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.

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.



Again Fa0019 has it nailed. None of this is relevant. Germany was the first European country outside the Home Unions where the game was played, and India was the first nation outside of Europe, so by your method of evaluation these countries should not only have come before Japan, they should have come before France & the SANZAR nations also. Ireland has co-hosted twice, btw - 12 games in total, including three playoffs.

I do think that European fans and unions are spoilt quite a bit though. They're lucky to hold such a voting block.

To put it mildly. Fans in Ireland, Scotland and Wales can easily travel to the tournament every 8 years also, while those in the much bigger, more passionate and successful rugby-playing nation of South Africa have to wait 3 decades (or more, if they don't get 2023). Even NZ & Australia had to wait 24 & 16 years respective (Australia were only a co-host the first time), and they've won the majority of the World Cups played so far - 5 times as many as the entire Northern Hemisphere, in fact. Anyway, we all know that, in the final analysis, it will come down to wheeling and dealing and backroom handshakes among the select few core committee member nations. The European vote may well be split between its 3 candidates, putting SA in a much stronger position. Argentina, at least, has already thrown its lot in with the SARFU.

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.

Right. So the FIFA World Cup should go to Switzerland then - straight after Qatar??

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.

So profits to the hosting nation mean nothing then? The 2015 tournament has apprently injected 1.5 billion pounds into the UK economy. Might be nice to see more countries benefitting in similar manner from the sport's showpiece event, don't you think? The lack of wealth among the non-white majority of South Africa has been mentioned more than once. Well, what better way to repay the tremendous contribution SA has made to the game over the decades, and to encourage its non-white (ruling) majority to embrace the sport? A 4th straight rejection, on the other hand, will undoubedly have the opposite effect. To neglect such a major, established market would be foolhardy.

timezone for sale of tv rights and sponsorship and that there is a good spectacle for TV.

SA is an hour ahead of Britan. Not a problem.

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.  


Have answered this already - more than once. It is not the definitive argument in favor of a South African bid. It is one of many factors which demonstrate the absurdity of comparing Ireland to SA and expecting identical rights. It's like comparing Ireland to Brazil in football.

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.

Wait a minute: I'm asked to provide evidence to back up my comments about 'friendlies' being an oft-used term in rugby, but when I cut and paste from a highly respected source on the issue of stadia this is wrong as well?? DAmned if you do, damned if you don't. Those are the stadia. Take your pick. I put the motor racing circuit in brackets precisely because it's obviously not a suitable venue. I don't need to prove to anyone that South Africa has the best stadia in the world for a RWC. That's perfectly self-evident - & that's why World Rugby went straight to SA with a standby request when things started to look shaky in Japan.

Teams on the pitch have nothing to do with it.

Ireland have been part of the world cup for longer than SA

Just another comment about that. The Home Unions, including Ireland, were steadfastly opposed to the concept of the World Cup. It was the SANZAR trio which finally pushed it through, with France lending their full support. South Africa were in favour of the tournament in spite of the fact they knew they would not be able to participate at the time. England and Wales eventually changed their positions, there by creating the required majority.


A subsequent IRFB meeting was held in Paris in March 1985. It is known that originally, all four home nations were opposed to the idea, and the most vocal supporters were Australia, New Zealand and France. It is believed that South Africa's decision to vote in favour of the event was the turning point in the voting. South Africa voted in favour of the tournament going ahead, though they knew they would not be competing due to the sports boycott at the time.[3] South Africa's vote saw England, followed by Wales, change to be in favour as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Rugby_World_Cup

Never knew we had the Aussies to thank.

Indeed, Australia France and New Zealand leading the way.

The English put the squeeze on South Africa,, then it all fell into line.

All the more reason that those who were dead set against it, should definitely get a chance to host the thing for the first time, unlike South Africa and France who have already hosted it.

So, its Ireland or Italy for me.

Same here Pot. Rowan has sold it to me!

And the Italians invented pasta. And wine. And they're far more attractive sights than Johannesburg.

So they should definitely get it.

On the other hand, Ireland has got turf fires and Guinness.

