendance for Six Nations and November internationals compares better than SA's similar attendance for RC and June tour matches.   However, demonstrating how many could be drawn to a rugby match involving say Tonga vs Namibia in a low capacity stadium would be a harder task to prove for either country.

Nonetheless, it's the big draw matches in the big capacity stadia that generate much of the ticket revenue.  Interestingly, England's biggest stadium, Wembley, was only used twice - once for New Zealand's opening match vs Argentina, and the other for Ireland playing Romania.  Attendances at both matches set new RWC attendance records.  European fans - and most likely British/Irish fans like their rugby - no matter who is playing.

The problem for SA may be that its cohort of largely white rugby fans would appear to be more choosy and selective in the matches they attend and teams they watch (NZ - full house, Argentina/Wales - not so much).  Nonetheless, tt has scenery, sights and weather to attract tourists - nearly 10m a year - to a sizeable country.  

Ireland in comparison has the potential to be more of a hothouse/party environment with its 13 stadia within easy reach of each other, giving a sense of ownership and engagement by all of the population on the island - helped by the involvement of the three main sporting organisations and their substantial local community networks - the GAA has a club/organisation in every village in Ireland and quite a few in between.   And its tourist infrastructure and organisation brings nearly 9m visitors a year.  

Tough one to decide.  

Maybe France will get it....

That's a really good post Pot Hale which gives alot of detail about the pros and cons of a Western European vs South African bid. You put a great case forward for Ireland and I'm sure that they would deliver an excellent World Cup. I honestly don't think that there would be a great deal of difference in income generated between the two bids. From a selfish point of view here in the UK it's much easier to get to Ireland than South Africa so I guess I'm biased! Italy would be fabulous too and I'm looking forward to getting a taste of that on Sunday in the 6 nations. Not sure their stadia will be quite so rugby friendly but I'll find out soon enough.

South Africa's previous RWC in 1995 had only 77% attendance of its total capacity available

Back in the amateur age, you mean? Yet they still had a higher average attendance than New Zealand did in 2011 - well into the pro era. Your stats fail to take into account the sheer size of the major South African stadiums, which number in the dozens. South Africa also gets the biggest crowds at club rugby of any nation in the world. That's because it one of the game's major super powers - second biggest rugby-playing community and second most successful national team.

Ireland's stadia offering is likely to comprise 12-13 stadia including Croke Park (83), Lansdowne (53), Semple (53), Gaelic Grounds (50), Fitzgerald (50), Pairc Ui Chaoimh (45), McHale (42), Casement (40 tbf), Nowlan Park (25), Thomond (25), RDS (25 tbf), Pearse (26), and Ravenhill (20).

So you're mostly comparing Gaelic football and hurling venues with South Africa's football venues here? That's very interesting. But if we compare actually RUGBY venues, South Africa has dozens over 30k capacity, whereas Ireland only has one. In fact, various articles in the Irish press have suggested which stadia they are likely to use. Half of them were creaky old Gaelic and hurling stadiums, and the other half had a capacity of between 18 & 27K.

Ireland's record in getting full attendance for Six Nations and November internationals compares better than SA's similar attendance for RC and June tour matches.

Ireland has struggled to fill its one major rugby venue beyond half of its capacity for a number of rugby internationals in recent years, including one against the Springboks, as noted earlier in this thread (with relevant links). & once again, it is South Africa - not Ireland - which gets the best crowds in the world for club rugby.

The problem for SA may be that its cohort of largely white rugby fans would appear to be more choosy and selective in the matches they attend and teams they watch (NZ - full house, Argentina/Wales - not so much).

That's a baseless assumption and a fairly appalling generalisation into the bargain. One thing we did learn in 1995 was that the non-white majority in South Africa will come out and support a World Cup. The tournament has come on in leaps and bounds since then, the second installments in both NZ & England, respectively, were much bigger and more successful than the first. I think we all know both SA & Ireland would have little difficulty filling the stadiums for a RWC in the modern era. The main difference is, SA has dozens of major stadiums to fill, Ireland has one major rugby venue,four or five creaky old Gaelic football stadiums, and a bunch of relatively small stadiums.

Ireland in comparison has the potential to be more of a hothouse/party environment with its 13 stadia within easy reach of each other,

In fact, Ireland only has two major centers and will only be using half a dozen major stadiums, all but one of them Gaelic and hurling venues. The fans will be living on top of one another. The hotels and pubs will be overcrowded, prices will skyrocket, and there is a very strong likelihood of rain. Doesn't sound like too much of a party atmosphere in the making to me. But South Africa will party, with fans spread across a dozen or so major cities, all with major venues and plenty of sightseeing and tourist activities, and the likelihood of sunshine.

