2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

First topic message reminder :



The Rugby World Cup should return to South Africa in 2023, and the tournament should be expanded to 24 teams.

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.

It would also entail a return to the Six Nations for the fifth time in just ten tournaments, which is a little ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions.

Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border.

France, meanwhile, hosted the World Cup as recently as eight years ago, and was also a co-host in 1991 and 1999.

That leaves Italy, to my mind the most attractive of the European bids, as it is a newcomer to the heavyweight ranks with a large number of registered players. However, World Rugby might want to go with a more established rugby playing nation for its 10th World Cup. Japan is already facing problems as it prepares to stage the 2019 event, with its new Olympic Stadium having now been removed from the venue list.

As for South Africa, it has the biggest and best rugby-purpose stadia in the world - with the possible exception of England, which has just hosted the event for the second time. It has the second largest number of registered players (also behind England), and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation after New Zealand.

By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation will have grown up since the last time the tournament was held in South Africa. This, even though the 1995 installment was one of the most successful and spectacular World Cups to date.

So if New Zealand, Austrlalia and England can all host it twice, and France can be involved as either host or co-host on three occasions, why on earth shouldn't it return to South Africa in 2023? Why does World Rugby appear to have lost faith in the republic, having overlooked it for both 2011 and 2019?

It's time to break the cycle. The World Cup can not continue to return to Western Europe on every second occasion. That is a myopic approach and anathema to the globalization cause.

But it does need to return to the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 for what will be the first time in 12 years. Moreover, it needs to return to the African continent, one of the hotbeds of international rugby development in recent decades.

This leads me to my final point in South Africa's favour. World Rugby officials have raised the possibility of an expanded tournament, and this is undoubtedly overdue. Again, with its vast array of rugby-purpose stadia, South Africa's credentials are unsurpassed as a potential host nation for a 24-team World Cup.

The last - and only - increase in teams was from 16 to 20 in 1999. This appears to have been successful, judging by the improved performances of the fringe teams in New Zealand and England.

In fact, no centuries have been recorded since 2003, while Japan's stunning victory over the Springboks this year suggests the days of foregone conclusions is World Cup rugby may be drawing to a close.

That said, a lot of work needs to be done in the interim if the additional teams are going to be genuinely competitive. One of the biggest obstacles to the game's global development is the stratification of its international competitions.

Not only are the elite championships closed-shop, but there is little interaction between the top teams and the emerging nations in between World Cups. How on earth are the up-and-comers supposed to be competitive in the big exam if they have been denied the lessons to prepare in between?

New Zealand and Australia should be playing annual tests with the Pacific Islands and Japan, as should the Six Nations with their Eastern European neighbours. South Africa ought to engage Namibia in a 'Bledisloe Cup'-style annual trophy match, and Hong Kong and Korea should be playing in the Pacific Challenge tournament, alongside the Pacific Islands B teams and Argentina's 'Pampas,' with a possible view to future inclusion in the Pacific Nations Championship.

In addition to this, would it not be a fairly straightforward exercise for Six Nations teams to stop in for tests against Namibia and Uruguay enroute to South Africa and Argentina, respectively - as well as the Pacific Islands while touring New Zealand or Australia?

By the same token, how about the Southern Hemisphere teams playing Georgia, Romania or Russia on their Autumn tours to Europe? Argentina might even take on Spain or Portugal.

If rugby is to more forward, it needs to expand its World Cup, and this can only be successful with a more integrated international rugby calendar.

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

Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now.

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

They'd have a lot of work to do, that's for sure. Whereas South Africa has a whole bunch of rugby-purpose stadia that are good-to-go, and another bunch of easily convertible soccer stadia that were upgraded (in a few cases actually built) for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.  

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

Good thinking. Maybe even August. Yes, Irish summer would be just about right for a RWC.