Hmmmmm.. tricky

The English put the squeeze on South Africa,, then it all fell into line.

I believe it was the Australasians who put the squeeze on SA (NZ's 1985 tour to SA, subsequently cancelled by a court injuntion, was rumored to be a bargaining chip). As the blurb posted from Wiki states, it was only after SA agreed to support the concept that England & Wales changed their positions. Scotland and Ireland had to be dragged screaming and kicking along to the first tournament. Well, what a spectacular success it turned out to be, largely thanks to the Trans-Tasman effort in creating that inaugural event. & now suddenly the Home Unions are carrying on like they own it. They've all hosted or co-hosted the event on multiple occasions, and they also feel entitled to host it - yet again - in 2023.

Well done Australia as I said. I'm sure people will get over their feelings of entitlement when it gets a debut hosting at Italy or Ireland.

I don't think it should be hosted in a racist country. First ridiculous player quotas (which is racist) and now just seen this from a Stomers fan on another forum:
"Yeah I followed the Coetzee signing quite closely as I have him drafted into a fantasy Super Rugby team and wanted to make sure he'd at least play this season still. The Springboks missed him in 2015's RWC. Can't blame any SA player for leaving the shoes at this stage though. I'd push off myself if I had the opportunity and my exteded family could make a trip as well. As a shining example two white students from Stellenbosch uni have been suspended for painting their faces metallic purple for a space theme party on the basis of it being racist while a black student wearing a t-shirt with the slogan 'F*** white people' is seen as exercising his right to free speach in an artful form of protest. No jokes."

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well done Australia as I said. I'm sure people will get over their feelings of entitlement when it gets a debut hosting at Italy or Ireland.

I think you're absolutely right 71/2 - very insightful.

Do we really need to see an RWC again in a SANZAR nation for the fifth or sixth time?   Do we need to see the RWC being passed around the Big 5 between them all the time?

No, I say!

We need change!  

The next 7 tournaments need to go to new unions, new territories, that haven't hosted it on their own before.

2019 Japan
2023 Ireland
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Italy
2039 Georgia
2043 Canada
2047 Australasia
2051 Pan-Africa

Whisper it quietly I've heard even soome British people are racist. And we're the superior nation! (irony)

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I don't think it should be hosted in a racist country. First ridiculous player quotas (which is racist) and now just seen this from a Stomers fan on another forum:
"Yeah I followed the Coetzee signing quite closely as I have him drafted into a fantasy Super Rugby team and wanted to make sure he'd at least play this season still. The Springboks missed him in 2015's RWC. Can't blame any SA player for leaving the shoes at this stage though. I'd push off myself if I had the opportunity and my exteded family could make a trip as well. As a shining example two white students from Stellenbosch uni have been suspended for painting their faces metallic purple for a space theme party on the basis of it being racist while a black student wearing a t-shirt with the slogan 'F*** white people' is seen as exercising his right to free speach in an artful form of protest. No jokes."

there's racism everywhere, LF4L

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I don't think it should be hosted in a racist country. First ridiculous player quotas (which is racist) and now just seen this from a Stomers fan on another forum:
"Yeah I followed the Coetzee signing quite closely as I have him drafted into a fantasy Super Rugby team and wanted to make sure he'd at least play this season still. The Springboks missed him in 2015's RWC. Can't blame any SA player for leaving the shoes at this stage though. I'd push off myself if I had the opportunity and my exteded family could make a trip as well. As a shining example two white students from Stellenbosch uni have been suspended for painting their faces metallic purple for a space theme party on the basis of it being racist while a black student wearing a t-shirt with the slogan 'F*** white people' is seen as exercising his right to free speach in an artful form of protest. No jokes."

there's racism everywhere, LF4L

I haven't seen racial quotas in any other national team?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whisper it quietly I've heard even soome British people are racist. And we're the superior nation! (irony)

Really?

I didn't know that....