Basically we are comparing a rugby super power with 350,000 registered players, 54 million people, dozens of immaculate rugby-purpose stadiums (and dozens more state-of-the-art soccer venues) - spread across numerous major metropolitan centers, vast geography including almost 3000 kms of coastline, & generally sunny conditions, and which won't have hosted the tournament for almost 3 decades by 2023, with a geographically tiny island that has about 5 million inhabitants, 90,000 registered players, a national team which has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis at a World Cup (and has NEVER beaten the All Blacks), with only two major metropolitan centers and one major rugby-purpose stadium, generally cold and wet conditions, and which has co-hosted the World Cup on two occasions.

No contest. Ireland are not even in the frame.

From a selfish point of view here in the UK it's much easier to get to Ireland

Yes, it would mean a 5th World Cup held at least partly in the UK after just 10 tournaments. Fairly ridiculous when the world's second biggest and more successful rugby nation won't have hosted for almost 3 decades by 2023.

So do you travel on a New Zealand passport?


Not usually. My EU passport is the most useful.

Is that because your New Zealand passport has expired?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Is that because your New Zealand passport has expired?

No. & no offense, but I'd rather not discuss it on a rugby forum.

"Has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis at a World Cup (and has never beaten the All Blacks)"

Neither has Japan.

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Is that because your New Zealand passport has expired?

No. & no offense, but I'd rather not discuss it on a rugby forum.

So you are saying that you hold a current New Zealand passport?

Rowanbi wrote:South Africa's previous RWC in 1995 had only 77% attendance of its total capacity available

Back in the amateur age, you mean? Yet they still had a higher average attendance than New Zealand did in 2011 - well into the pro era. Your stats fail to take into account the sheer size of the major South African stadiums, which number in the dozens. South Africa also gets the biggest crowds at club rugby of any nation in the world. That's because it one of the game's major super powers - second biggest rugby-playing community and second most successful national team.

I'm not comparing it to NZ 2011.   I'm comparing it to the attendance level out of available capacity for the tournament.   SA put forward a certain number of stadia and 77% of the space available was used.   That was the second lowest in tournaments to date.  That's factually accurate.   The size of stadia at that time is irrelevant, that's what SA chose to use.   That's what they get assessed on for that tournament.

I included the 10 stadia that it used five years ago in the Soccer World Cup - some of those stadia are also rugby stadia and used by SARU for international tests e.g. Loftus Versfeld, Rustenberg.   I also included their capacity sizes.

If you want to put forward an alternative list of 12-13 stadia that you think would be more suitable/appropriate - list them out.    

Ireland's stadia offering is likely to comprise 12-13 stadia including Croke Park (83), Lansdowne (53), Semple (53), Gaelic Grounds (50), Fitzgerald (50), Pairc Ui Chaoimh (45), McHale (42), Casement (40 tbf), Nowlan Park (25), Thomond (25), RDS (25 tbf), Pearse (26), and Ravenhill (20).

So you're mostly comparing Gaelic football and hurling venues with South Africa's football venues here? That's very interesting. But if we compare actually RUGBY venues, South Africa has dozens over 30k capacity, whereas Ireland only has one. In fact, various articles in the Irish press have suggested which stadia they are likely to use. Half of them were creaky old Gaelic and hurling stadiums, and the other half had a capacity of between 18 & 27K.

It's irrelevant whether they are used primarily for soccer, football, rugby or hurling venues - they are stadia first and foremost.   South Africa uses stadia for more than one sport, so does Ireland.  There's no difference.    

The stadia that I have listed are the ones that are referred to in various Irish media - it just happens that you don't recognise them since you don't know anything about them and their current status.  Having "dozens over 30k capacity" is not the point either.   It's the mix of stadia required to host a tournament is the important point - you clearly have no idea of what's actually required to deliver a RWC in stadia requirements.  

Ireland's record in getting full attendance for Six Nations and November internationals compares better than SA's similar attendance for RC and June tour matches.

Ireland has struggled to fill its one major rugby venue beyond half of its capacity for a number of rugby internationals in recent years, including one against the Springboks, as noted earlier in this thread (with relevant links). & once again, it is South Africa - not Ireland - which gets the best crowds in the world for club rugby.