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

It's just a general observation. Cork is only a small city. It's not going to host too many games. The bulk of them will have to be in Dublin, particularly toward the business end of the competition, and that's a pretty chilly and often wet place to be around World Cup time.

"Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now."

Yet they host a leg of the international 7s series, along with regular test matches, and also the 2010 FIFA World Cup successfully.

The Apartheid era involved the oppression of the majority, sundry massacres, torture and r***, mass incarceration, race-based classism and servitude, and numerous other atrocities and human rights violations. The republic has gone through a difficult transition since then, losing much of the foreign support and investment which propped up the country during white rule. They are dealing with the social legacies of a racist apartheid system, which include widespread poverty, lack of education and inveterate psychological barriers. The problems faced by many African nations are the direct result of European exploitation.

...and an inability to successfully run a country for the last quarter of a century.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
...and an inability to successfully run a country for the last quarter of a century.

There's a successfully run country out there?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
...and an inability to successfully run a country for the last quarter of a century.

There's a successfully run country out there?

Well yes there are, 25 years Bosnia, croatia, Serbia were in a war zone.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
...and an inability to successfully run a country for the last quarter of a century.

There's a successfully run country out there?

Well yes there are, 25 years Bosnia, croatia, Serbia were in a war zone.

They are considered successful? the bar must be very low

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
...and an inability to successfully run a country for the last quarter of a century.

There's a successfully run country out there?

Well yes there are, 25 years Bosnia, croatia, Serbia were in a war zone.

They are considered successful? the bar must be very low

ideally your bar should be at about elbow level.

Rowanbi wrote:
The Apartheid era involved the oppression of the majority, sundry massacres, torture and r***, mass incarceration, race-based classism and servitude, and numerous other atrocities and human rights violations. The republic has gone through a difficult transition since then, losing much of the foreign support and investment which propped up the country during white rule. They are dealing with the social legacies of a racist apartheid system, which include widespread poverty, lack of education and inveterate psychological barriers. The problems faced by many African nations are the direct result of European exploitation.

So it was like every other country. Well done!

Of course playing the race card is a convenient excuse to avoid the issues.

" The republic has gone through a difficult transition since then, losing much of the foreign support and investment which propped up the country during white rule. They are dealing with the social legacies of a racist apartheid system, which include widespread poverty, lack of education and inveterate psychological barriers. The problems faced by many African nations are the direct result of European exploitation."

You forgot to mention widespread corruption (SA had been in free fall on Transparency International ranking for a good 10 years now) which is what is preventing so called foreign investments and hampering local growth.

"Of course playing the race card is a convenient excuse to avoid the issues."

No, simply explaining the realities of the situation, both past and present, to put things into proper perspective. You can't look at these problems without acknowledging almost half a century of Apartheid and how much damage that did. Apartheid didn't end in 1994, either, Mandela was little more than a puppet-leader while Western governments and corporations continued to manipulate the country. Zuma is a corrupt leader, undoubtedly, but that's an internal issue for them to sort out, and there have been plenty of corrupt leaders in the West as well, of course. So, nice try, but it's not me who's playing the race card here . . .

Rowanbi wrote:"Of course playing the race card is a convenient excuse to avoid the issues."

No, simply explaining the realities of the situation, both past and present, to put things into proper perspective. You can't look at these problems without acknowledging almost half a century of Apartheid and how much damage that did. Apartheid didn't end in 1994, either, Mandela was little more than a puppet-leader while Western governments and corporations continued to manipulate the country. Zuma is a corrupt leader, undoubtedly, but that's an internal issue for them to sort out, and there have been plenty of corrupt leaders in the West as well, of course. So, nice try, but it's not me who's playing the race card here . . .

Of course you are. I'm pointing out that South Africa is turning into a typical African country and you're blaming the white man for that.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. Black South Africans were gifted the leading country in Africa and since then SA has gone downhill. In other words it's becoming more like every other African country. The common denominator is not the white man!