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I don't think it should be hosted in a racist country. First ridiculous player quotas (which is racist) and now just seen this from a Stomers fan on another forum:
"Yeah I followed the Coetzee signing quite closely as I have him drafted into a fantasy Super Rugby team and wanted to make sure he'd at least play this season still. The Springboks missed him in 2015's RWC. Can't blame any SA player for leaving the shoes at this stage though. I'd push off myself if I had the opportunity and my exteded family could make a trip as well. As a shining example two white students from Stellenbosch uni have been suspended for painting their faces metallic purple for a space theme party on the basis of it being racist while a black student wearing a t-shirt with the slogan 'F*** white people' is seen as exercising his right to free speach in an artful form of protest. No jokes."

there's racism everywhere, LF4L

I haven't seen racial quotas in any other national team?

Doesn't mean they're not there, though.

Look at the reaction to the Ireland team every time it's announced -   too many Ladyboys, not enough muck savages, those Ulster mafia, how many from connacht?

And now they've let an English bloke in to train Munster and help out with the Irish team??!!!

Endemic it is.

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I don't think it should be hosted in a racist country. First ridiculous player quotas (which is racist) and now just seen this from a Stomers fan on another forum:
"Yeah I followed the Coetzee signing quite closely as I have him drafted into a fantasy Super Rugby team and wanted to make sure he'd at least play this season still. The Springboks missed him in 2015's RWC. Can't blame any SA player for leaving the shoes at this stage though. I'd push off myself if I had the opportunity and my exteded family could make a trip as well. As a shining example two white students from Stellenbosch uni have been suspended for painting their faces metallic purple for a space theme party on the basis of it being racist while a black student wearing a t-shirt with the slogan 'F*** white people' is seen as exercising his right to free speach in an artful form of protest. No jokes."

there's racism everywhere, LF4L

I haven't seen racial quotas in any other national team?

Doesn't mean they're not there, though.

Look at the reaction to the Ireland team every time it's announced -   too many Ladyboys, not enough muck savages, those Ulster mafia, how many from connacht?

And now they've let an English bloke in to train Munster and help out with the Irish team??!!!

Endemic it is.

yes inter provincial bickering is the same as racial quotas. I guess I should look on the bright side, this could mean more quality white SAs playing in Ireland. CJ Stander certainly won't be the last SA to represent Ireland.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I don't think it should be hosted in a racist country. First ridiculous player quotas (which is racist) and now just seen this from a Stomers fan on another forum:
"Yeah I followed the Coetzee signing quite closely as I have him drafted into a fantasy Super Rugby team and wanted to make sure he'd at least play this season still. The Springboks missed him in 2015's RWC. Can't blame any SA player for leaving the shoes at this stage though. I'd push off myself if I had the opportunity and my exteded family could make a trip as well. As a shining example two white students from Stellenbosch uni have been suspended for painting their faces metallic purple for a space theme party on the basis of it being racist while a black student wearing a t-shirt with the slogan 'F*** white people' is seen as exercising his right to free speach in an artful form of protest. No jokes."

there's racism everywhere, LF4L

I haven't seen racial quotas in any other national team?

Doesn't mean they're not there, though.

Look at the reaction to the Ireland team every time it's announced -   too many Ladyboys, not enough muck savages, those Ulster mafia, how many from connacht?

And now they've let an English bloke in to train Munster and help out with the Irish team??!!!

Endemic it is.

yes inter provincial bickering is the same as racial quotas. I guess I should look on the bright side, this could mean more quality white SAs playing in Ireland. CJ Stander certainly won't be the last SA to represent Ireland.

True.

And there's all dem New Zeelander fellas coming in.

I suppose Ireland could field a team of multinationals just in time for hosting the RWC in 2023. A team of nations to welcome all nations' teams.

I don't think an organization with over 100 affiliated member nations but a core committee comprising only one non-white majority member is really in a position to criticize, let alone penalize, South Africa's efforts to speed up integration through affirmative action. Indeed, it would be perilous to do so. Fact is, rugby union's hierarchy is dominated by white, English-speaking nations (all but one having been part of the British Empire).