Again, you don't do your homework.   You picked two matches from 2010 when the new Lansdowne Road was opened.  You don't know the circumstances of that particular season, why SA ended up playing the first match, and why attendances were low for those matches and in that season.  However, you'll find more often than not that Lansdowne gets full capacity for matches in the 6N and November internationals.   Crowds for South African club rugby are irrelevant.   It is crowds for international rugby is what is being considered for hosting a RWC.   There's no point in saying that 40,000 turn up for a Stormers v Bulls match - that's a local derby match in international terms.   The fact is that attendances for test matches featuring SA versus teams other than New Zealand don't get full capacity a lot of the time.  

The problem for SA may be that its cohort of largely white rugby fans would appear to be more choosy and selective in the matches they attend and teams they watch (NZ - full house, Argentina/Wales - not so much).

That's a baseless assumption and a fairly appalling generalisation into the bargain. One thing we did learn in 1995 was that the non-white majority in South Africa will come out and support a World Cup. The tournament has come on in leaps and bounds since then, the second installments in both NZ & England, respectively, were much bigger and more successful than the first. I think we all know both SA & Ireland would have little difficulty filling the stadiums for a RWC in the modern era. The main difference is, SA has dozens of major stadiums to fill, Ireland has one major rugby venue,four or five creaky old Gaelic football stadiums, and a bunch of relatively small stadiums.

No it's not a baseless assumption.  I looked at attendances for the last five years.  Nearly all NZ matches got full attendances, the matches against Aus were lower and against Argentina even lower again most of the time.   I provided the figures in an earlier post.   And the numbers attending matches involving the touring Lions were lower as well as the June tests against Wales.   The same June tests that SANZAR demanded be put in place in order to increase interest and drive up attendances as part of the IRB Touring Schedule 2012-2019 programme.

You yourself stated that the rugby fan base is largely white - and indeed affluent.   That's not an appalling generalisation - it's broadly accurate.   The non-white majority may well have come out and supported SA in the RWC 1995, but as I pointed out already, the capacity was only 77% - so it can't have been that strong.

We don't all know that Ireland and South Africa would have little difficulty in filling stadia in a modern RWC.  That's the very point.   SA doesn't have a record for it in international matches against lower-ranked test nations.   Ireland has a better record than that.   But they still have to prove that they can bring the additional foreign visitors in to fill out the stadia.   Ireland has much closer proximity to a foreign fan base who regularly and historically travel and attend matches.

The main difference is not that SA has dozens of stadia to fill.  It can only use 12-13 of those, so which ones will it use and what capacity will they be?

Ireland in comparison has the potential to be more of a hothouse/party environment with its 13 stadia within easy reach of each other,

In fact, Ireland only has two major centers and will only be using half a dozen major stadiums, all but one of them Gaelic and hurling venues. The fans will be living on top of one another. The hotels and pubs will be overcrowded, prices will skyrocket, and there is a very strong likelihood of rain. Doesn't sound like too much of a party atmosphere in the making to me. But South Africa will party, with fans spread across a dozen or so major cities, all with major venues and plenty of sightseeing and tourist activities, and the likelihood of sunshine.

No - the island of Ireland has eight cities, six of which  - Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick - are likely to be used in any bid.   All of them capable of handling tourist numbers - as they do every year.  Stadia are stadia.   England used multi-purpose venues for its tournament - no one complained.   The fans will be living on top of one another?   Really?   I'm beginning to suspect that you are that US Senator who claimed that Guam would capsize if 18,000 US troops landed on the island at the one time.  

The number of registered players is not a consideration except where it might indicate the potential to grow the game internally - and that could certainly happen with rugby in Ireland.
I'd say I know the weather in Ireland during September and October better than you - and it wasn't anything like you describe during the RWC last year.   You were in Ireland, once during April - so you have no personal experience.

Japan hasn't been into the knockout stages, nor has Italy.   France have never won the World Cup.   Neither has Wales.    So what?  Any future RWCs can only be hosted by countries that have reached knock-out stages or reached a semi-final?   Co-hosting is irrelevant in comparison to hosting the entire tournament on its own.  you've never been to South Africa, you've never in any of their stadia and yet you write about them as if you'd visited each of them personally.

Basically we are comparing a rugby super power with 350,000 registered players, 54 million people, dozens of immaculate rugby-purpose stadiums (and dozens more state-of-the-art soccer venues) - spread across numerous major metropolitan centers, vast geography including almost 3000 kms of coastline, & generally sunny conditions, and which won't have hosted the tournament for almost 3 decades by 2023, with a geographically tiny island that has about 5 million inhabitants, 90,000 registered players, a national team which has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis at a World Cup (and has NEVER beaten the All Blacks), with only two major metropolitan centers and one major rugby-purpose stadium, generally cold and wet conditions, and which has co-hosted the World Cup on two occasions.