In fact the white man built up SA and were so outnumbered by blacks in the end because black's kept flooding into SA from surrounding countries. It seems those masochists couldn't get enough of the evil white man.

Look, let's not turn this into a debate on race and colonialism because it's too sensitive an issue and someone is going to fall out over it.

Notch wrote:Look, let's not turn this into a debate on race and colonialism because it's too sensitive an issue and someone is going to fall out over it.

Agree, mate. Good point.

The discussion should be about what the RWC in SA would bring to Rugby. What is the overall benefit? A great Rugby experience for fans in a Rugby focused country is significant. I would simply line up the advantages v. disadvantages for each potential host nation.

Its all well and good listing the advantages and disadvantages, however the problem occurs when some posters dont believe that some disadvantages exist.

Wheres Biltong when you need him?

profitius wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:"Of course playing the race card is a convenient excuse to avoid the issues."

No, simply explaining the realities of the situation, both past and present, to put things into proper perspective. You can't look at these problems without acknowledging almost half a century of Apartheid and how much damage that did. Apartheid didn't end in 1994, either, Mandela was little more than a puppet-leader while Western governments and corporations continued to manipulate the country. Zuma is a corrupt leader, undoubtedly, but that's an internal issue for them to sort out, and there have been plenty of corrupt leaders in the West as well, of course. So, nice try, but it's not me who's playing the race card here . . .

Of course you are. I'm pointing out that South Africa is turning into a typical African country and you're blaming the white man for that.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in.  Black South Africans were gifted the leading country in Africa and since then SA has gone downhill. In other words it's becoming more like every other African country. The common denominator is not the white man!

In fact the white man built up SA and were so outnumbered by blacks in the end because black's kept flooding into SA from surrounding countries. It seems those masochists couldn't get enough of the evil white man.

Yes it bloody well is. Its is the white colonialists who plundered Africa for its resources for centuries at the expense of the native popn. But its okay now, we've moved on to the Middle East.

As for building up SA….un f%^&ing believable racist BS.

Staggering this stuff is allowed to be posted on this site.

Whatever Africans did to themselves pales into insignificance when compared with Apartheid. Even the whites eventually figured that out.

Remove your head from your backside.

Actually Notch, your right, I now see what you mean.

profitius wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:"Of course playing the race card is a convenient excuse to avoid the issues."

No, simply explaining the realities of the situation, both past and present, to put things into proper perspective. You can't look at these problems without acknowledging almost half a century of Apartheid and how much damage that did. Apartheid didn't end in 1994, either, Mandela was little more than a puppet-leader while Western governments and corporations continued to manipulate the country. Zuma is a corrupt leader, undoubtedly, but that's an internal issue for them to sort out, and there have been plenty of corrupt leaders in the West as well, of course. So, nice try, but it's not me who's playing the race card here . . .

Of course you are. I'm pointing out that South Africa is turning into a typical African country and you're blaming the white man for that.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in.  Black South Africans were gifted the leading country in Africa and since then SA has gone downhill. In other words it's becoming more like every other African country. The common denominator is not the white man!

In fact the white man built up SA and were so outnumbered by blacks in the end because black's kept flooding into SA from surrounding countries. It seems those masochists couldn't get enough of the evil white man.

A 'typical African country,' you say? Perhaps you're referring to the Congo, which had the opportunity to become one of the most prosperous nations on the continent in the early 1960s under the inspired leadership of the young Patrice Lumumba - before the Belgians and Americans conspired to assassinate him. Or perhaps you're talking about Libya, which was in fact the most prosperous nation on the continent under Gaddafi - before he too was murdered by the Americans and their European allies. Western nations backed opposing sides in the Nigerian Civil War (over Biafra) in the late 60s, thus prolonging the conflict considerably, and both the US & France have been implicated in backing opposing sides during the Rwanda genocide. I could go on & on, of course.