What we do know about the 1995 World Cup in South Africa is that it had a major impact on the sport throughout the continent. The national unions of Swaziland, Botswana, Mauritius, Nigeria & Ghana all came into existence around that time,  - while Burundi, Rwanda, Togo, Mali & others would follow within a decade of the tournament.

So it would be a little ironic for anyone concerned about the issue of racism to champion yet another World Cup in Europe (the 5th in 10 installments) at the expense of the African continent (which has only hosted one).

Anyway, I suspect this angle was only presented to move the discussion away as quickly as possible from the previous point I made: Ireland was opposed to the RWC concept yet has co-hosted twice, while South Africa was in favor of the concept but has only hosted once. What's wrong with this pictue??

I think we're all on the same page here Rowanbi: the wc needs to go to a non English speaking country like Italy or Ireland.

Yes - I think that is the central point.

The RWC needs to move away from the Big 5 countries that continue to dominate the sport and allow it to develop in other smaller heartlands and new territories.

I think my list from earlier sets out the way it should go for the next couple of decades:

The next 7 tournaments need to go to new unions, new territories, that haven't hosted it on their own before.

2019 Japan
2023 Ireland
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Italy
2039 Georgia
2043 Canada
2047 Australasia
2051 Pan-Africa

Rowanbi wrote:I don't think an organization with over 100 affiliated member nations but a core committee comprising only one non-white majority member is really in a position to criticize, let alone penalize, South Africa's efforts to speed up integration through affirmative action. Indeed, it would be perilous to do so. Fact is, rugby union's hierarchy is dominated by white, English-speaking nations (all but one having been part of the British Empire).

Did it not ever cross your mind that maybe there are more white members because there are more white people involved in rugby ?? This is a bit like feminists complaining there are too many male politicians; well that's because more men go into politics...

Call me old fashioned but I want to see the best players get picked for their nations, to base a team around what your skin colour pretty much goes against what international sport stands for.

Did it not ever cross your mind that maybe there are more white members because there are more white people involved in rugby ?? This is a bit like feminists complaining there are too many male politicians; well that's because more men go into politics...


Good analogy. So it's about lack of opportunity and acceptance then. Btw, Japan has more registered players than any of the Celtic nations but only has half as many votes on the council. Fiji has more registered players than Scotland, and Maylaysia and Sri Lanka have roughly as many, but none of these countries have a vote on the council.

Ireland was opposed to the RWC concept yet has co-hosted twice, while South Africa was in favor of the concept but has only hosted once.

Just been reading more about this. The exact break down of the voting has never been revealed, but it is known Ireland and Scotland voted against the World Cup concept. With a 3/4 majority required, this fantastic tournament very nearly didn't happen...

Thank the Aussies.

Rowanbi wrote:Did it not ever cross your mind that maybe there are more white members because there are more white people involved in rugby ?? This is a bit like feminists complaining there are too many male politicians; well that's because more men go into politics...


Good analogy. So it's about lack of opportunity and acceptance then. Btw, Japan has more registered players than any of the Celtic nations but only has half as many votes on the council. Fiji has more registered players than Scotland, and Maylaysia and Sri Lanka have roughly as many, but none of these countries have a vote on the council.

Yep, and these countries don't cry out racism! It's all to do with the whole tier 1, tier 2 garbage that rugby needs to get rid of.

Rowanbi wrote:Did it not ever cross your mind that maybe there are more white members because there are more white people involved in rugby ?? This is a bit like feminists complaining there are too many male politicians; well that's because more men go into politics...


Good analogy. So it's about lack of opportunity and acceptance then. Btw, Japan has more registered players than any of the Celtic nations but only has half as many votes on the council. Fiji has more registered players than Scotland, and Maylaysia and Sri Lanka have roughly as many, but none of these countries have a vote on the council.

Good to see that you know what feminism is and no doubt you champion women's rights..... eh Quentin?

Ireland was opposed to the RWC concept yet has co-hosted twice, while South Africa was in favor of the concept but has only hosted once.

Just been reading more about this. The exact break down of the voting has never been revealed, but it is known Ireland and Scotland voted against the World Cup concept. With a 3/4 majority required, this fantastic tournament very nearly didn't happen...