No contest. Ireland are not even in the frame.

No "we" are not comparing.  You are making the comparison - in biased, irrelevant or factually inaccurate terms, in trying to make your case.  Your argument sounds emptier and emptier with each attempt.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Italy could hold it tomorrow if we're basing it on facilities and not organisation obviously.

Not that Italy couldn't host it but a lot of their stadiums aren't actually that great. A lot of them have running tracks around them and have sectioned off parts in the stadium due to the fans having to be separated.

Not sure that would be too much trouble to sort out. They would also have football posts but I'd like to think they'd swap them!

There's no point in saying that 40,000 turn up for a Stormers v Bulls match - that's a local derby match in international terms.   The fact is that attendances for test matches featuring SA versus teams other than New Zealand don't get full capacity a lot of the time.  

The stormers has the highest attendance gate of any rugby club in the game. Thats a fact. Last year their super rugby average was about 41,000. Its been that way for decades too.. maybe at their height, the Reds were bringing in bigger crowds. The average SA super rugby attendance is over 25,000 per game. Compare that to the rest of the world.....

In terms of SA home games. They don't always sell out but are often close and its good that local fans can get hold of tickets.. Attendances to Argentina are improving and given the country is the size of western Europe attendances are limited to those who live in the particular host city. For instance, Port Elizabeth has a population of little more than 300,000 people but come test matches they regularly sell out their 40,000 seater stadium. Few away fans attend and few bokke fans will come from the major cities. Impressive given they tend to get the lesser test matches.

"Has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis at a World Cup (and has never beaten the All Blacks)"

Neither has Japan.

The point being made was that comparing Ireland to SA and demanding identical treatment in terms of World Cup hosting is nonsensical. I've used the analogy for comparing Brazil to Ireland in football. Japan may have never progressed from the group stages at the RWC, but its population is two-and-a-half times bigger than South Africa, it has a much stronger economy, and it has one of the largest rugby-playing communities in the world - bigger than Ireland's in fact. So in the context of World Cup hosting capability, Japan can be compared to South Africa. Ireland, on the other hand, comes off a distant second in every conceivable respect.



If you want to put forward an alternative list of 12-13 stadia that you think would be more suitable/appropriate - list them out.

But you're talking about the amateur era more than two decades ago, and trying to suggest attendances are some sort of reason to prefer Ireland over SA. Fact is, 1995 was a successful and memorable tournament, the average attendances were bigger than at either of the RWCs NZ has staged, and even today SA still gets the best crowds at club games. The World Cup is coming along in leaps and bounds, just look at the differences between 1987 and 2011 in NZ and 1991 & 2015 in England. There's no comparison. So bringing up 1995 stats and implying exactly the same could be expected in SA is simply clutcing at straws.

You want stadiums? How about some of these: 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

It's irrelevant whether they are used primarily for soccer, football, rugby or hurling venues

Sure, but they'll still need a lot of work and expenditure in order to be ready for Rugby World Cup fixtures, whereas SA's vast array of stadia is good to go.

You picked two matches from 2010 when the new Lansdowne Road was opened

No, I just posted a couple of articles that showed Dublin too has received some surprisingly low attendances at international fixtures. I'm sure there were extenuating factors whenever this as occurred in SA too.


You yourself stated that the rugby fan base is largely white - and indeed affluent.

I'm not sure if I stated that, exactly. I do know the non-white rugby community and fan base in South Africa is growing all the time, if not quite at the rate we might have hoped for after the end of Apartheid. I'm pretty sure that for a well-promoted RWC it would actually outnumber the white fan base. But the suggesting I described as baseless was that the fans would be picky about which games they deigned to attend. That's not only baseless; it's complete drivel. South Africa is one of the most passionate rugby nations on earth. & cherry picking attendances from the distant past isn't going to fool anybody into thinking that's not the case.

Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick

Only two major centers there. Belfast, in fact, is quite a small city by modern standards, and Cork is tiny. The remaining three are all under 100 K & should more appropriately be described as towns. South Africa has dozens of cities bigger than these, and at least a dozen bigger than Belfast.

The number of registered players is not a consideration except where it might indicate the potential to grow the game internally

I'd say it very much reflects the status of the game in the country and largely determines that nations standing in the international rugby community. What more relevant criteria could possibly be applied?

I'd say I know the weather in Ireland during September and October better than you - and it wasn't anything like you describe during the RWC last year.

Statistical averages is all I posted - straight from the Irish meteorological web site.

Rowanbi wrote:"Has never won a playoff game nor reached the semis at a World Cup (and has never beaten the All Blacks)"

Neither has Japan.