South Africans were not 'gifted' the country at all. Those Western governments and corporations which did not pull out at the end of white rule continued to manipulate the country. Nelson Mandela no sooner took office than the announced there would be no public ownership of the mines, banks or major industries. The emphasis was on appeasing the nation's foreign inevstors and business allies, which ultimately meant supporting the white establishment. That's because 'Madiba' was never anything more than a puppet-leader. The secret meetings began even before he was released from prison. Those were oganized by the Afrikaaner elite and representatives of companies which had profited from Apartheid, including British mining giant Consolidated Goldfields. Democracy and economic equality were never a priority and became a facade. No reparations were made to the countless victims of the vicious gulag that had existed under the Apartheid regime. There was never any justice. The vast majority of the perpetrators were never punished. Legal Apartheid was basically replaced by economic Apartheid. Desmond Tutu's Truth & Reconciliation Commission noted that there had been no pledge of compensation for the countless men stricken with occupational diseases. Most families could not even afford funerals.

It is true that the ANC is as much responsible for all this as anyone else. Had they invested in the non-white majority they could have transformed the nation successfully, houses could have been built, jobs created, health and education improved. But instead the ANC elite, starting with Mbeki and continuing under Zuma, conspired with their white (South African and foreign) counterparts to keep the wealth among themselves, so while they live in luxury mansions at exclusive resorts and drive Mercedes and Porches, life has hardly improved at all for the vast majority of the nations non-white citizens. But it's hardly fair to punish the entire population for that, & a RWC might actually help their cause to some degree. As much as 2.5 billion pounds was estimated to have been injected into the British economy during last year's tournament, far exceeding the expense of staging it.

Notch wrote:Look, let's not turn this into a debate on race and colonialism because it's too sensitive an issue and someone is going to fall out over it.

Oh, apologies. Just read that. Yes, good idea. Enough said on that aspect of the topic.

Undoubtedly if Ireland got it, Scotland would have to follow in 2031 - or they'd scream blue murder as the only remaining foundation member not to have played central host to the tournament. But Ireland and Scotland are tiny nations geographically, and have indeed played co-host on a number of occasions. Do we really want the tournament to return to the Home Unions in 2023 for a 5th time and then 2031 for a 6th? There are many other countries with superior credentials interested in hosting this event, most of them on other continents, so what's the priority here: Tradition or globalization of the sport?

Meanwhile, here's a look at what South Africa has to offer in terms of stadia:

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

Too soon for SA again.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Too soon for SA again.

28 years? Australia waited 16, NZ & England 24. France is bidding for a second tournament on 16 years as well. The UK has been involved in co-hosting every 8 years since the tournament's inception. But somehow 28 years - an entire generation - is too soon for the world's second biggest rugby community and second most successful rugby nation

Yup definitely when you look at the increasing number of 'new' countries now capable and bidding.

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Too soon for SA again.

28 years? Australia waited 16, NZ & England 24. France is bidding for a second tournament on 16 years as well. The UK has been involved in co-hosting every 8 years since the tournament's inception. But somehow 28 years - an entire generation - is too soon for the world's second biggest rugby community and second most successful rugby nation  

The only thing is it's now or never for Ireland. If they don't get it now, they never will as the competition is getting too big along with the ever increasing amount of countries that want it. I'm not saying we should get it btw.

SA will always be able to host it.

Surely the tournament should go to the best bid? The criteria should be clearly laid down so that everything is transparent and above board. It is ridiculous to keep supporting the elitist nature of the tournament by returning to previous hosts, so one of the basic critieria should be at least 36 years before a tournament should return to a country.
World Rugby need to work a bit harder to expand their options because it is far too easy to just maintain their cosy cabal and watch the money roll in.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Too soon for SA again.

28 years? Australia waited 16, NZ & England 24. France is bidding for a second tournament on 16 years as well. The UK has been involved in co-hosting every 8 years since the tournament's inception. But somehow 28 years - an entire generation - is too soon for the world's second biggest rugby community and second most successful rugby nation  

The only thing is it's now or never for Ireland. If they don't get it now, they never will as the competition is getting too big along with the ever increasing amount of countries that want it. I'm not saying we should get it btw.