Most of us on here could have told you that without you having to do your "in-depth research" for which you're becoming renowned on here i.e. consulting wikipedia and cut and pasting.

The opposition to the RWC wasn't a secret. It was widely and publicly known about opposition by a number of NH unions to the creation of the world cup in the amateur era. Have you never read accounts of the first world cup and the teams who participated in it, and the preparations for it by some of the NH teams, in comparison to the Big 5?

Professionalism has changed that completely. And it's time that the Big 5 let go and stopped grasping.

The next 7 tournaments need to go to new unions, new territories, that haven't hosted it on their own before.

2019 Japan
2023 Ireland
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Italy
2039 Georgia
2043 Canada
2047 Australasia
2051 Pan-Africa

Yep, and these countries don't cry out racism

Not in so many words, perhaps, but the Pacific Islands have certainly had plenty of negative things to say about their treatment by the powers-that-be.

Agree with you about the tiers. That was a step backward and nothing more than a lame justification for the top echelon's self-indulgent scheduling.

Meanwhile, going back to your women in politics analogy, I believe a lot of initiatives have been applied in various Western nations to encourage this. Sending the World Cup back to South Africa - which keeps bidding for it time after time - would be a massive boost for the sport throughout the continent. The level of interest in raised in 1995 is reflected by the list I posted earlier of national unions which sprang up all over Africa around that time.

Yep, and these countries don't cry out racism

Not in so many words, perhaps, but the Pacific Islands have certainly had plenty of negative things to say about their treatment by the powers-that-be.

Agree with you about the tiers. That was a step backward and nothing more than a lame justification for the top echelon's self-indulgent scheduling.

Meanwhile, going back to your women in politics analogy, I believe a lot of initiatives have been applied in various Western nations to encourage this. Sending the World Cup back to South Africa - which keeps bidding for it time after time - would be a massive boost for the sport throughout the continent. The level of interest in raised in 1995 is reflected by the list I posted earlier of national unions which sprang up all over Africa around that time.

Rowanbi wrote:Yep, and these countries don't cry out racism

Not in so many words, perhaps, but the Pacific Islands have certainly had plenty of negative things to say about their treatment by the powers-that-be.

Agree with you about the tiers. That was a step backward and nothing more than a lame justification for the top echelon's self-indulgent scheduling.

Meanwhile, going back to your women in politics analogy, I believe a lot of initiatives have been applied in various Western nations to encourage this. Sending the World Cup back to South Africa - which keeps bidding for it time after time - would be a massive boost for the sport throughout the continent. The level of interest in raised in 1995 is reflected by the list I posted earlier of national unions which sprang up all over Africa around that time.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Btw I'm not saying Ireland should get it, in fact I've implied the opposite in this thread. But if there is one nation that Defiantly shouldn't get it, is a country whose national team selection is dictated by skin colour.

Yup it can be great for debut nations like Italy or Ireland.

a country whose national team selection is dictated by skin colour.

Just as a matter of interest, what is your view on the New Zealand Maori team?

& how about the Maori league team which has actually competed in that code's World Cup?

Rowanbi wrote: a country whose national team selection is dictated by skin colour.

Just as a matter of interest, what is your view on the New Zealand Maori team?

& how about the Maori league team which has actually competed in that code's World Cup?

The Maori aren't a test side. If SA want to set up a non test team with only blacks, great. Don't know anything about the league team competing at world cups because they didn't in 2013. The best players still get picked for NZ, end of.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup it can be great for debut nations like Italy or Ireland.

I think you're right.

The initial one-off tournament that Australia and New Zealand had originally proposed separately be held in their own countries was voted on by the Big 5 nations and the three founding unions of the IRFB - Wales , Scotland and Ireland.   The vote for the once-off tournament was 6-2 with Ireland and Scotland opposing because of the threats to the amateur game from 'professionalism' that were perceived at the time.   France voted yes on the basis that it would include other unions outside of the 8 member unions - it was their vision that saw the competition subsequently open up and become a proper Rugby World Cup.  