The point being made was that comparing Ireland to SA and demanding identical treatment in terms of World Cup hosting is nonsensical. I've used the analogy for comparing Brazil to Ireland in football. Japan may have never progressed from the group stages at the RWC, but its population is two-and-a-half times bigger than South Africa, it has a much stronger economy, and it has one of the largest rugby-playing communities in the world - bigger than Ireland's in fact. So in the context of World Cup hosting capability, Japan can be compared to South Africa. Ireland, on the other hand, comes off a distant second in every conceivable respect.

No - you keep making the point that Ireland has never reached the semi-finals as a reason for not selecting them.  That is nonsensical - and Japan' selection proves the point.

If you want to put forward an alternative list of 12-13 stadia that you think would be more suitable/appropriate - list them out.

But you're talking about the amateur era more than two decades ago, and trying to suggest attendances are some sort of reason to prefer Ireland over SA. Fact is, 1995 was a successful and memorable tournament, the average attendances were bigger than at either of the RWCs NZ has staged, and even today SA still gets the best crowds at club games. The World Cup is coming along in leaps and bounds, just look at the differences between 1987 and 2011 in NZ and 1991 & 2015 in England. There's no comparison. So bringing up 1995 stats and implying exactly the same could be expected in SA is simply clutcing at straws.

You want stadiums? How about some of these:
1 Soccer City 94,736 Johannesburg Gauteng South Africa national football team, Kaizer Chiefs - Yes this is already in the list I provided - capacity for fans restricted to 85,000
2 Ellis Park Stadium 62,567 Johannesburg Gauteng Lions, Golden Lions - already in the list I provided - capacity for rugby increased to 62k
3 Odi Stadium 60,000 Mabopane Gauteng Garankuwa United - based in northern Pretoria - not suitable - look at pictures of it.
4 Phakisa Freeway 60,000 Welkom Free State Motor Racing - a motor racing circuit???  do you even check what it is you are posting?  You copied this list from Wikipedia without even checking.
5 Mmabatho Stadium 59,000 Mahikeng North West training ground for North-West University - currently used for soccer with a running track around it - look at pictures of it - unsuitable.
6 Cape Town Stadium 55,000 Cape Town Western Cape Ajax Cape Town - I included this on my list already - capacity reduced from soccer world cup from 64k to 55k.
7 Moses Mabhida Stadium 54,000 Durban KwaZulu-Natal Amazulu - I already included this in my list - capacity has been reduced from Soccer world cup 63k to 54k
8 Kings Park Stadium 52,000 Durban KwaZulu-Natal Sharks, Natal Sharks - Yep this could be the alternative for Durban since it is a rugby stadium.  Built in 1958 and last renovated in 1995 for the RWC.
9 Loftus Versfeld Stadium 51,762 Pretoria Gauteng Bulls, Blue Bulls - I had already included this in my list - capacity increased for rugby, now at 52k.  Built in 1908, renovated in 1977, expansion completed 2009.
10 Newlands Stadium 51,100 Cape Town Western Cape South Africa national rugby union team, Stormers, Western Province - Yes could be the alternative in Cape Town since it is a rugby stadium - 4k less capacity
11 Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium 48,459 Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape Southern Kings, Eastern Province Kings - Yes I included this in my list already - capacity increased to 46,000 for rugby.  Average attendances for the African Nations cup in 2013 was 15,000
12 Royal Bafokeng Stadium 42,000 Rustenburg North West Platinum Stars - Yes - I included this in my list already.
13 Peter Mokaba Stadium 41,733 Polokwane Limpopo Polokwane City - Yes I included this in my list already.
14 Mbombela Stadium 40,929 Nelspruit Mpumalanga Pumas, Mpumalanga Black Aces - Yes I included this in my list already.
15 Free State Stadium 40,911 Bloemfontein Free State Bloemfontein Celtic F.C., Central Cheetahs, Free State Cheetahs - Yes I included this in my list already

16 Orlando Stadium 40,000 Soweto Gauteng Orlando Pirates F.C. - primarily a soccer stadium in the suburbs of Jo'burg, and has hosted only two rugby matches.
17 Johannesburg Stadium 37,500 Johannesburg Gauteng training ground for Lions and Golden Lions - exactly, a training ground
18 Charles Mopeli Stadium 35,000 Phuthaditjhaba Free State Maluti FET College F.C. - are you recommending this be used - why?
19 Wanderers Stadium 34,000 Johannesburg Gauteng Proteas, Highveld Lions cricket team, Gauteng cricket team - Yes - it's a cricket ground
20 EPRU Stadium 33,852 Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape no current tenant - speaks volumes
21 Athlone Stadium 30,000 Cape Town Western Cape Santos - another Cape Town stadium

I selected the ten stadia that SA used in the Soccer World Cup in 2010 and said they had got 92% capacity and acknowledged that it was a good mark in their favour - albeit for soccer not rugby.