SA will always be able to host it.

You say this because you are aware of Ireland's shortcomings - its tiny geographical proportions, relatively small population & only two major cities, along with a scarcity of suitable stadia. & this is precisely why Ireland should NOT host it alone - ever. Indeed the tournament is growing, indeed the competition is increasing. Another small nation World Cup in 2023 would be like a giant step backward. Ireland's been involved as a co-host twice and I think that's as much as they warrant. Dublin may well be used again for the purpose, of course, even though the trend is supposed to be toward single-nation tournaments.

"Yup definitely when you look at the increasing number of 'new' countries now capable and bidding."

There is only one 'new' country bidding for 2023, and I've already explained why 2027 would be far more appropriate for that particular nation.

The Great Aukster wrote:Surely the tournament should go to the best bid? The criteria should be clearly laid down so that everything is transparent and above board. It is ridiculous to keep supporting the elitist nature of the tournament by returning to previous hosts, so one of the basic critieria should be at least 36 years before a tournament should return to a country.
World Rugby need to work a bit harder to expand their options because it is far too easy to just maintain their cosy cabal and watch the money roll in.

No offence, but you appear to have contradicted yourself there. Yes, World Rugby need to consider the best bid. Right now I believe that's South Africa, for the reasons mentioned in the original post. The argument against them is that they've hosted before. But 28 years separate 1995 from 2023 - longer than all the other former champions (Australia, NZ & England) had to wait before hosting a second time, while France & even the Celtic nations have all been involved more than once as co-hosts. So you will forgive me for thinking this all seems a bit biased against the only member of World Rugby's central committee with a non-European majority population.

Btw, I'm all for giving the new countries ago. But I think it would be reckless to just give it to a new nation all the time. Rugby shouldn't get too carried away with its own success, and it would be foolhardy to neglect its established markets. In South Africa's case, another rejection will come like a slap in the face, as their previous three bids this century were all rejected (somewhat surprisingly). So I say give South Africa its long overdue second helpings. They have the best bid on the table (with the possible exception of France, who hosted just 9 years ago), did a great job the first time (in 1995), and an entire generation of Africans will have grown up since then by the time 2023 rolls around. Then - provided Japan wasn't a disaster in 2019, Italy could follow in 2027, with Argentina in 2031 (presuming they actually bid).

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Its all well and good listing the advantages and disadvantages, however the problem occurs when some posters dont believe that some disadvantages exist.

Wheres Biltong when you need him?

Laurie,
You are the voice of wisdom and reason.  

As I said, I prefer Italy for the RWC.  The wine, the women, the weather, the food, the stiletto heels, the history, the women, the style, the stiletto heels.
Nuff said.

Rowanbi wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Too soon for SA again.

28 years? Australia waited 16, NZ & England 24. France is bidding for a second tournament on 16 years as well. The UK has been involved in co-hosting every 8 years since the tournament's inception. But somehow 28 years - an entire generation - is too soon for the world's second biggest rugby community and second most successful rugby nation  

The only thing is it's now or never for Ireland. If they don't get it now, they never will as the competition is getting too big along with the ever increasing amount of countries that want it. I'm not saying we should get it btw.

SA will always be able to host it.

You say this because you are aware of Ireland's shortcomings - its tiny geographical proportions, relatively small population & only two major cities, along with a scarcity of suitable stadia. & this is precisely why Ireland should NOT host it alone - ever. Indeed the tournament is growing, indeed the competition is increasing. Another small nation World Cup in 2023 would be like a giant step backward. Ireland's been involved as a co-host twice and I think that's as much as they warrant. Dublin may well be used again for the purpose, of course, even though the trend is supposed to be toward single-nation tournaments.

"Yup definitely when you look at the increasing number of 'new' countries now capable and bidding."