In line with France's spirit of extension and inclusion, it makes sense that the next 7 tournaments need to go to new unions, new territories, that haven't hosted it on their own before, and remove it from the grasp of the Big 5.

2019 Japan
2023 Ireland
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Italy
2039 Georgia
2043 Canada
2047 Australasia
2051 Pan-Africa

Perfect Pot. Only an idiot would disagree.

I think the facts have been grossly distorted there. It was the NZRFU's vision which saw the inaugural tournament include 16 teams, including at least one from every continent. Provisional models had generally entailed 10 and 12 teams only. & it was most certainly planned as an on-going event, not a one-off. You may be referring to earlier proposals, such as the suggestion of an international rugby festival in Australia to mark that nations centennial in 1988. There was also the proposed Kerry Packer rugby 'circus' as well, which also failed to get off the ground. & whatever the reasons, Ireland and Scotland were the two nations which voted against the World Cup concept, while the SANZAR trio plus France were the driving force behind it.

The initial one-off tournament that Australia and New Zealand had originally proposed separately be held in their own countries was voted on by the Big 5 nations and the three founding unions of the IRFB - Wales , Scotland and Ireland.

The vote for the once-off tournament was 6-2 with Ireland and Scotland ultimately opposing because of the threats to the amateur game from 'professionalism' that were perceived at the time.

France voted yes on the basis that it would include other unions outside of the 8 member unions - it was their vision that saw the competition subsequently open up and become a proper Rugby World Cup.

In line with France's spirit of extension and inclusion, it makes sense that the next 7 tournaments need to go to new unions, new territories, that haven't hosted it on their own before, and remove it from the grasp of the Big 5.

2019 Japan
2023 Ireland
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Italy
2039 Georgia
2043 Canada
2047 Australasia
2051 Pan-Africa

Rowanbi wrote: a country whose national team selection is dictated by skin colour.

Just as a matter of interest, what is your view on the New Zealand Maori team?

& how about the Maori league team which has actually competed in that code's World Cup?

The subject change talk about.

The initial one-off tournament that Australia and New Zealand had originally proposed separately be held in their own countries was voted on by the Big 5 nations and the three founding unions of the IRFB - Wales , Scotland and Ireland.

Any tournament on its own can be described as a one-off. But there was no question this was intended to be an ongoing event barring a complete disaster.

The vote for the once-off tournament was 6-2 with Ireland and Scotland ultimately opposing

This is what I said except that I did not use the adverb 'ultimately.' There was nothing ultimate about it. They were opposed to the concept from the outset, and continued to oppose it right up until - and including - the vote.

France voted yes on the basis that it would include other unions outside of the 8 member unions - it was their vision that saw the competition subsequently open up and become a proper Rugby World Cup.

About time somebody apart from me came through with some evidence to support their comments here. I know France were very much expansionist at the time. They were still running the FIRA, which did more to develop international rugby than the rest of the 'foundation' members collectively. But they were talking about 12 teams with Romania and Italy included, along with Argentina and Canada, I believe. It was New Zealand which came up with the 16-team format, one of the main reasons being that they wanted Fiji involved in addition to the above.

I'm all for sending the World Cup to new frontiers, but it would be foolhardy to ignore the established markets as well. Therefore alternating the tournament between the established nations and new nation bidders over the next decade or two would be prudent. Italy is the only new nation bidder for 2023, but with Japan having had some issues, and talk of the tournament expanding to 24 teams, I think the time will be ripe to send the event back to the hemisphere which dominates the sport after a 12 year absence, and back to the African continent after an absence of nearly three decades. Italy for 2027 - absolutely.

Italy or Ireland of course. And you're right it should go to those 2 before going back to proven hosts. England NZ France.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Italy or Ireland of course. And you're right it should go to those 2 before going back to proven hosts. England NZ France.

Australia did pretty well in 2003, I think, 7&1/2.   I think we're all agreed that it makes sense that the next few tournaments need to go to new unions, new territories, that haven't hosted it on their own before, and remove it from the grasp of the Big 5 for a while.  Perhaps a slight re-ordering might be required and make the Big 5 operate more as anchor tenants to support the smaller/developing nations, where necessary.