I asked you to nominate the 12-13 stadia that SA could use - not give me a list of stadia that I already knew.  By dint of you cutting and pasting a list from Wikipedia, you've managed to include all the stadia that I nominated already - albeit some capacities have increased/decreased.  You've also included managed to include entirely unsuitable multi-purpose stadia, the Bullring cricket stadium and a motor racing track!!  

So - put up a list of 13 stadia - of appropriate size - that you think SA could use in its bid, and your reasoning why.   Bear in mind that some locations have more than one stadium - are you proposing they use both, or just one?   What would be your nominated 2-3 pillar stadia for the large attendance/final stages matches?

It's irrelevant whether they are used primarily for soccer, football, rugby or hurling venues

Sure, but they'll still need a lot of work and expenditure in order to be ready for Rugby World Cup fixtures, whereas SA's vast array of stadia is good to go.  

Eh no they're not - some of them will need modifications as well.

You picked two matches from 2010 when the new Lansdowne Road was opened

No, I just posted a couple of articles that showed Dublin too has received some surprisingly low attendances at international fixtures. I'm sure there were extenuating factors whenever this as occurred in SA too.  

That's just a guess on your part.  I can give you the specific reasons for the low attendances for the 2010 matches.    At least, fa001 knows what he's talking about and gave some background to the consistent attendances for Stormers matches, and acknowledges the low attendances for matches such as those against Argentina.  It's also noteworthy that he says South African fans are not so willing to travel given the size of South Africa.  

Pot hale - people may think that South Africans are wealthy but in reality they are not compared to their European counterparts... even the rich ones. I don't know hardly any who travel to go and see their team because it does tend to cost a lot of money. You say rich whites only play the game... rich in terms of SA rich sure but then again with tens of millions living in squatter camps you don't need to earn much to be classified as rich... first year university grads are technically amongst the top 5% of earners these days yet they can hardly afford anything bar rent and a car.

Going to other parts of SA is similar to GB & IRE to Rome.... how many do that compared to GB & IRE to each other. Some sure, but not many and not regularly.

Can Ireland host it... sure they can although I would doubt they could ala England 2015. The problem is not Stadium sizes as many have mentioned... its infrastructure. We're talking about flights, hotel rooms. Lots of the highlighted stadiums are in the same cities etc. It would be better to host with say Scotland. There you would have at least Hampden, Murrayfield and maybe even Ibrox & Celtic Park... 4 50,000 stadia and 2 large cities to deal with the influx of fans.
Yes NZ coped but far fewer fans travelled to NZ due to remoteness compared to Ireland. We'd see demand similar to ENG'15 but I doubt they could cope with such requirements on their own.

Anyhow my view is that Ireland can host but probably will find it tricky on their own and they should go in with say Scotland. No reason why it can't in that circumstance be as big as ENG'15 then.

However I hold my view that SA as one of the 3 major regions of world rugby should get a turn. Its been 28 (2023) years since its gone to this part of the world. I travel a lot back and forth and managed to get to the Olympics in 2012, Commonwealths in 2014 and the RWC 2015 so it has no impact on me. I feel that European fans must realise they are very fortunate to have so many "Tier 1 nations" and regular RWCs held in their close proximity.

I'd probably say

2019 Japan
2023 SA
2027 Ireland/Scotland
2031 AUS
2035 Italy
2039 Argentina

etc etc (Italy I think needs more time to grow the support... they still rely heavily on foreign imports to bump up their player standards).

Fa Infrastructure isn't an issue. Ireland has much more hotels than New Zealand. The country is covered in resorts. It would be a different world cup than England's but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Hosting with Scotland would be completely pointless when it can be hosted by Ireland alone. The bid doesn't include Scotland so its a moot point in any case.

No - you keep making the point that Ireland has never reached the semi-finals as a reason for not selecting them. That is nonsensical - and Japan' selection proves the point.

I happen to know why I'm making the point. I am demonstrating the absurdity of expecting Ireland and South Africa to be treated as equals in terms of World Cup hosting 'rights.'

2019 Japan
2023 SA
2027 Ireland/Scotland
2031 AUS
2035 Italy
2039 Argentina

FA0019 speaks a lot of sense. An Ireland-Scottish joint bid would be more realistic But I'd hate to see that happen so soon after England 2015. Italy for 2027, Argentina 2031, then maybe back to France or the Home Unions in 2035 if no more suitable Northern Hemisphere nation has come through.