There is only one 'new' country bidding for 2023, and I've already explained why 2027 would be far more appropriate for that particular nation.

We get it Ireland's small. Ireland won't be hosting it alone; anytime a WC is held in Europe Wales always has to get games because of some agreement between the 6 nations. That's why France had to play NZ in Cardiff at their own tournament. Ridiculous really...

Gwlad wrote:

profitius wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:"Of course playing the race card is a convenient excuse to avoid the issues."

No, simply explaining the realities of the situation, both past and present, to put things into proper perspective. You can't look at these problems without acknowledging almost half a century of Apartheid and how much damage that did. Apartheid didn't end in 1994, either, Mandela was little more than a puppet-leader while Western governments and corporations continued to manipulate the country. Zuma is a corrupt leader, undoubtedly, but that's an internal issue for them to sort out, and there have been plenty of corrupt leaders in the West as well, of course. So, nice try, but it's not me who's playing the race card here . . .

Of course you are. I'm pointing out that South Africa is turning into a typical African country and you're blaming the white man for that.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in.  Black South Africans were gifted the leading country in Africa and since then SA has gone downhill. In other words it's becoming more like every other African country. The common denominator is not the white man!

In fact the white man built up SA and were so outnumbered by blacks in the end because black's kept flooding into SA from surrounding countries. It seems those masochists couldn't get enough of the evil white man.

Yes it bloody well is. Its is the white colonialists who plundered Africa for its resources for centuries at the expense of the native popn. But its okay now, we've moved on to the Middle East.

As for building up SA….un f%^&ing believable racist BS.

Staggering this stuff is allowed to be posted on this site.

Whatever Africans did to themselves pales into insignificance when compared with Apartheid. Even the whites eventually figured that out.

Remove your head from your backside.

I don't know what's so hard to understand. When whites came to SA it was a wilderness. The population of black's was a fraction of what it is now and the country itself didn't exist in terms of borders.


As for "we've moved onto the middle East". who is the we you speak of?


Rowan, your reply is more waffle. You're looking at all these things that happened but at the end of the day you only have to look at Africa as a whole and compare it to Asia or south America. There's only so much you can blame the white man for.


Leaving Ireland aside, I think Italy would be the best choice. A new country who who have little problems hosting it. If not then France would do a great job guaranteed. Sure they've hosted it before but so what. The rugby world isn't very big yet.

"The White man" hasn't done anything. It's a small rootless international clique of powerful families and business men (which is made up of all races around the world) that have plundered and murdered their way throughout the world of their resources since man could travel across waters. To blame it on "the white man" is just giving them the go ahead and continue what they have always done, stop fighting with each other and go after the "elite".

"Rowan, your reply is more waffle. You're looking at all these things that happened but at the end of the day you only have to look at Africa as a whole and compare it to Asia or south America. There's only so much you can blame the white man for.


Leaving Ireland aside, I think Italy would be the best choice. A new country who who have little problems hosting it. If not then France would do a great job guaranteed. Sure they've hosted it before but so what. The rugby world isn't very big yet."


Seems like you have quite a chip on your shoulder about Africa and Africans, to be honest. You can't discuss the political and social issues in the country without including the background events which created this situation. You may have noted, also, that I blamed both the ANC party and the white man, which I think is fairly realistic, and by the 'white man' I mean Western governments and major corporations who (as LeinsterFan4life correctly points out) are surely not all 'white.' To suggest the poor and uneducated masses are responsible for the enduring hardships they face would be a fairly good definition of "waffle."

France again in 2023? I seriously doubt that'll happen. It's already been suggested in the media that they're only bidding this time to strengthen their case for 2027. I think the European vote is going to be split by their three candidates, while South Africa should have the backing of their fellow Rugby Championship counterparts. Argentina has already thrown their lot in with the republic.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Too soon for SA again.