2019 Japan
2023 Ireland - all island
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Italy inc France
2039 Pan-Africa inc SA
2043 Canada
2047 Pacific Islands inc Aus/NZ
2051 England

At the rate South Africa is going, there will hardly be any Rugby there in 8 years time.

I think we're all agreed that both traditional rugby heartlands and new host nations have their advantages, and that there also ought to be some degree of geographical rotation of the event in order to be fair and promote the game internationally. I would go with South Africa next, returning the tournament to both the Southern Hemisphere and the African continent, as this is the best guarantee for success given the nation's vast array of appropriate stadia. It will be a tournament for Africa, certain to promote the game all over the continent, just as the 1995 World Cup did. I would then follow-up with Italy in 2027. If France, specifically Marseille, is given co-host status, no problem for me, but then France shouldn't expect to host it again until at least the 2040s. The additional four years will allow the Italians more time to prepare. Selecting Italy straight after Japan, before we know how the 2019 tournament goes, could be a little reckless, and it the event is expanded to 24 teams this would best be done in a traditional heartland host nation rather than a new host nation. Ireland is simply too small to host it on its own, the anti-climax of 2011 - with the lowest average crowds of the professional era - proved beyond doubt that the age of small nation Rugby World Cups is firmly behind us. Ireland has co-hosted 2 World Cups in the past, and may well get similar opportunities in the future. 2023 is too soon for France to host again.

2023 South Africa
2027 Italy
2031 Argentina
2035 Eastern Europe
2039 Australia
2043 USA
2047 France
2051 Far East
2055 Africa

Big problem with South Africa is the social issues, for the most part stemming from its Government.

Im sure there used to be a term of the IRB's charter/constitution that teams were to be selected on merit, (definitely in the Olympic charter) for World Rugby to now go and hold the sports highest tournament in South Africa would be an endorsement of the South African Governments sustained pressure on South African Rugby for racial transformation.

See I didnt use the word "quotas" once.

Quotas!

Who needs 'em, eh?

Its a no brainer Italy then Ireland, the debut hosts.

For me the future host that will bring a lot of excitement to the game will be the USA, and Id further love to see them hold some games in Honolulu.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Big problem with South Africa is the social issues, for the most part stemming from its Government.

Im sure there used to be a term of the IRB's charter/constitution that teams were to be selected on merit, (definitely in the Olympic charter) for World Rugby to now go and hold the sports highest tournament in South Africa would be an endorsement of the South African Governments sustained pressure on South African Rugby for racial transformation.

See I didnt use the word "quotas" once.

Won't be an issue, or World Rugby wouldn't have put SA on standby for Japan last year. It's clearly an internal issue which effects no one but South Africa. & for World Rugby, an organization with 100 members but a white, English-speaking dominated central committee, to effectively penalize the South African government's efforts to speed up the integration process would be perilous. They are neither that stupid nor that reckless.

For me the future host that will bring a lot of excitement to the game will be the USA, and Id further love to see them hold some games in Honolulu.

Absolutely. But they won't be ready for a couple of decades yet. Rugby remains little more than a novelty sport state-side. It's 110,000 registered players compares to 8 million registered American football players, and would scale down to around 1,500 in New Zealand - roughly on a par with American football in New Zealand, interestingly enough.

We are talking about an event over 8 years away, by then Rugby in South Africa will be almost over, and the South african Government wont give a damn, and the major implosion of the sport will be due to the Nations team the Springboks not being selected on merit.

If the ANC want to see more "black" kids playing Rugby,  then they need to invest more resources into schools rugby, at the moment they are cutting investment to education full stop let alone kids sport. Its easy to control a population of many millions especially if they are uneducated.

Would like to see the world cup in USA to.

Brought soccer on big time after USA 94.

That was a good world cup.

Am sure if the rugby world cup was to go to the US, it would be a hit.

Sure it would propel rugby also.