I asked you to nominate the 12-13 stadia that SA could use

I think I already did that. Just take your pick out of that impressive multitude of stadiums. I can't really be arsed doing it for you, sorry.

Ireland has much more hotels than New Zealand. The country is covered in resorts.

But not a fraction as many as South Africa. (NZ 2011 was a mistake IMHO, just a homage to the sport's most successful nation).

What have the teams on the pitch got to do with hosting ability?

Rowanbi wrote:No - you keep making the point that Ireland has never reached the semi-finals as a reason for not selecting them.  That is nonsensical - and Japan' selection proves the point.

I happen to know why I'm making the point. I am demonstrating the absurdity of expecting Ireland and South Africa to be treated as equals in terms of World Cup hosting 'rights.'

2019 Japan
2023 SA
2027 Ireland/Scotland
2031 AUS
2035 Italy
2039 Argentina

FA0019 speaks a lot of sense. An Ireland-Scottish joint bid would be more realistic But I'd hate to see that happen so soon after England 2015. Italy for 2027, Argentina 2031, then maybe back to France or the Home Unions in 2035 if no more suitable Northern Hemisphere nation has come through.

I asked you to nominate the 12-13 stadia that SA could use

I think I already did that. Just take your pick out of that impressive multitude of stadiums. I can't really be arsed doing it for you, sorry.

Ireland has much more hotels than New Zealand. The country is covered in resorts.

But not a fraction as many as South Africa. (NZ 2011 was a mistake IMHO, just a homage to the sport's most successful nation).

You are right Ireland and SA shouldn't be treated as equals because Ireland have been part of the world cup for longer than SA and have a longer history of playing rugby. SA have already hosted and Ireland have not. SA's bid will be rejected again.

i don't think rugby history, wins, previous hosting matters much to be honest. Rotation seems to be geographical rather than slaps on backs.

The Irish fans support their bid, bokke support their bid. Everyone has their own reasons, some legit some questionable. If I was a betting man I would say SA is more likely as they have a lot of weight in the upper circles of rugby.
I do think that European fans and unions are spoilt quite a bit though. They're lucky to hold such a voting block.
Should SA split into 4 separate unions to garner more votes i.e. Western Cape, Free State, Natal and Transvaal... 3 of which were former countries in their own right and still hold a very distinct identity.

Could try. Weakening SA works for me given the strangle hold they've had over England recently!

fa0019 wrote:i don't think rugby history, wins, previous hosting matters much to be honest. Rotation seems to be geographical rather than slaps on backs.

The Irish fans support their bid, bokke support their bid. Everyone has their own reasons, some legit some questionable. If I was a betting man I would say SA is more likely as they have a lot of weight in the upper circles of rugby.
I do think that European fans and unions are spoilt quite a bit though. They're lucky to hold such a voting block.
Should SA split into 4 separate unions to garner more votes i.e. Western Cape, Free State, Natal and Transvaal... 3 of which were former countries in their own right and still hold a very distinct identity.

Since the IRB (World Rugby) was founded in Dublin and their headquarters are still here, I'd imagine Ireland has quite a bit of influence in the upper echelons of World Rugby. Lets not forget that World Rugby also enjoys a tax free status in Ireland, so they actually owe a lot to Ireland. Its about time that World Rugby thanked Irish people for hosting the sporting organisation.

The size of the stadia/no of tickets sold are irrelevant to World Rugby as they get a set hosting fee and the hosting country has to cover the cost of that fee with ticket sales. The RFU have made a packet on the recent World Cup.

The main interest of World Rugby is the hosting fee and timezone for sale of tv rights and sponsorship and that there is a good spectacle for TV.

Rowanbi wrote:No - you keep making the point that Ireland has never reached the semi-finals as a reason for not selecting them.  That is nonsensical - and Japan' selection proves the point.

I happen to know why I'm making the point. I am demonstrating the absurdity of expecting Ireland and South Africa to be treated as equals in terms of World Cup hosting 'rights.'

Because Ireland has never reached the semi-final of a RWC is the sum of your logic.   Whereas, South Africa has, therefore it should be given the hosting rights.  

Right.  Well you're entitled to your view.

   

I asked you to nominate the 12-13 stadia that SA could use

I think I already did that. Just take your pick out of that impressive multitude of stadiums. I can't really be arsed doing it for you, sorry.