28 years? Australia waited 16, NZ & England 24. France is bidding for a second tournament on 16 years as well. The UK has been involved in co-hosting every 8 years since the tournament's inception. But somehow 28 years - an entire generation - is too soon for the world's second biggest rugby community and second most successful rugby nation  

The only thing is it's now or never for Ireland. If they don't get it now, they never will as the competition is getting too big along with the ever increasing amount of countries that want it. I'm not saying we should get it btw.

SA will always be able to host it.

You say this because you are aware of Ireland's shortcomings - its tiny geographical proportions, relatively small population & only two major cities, along with a scarcity of suitable stadia. & this is precisely why Ireland should NOT host it alone - ever. Indeed the tournament is growing, indeed the competition is increasing. Another small nation World Cup in 2023 would be like a giant step backward. Ireland's been involved as a co-host twice and I think that's as much as they warrant. Dublin may well be used again for the purpose, of course, even though the trend is supposed to be toward single-nation tournaments.

"Yup definitely when you look at the increasing number of 'new' countries now capable and bidding."

There is only one 'new' country bidding for 2023, and I've already explained why 2027 would be far more appropriate for that particular nation.

We get it Ireland's small. Ireland won't be hosting it alone; anytime a WC is held in Europe Wales always has to get games because of some agreement between the 6 nations. That's why France had to play NZ in Cardiff at their own tournament. Ridiculous really...

Exactly. Ireland's geographical dimensions aside, I'm concerned mostly with what will happen after they are awarded the tournament (hypothetically-speaking, of course). 1/ They'll ship games to Britain (& possibly France), which basically means we're seeing every second World Cup in more or less the same spot, 2/ Scotland will demand their turn 8 years later, so basically it'll be same old samey in 2031.

I would be happy for South Africa to get it but as RWC is World Rugby's only real source of income I suspect they would charge European prices for tickets. With current value of the Rand most South Africans would be priced out.

It could end up like England's cricket matches in the West Indies only watched by tourists from England.

Exiledinborders wrote:I would be happy for South Africa to get it but as RWC is World Rugby's only real source of income I suspect they would charge European prices for tickets.  With current value of the Rand most South Africans would be priced out.

It could end up like England's cricket matches in the West Indies only watched by tourists from England.

Not sure what they charge at test matches in South Africa but the games are invariably well-attended. They also have the best attendances in the world for club rugby, with the Stormers' home-games averaging 40,000 the Bulls 27,000, the Lions 25,000, the Sharks 20,000 and the Cheetahs 18,000. This is, generally speaking, well ahead of NZ & Aussie crowds. It's is also well ahead of the 12,000 average at Aviva Premiership matches.

Just so people are aware, From Rowan aka Rowanbi/Poulson, etc on other sites:

Rugby is not beach volleyball, no, but it's certainly more pleasing to the eye when played on the firm grounds of countries like SA and Australia than it is when played in the slush and mud of the Home Unions. Just a personal observation.

Dublin and Belfast - Ireland's only two major cities - have much worse weather than much of England, including London. It's more comparable to the north of England, Manchester, Newcastle and all. During the winter it's all dark by mid-afternoon. Pretty dreary place to hold a World Cup, in my view.

I'm expressing my opinions. That's what forums are for. It's dismissing opinions with silly insults which is haughty.  Personal experience, you say? I've actually been to Ireland. How about you?

Basically you'd be staging a 20 or 24-team tournament in two cities backed up by a bunch of towns. Are there enough stadiums? Enough hotels? I seriously doubt it. But in South Africa that would not be a concern at all. It's not a huge country like Australia, where flans would be forced to take domestic flights to follow the games from city to city. In South Africa they could easily bus it. But in Ireland they'd be living on top of each other.