No you cut and pasted a list of 20 odd stadia from Wikipedia that contained unsuitable stadia, and ones dedicated to other sports including cricket and motor racing.

So back your statement up with a specific list of 13 stadia that could be used. Or do you actually know what you're talking about?

fa0019 wrote:
Going to other parts of SA is similar to GB & IRE to Rome.... how many do that compared to GB & IRE to each other. Some sure, but not many and not regularly.

Can Ireland host it... sure they can although I would doubt they could ala England 2015. The problem is not Stadium sizes as many have mentioned... its infrastructure. We're talking about flights, hotel rooms.

Absolutely no problem with flights (& boats) in and out of Ireland. Some people commute to London to work from Dublin! There are airports dotted all over the country, with 5 airports that can host intercontinental flights.

Ryanair is an Irish company which is the 2nd largest airline in Europe and carried 101.4m people last year. (Delta airline carries about 130m passengers per year and is the world's largest).
Ryanair is the world's largest airline carrier of international passengers.

As well as that, Ireland is the world leader in aircraft leasing with 9 of the 10 major aircraft leasing companies in the world based in Dublin (leasing 4,000 planes).

Getting in or out of Ireland will not be a problem!

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Going to other parts of SA is similar to GB & IRE to Rome.... how many do that compared to GB & IRE to each other. Some sure, but not many and not regularly.

Can Ireland host it... sure they can although I would doubt they could ala England 2015. The problem is not Stadium sizes as many have mentioned... its infrastructure. We're talking about flights, hotel rooms.

Absolutely no problem with flights (& boats) in and out of Ireland. Some people commute to London to work from Dublin! There are airports dotted all over the country, with 5 airports that can host intercontinental flights.

Ryanair is an Irish company which is the 2nd largest airline in Europe and carried 101.4m people last year. (Delta airline carries about 130m passengers per year and is the world's largest).
Ryanair is the world's largest airline carrier of international passengers.

As well as that, Ireland is the world leader in aircraft leasing with 9 of the 10 major aircraft leasing companies in the world based in Dublin (leasing 4,000 planes).

Getting in or out of Ireland will not be a problem!

Ryanair's overall flying capacity is irrelevant. It is throughput capacities at the airports, and numbers of direct flights or links that are more important.

Pot Hale wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Going to other parts of SA is similar to GB & IRE to Rome.... how many do that compared to GB & IRE to each other. Some sure, but not many and not regularly.

Can Ireland host it... sure they can although I would doubt they could ala England 2015. The problem is not Stadium sizes as many have mentioned... its infrastructure. We're talking about flights, hotel rooms.

Absolutely no problem with flights (& boats) in and out of Ireland. Some people commute to London to work from Dublin! There are airports dotted all over the country, with 5 airports that can host intercontinental flights.

Ryanair is an Irish company which is the 2nd largest airline in Europe and carried 101.4m people last year. (Delta airline carries about 130m passengers per year and is the world's largest).
Ryanair is the world's largest airline carrier of international passengers.

As well as that, Ireland is the world leader in aircraft leasing with 9 of the 10 major aircraft leasing companies in the world based in Dublin (leasing 4,000 planes).

Getting in or out of Ireland will not be a problem!

Ryanair's overall flying capacity is irrelevant.  It is throughput capacities at the airports, and numbers of direct flights or links that are more important.

Dublin Airport had 25m passenger through it last year. Between 18th December & 1st Jan just gone, 1m passengers went though (2 week period).

Shannon Airport is main airport refuelling airport between US & Europe, i.e., Aeroflot, British Airways etc. all stop to refuel in Shannon. Its runway is designated as a landing runway for Space Shuttles. It handles 2m passengers per annum.

Belfast International Airport 4.5m passengers per annum.
Belfast City Airport 2.7m passengers per annum.
Knock Airport 700K per annum
Cork Airport 2m per annum
Cardiff Airport handles 1m passengers a year!

Capetown Airport 6m per annum.
Johannesburg  Airport 19m per annum.

Looks like Dublin Airport will have no problem dealing with a large influx of people.
Then you have all the Ferries from UK and France.

I've been in Cardiff for Heineken Cup Final in 08 when there was approx. 70K Munster fans there (i.e., no local team). There was absolutely no delay in Dublin Airport. The big delay was in Cardiff Airport - they even had us waiting in a school nearby with about a 6 hour delay. No such problem in Dublin Airport. It went like clockwork (and that was before Dublin Airport's 2nd terminal was opened).

Finding aircraft won't be a problem for charter flights considering 9 of the world's 10 biggest aircraft leasing companies are based in Dublin. No problem finding a 747 to fly in SA fans for a game!