Where would you draw the line with small nation tournaments? Ireland is geographically tiny and the weather conditions are not conducive to the open, expansive brand of rugby most of us would like to see - and which we did see in South Africa in 1995. As mentioned, there are only two major cities and a limited number of stadiums - almost none of which would be rugby purpose stadiums. South Africa, meanwile, not only has among the best rugby purpose stadiums on the planet, it also has a vast array of football stadiums, many of which were upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. It also has a population of 50 million, and geographical dimensions which are about perfect for a World Cup tournament - which loads to do for the travelling fan.

In terms of my nationality and location, I'm a complete neutral on the topic. My preference is determined solely by what I regard as being in the best interests of rugby.

But it is Ireland which would have to do all the redeveloping, given they'd be relying on a bunch of creaky old Gaelic football and soccer stadiums.  the majority of those likely to be used (according to an article in the Independent) were built between 132 and 76 years ago. About half of them have a capacity between 18,000 and 26,000, and all of the bigger ones are Gaelic & hurling stadiums, apart from Aviva which was build for rugby and soccer.  South Africa's vast array of stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, so the work has already been done. Very fortuitous, I'd say, provided rugby decides to take advantage.

Yes, we are discussing geographical size, not population. You seem to have confused the two. Ireland is a  tiny country geographically, half the size of NZ's South Island. There just isnt room for a 20 team tournament, let alone the 24 team expanded model World Rugby is contemplating. That's why I had little doubt that, within hours of being awarded a World cup, Ireland would promptly announce that a substantial number of games would be shipped to Britain. We've been duped this way before, of course. As for stadiums and hotels, I'm not so confident personally, and when it comes to stadia I have already illustrated that South Africa's are bigger, more modern and vastly more plentiful.

What I've actually suggested is that Ireland, once awarded the tournament, will almost certainly ship a bunch of games to Britain.

An all-Ireland tournament would be a one nation event, of course. If it must be in Ireland, that's the only way to go. But Northern Ireland is part of the UK, which has already been involved in hosting the World Cup 4 times.

Ireland is less than a third the size of New Zealand geographically. Why didn't you just compare it to Australia? There's no logic in your analogy at all.

Most outsiders would regard the 2011 RWC is perhaps the worst so far, with the possible exception of 1991.

I simply think Ireland would be a terrible decision for the 2023 World Cup and have explained why. You need to do your math on France, Ireland has co-hosted it twice (not the major partner, for the very reasons I've been explaining)

Football cancellations in Ireland because of terrible weather: http://www.bbc.com/s...otball/35333560

South Africa has won two World Cups and finished third last year, while Ireland has never even reached the semi-finals. Is that any indication of which union is more competent?

THe temperatures I provided for October (not September) were taken directly from official sources. It's well known Northern Ireland, in particular, has pretty rotten weather. 9 degreees, 74% chance of rain, two hours' of sunshine a day, dark by mid-afternoon.

It comes down to whether South Africa should receive it again almost 30 years after doing such a fantastic job the first time, or whether the British Isles should be involved in hosting it for a 5th time, just 8 years after England - while Ireland would be involved for the third time. It comes down to whether it is staged in the world's 2nd largest rugby community, and a nation which has won two World Cups to date, or whether it is staged in the world's 7th largest rugby community, and a nation which has never made a World Cup semi-final.

I've been to southern Africa but not South Africa itself.  April 2000. Dublin. Stayed in the Times Hostel, I think it was. Very chilly, not much above zero, but no rain as I recall.  It was just a weekend trip.  

I Grew up in NZ and played my rugby there. Also played a season of league in Aussie. I later got into sports journalism. But I've been abroad for around 20 years now, currently in Turkey.

South Africa dominated world rugby through most of the amateur era and remains a super power in the sport. Success breeds fanatacism and passion. I'm sure the Irish fans are passionate about their rugby too, but not to the same extent. Probably most of the fans who'd go to a World Cup game or any other major international match would never be seen on the sidelines of a club rugby game - nor even have a favorite club to support.

Ireland have hosted about a dozen RWC games in total, including 3 play-offs. Some of the crowds were pretty abysmal, I think 3000 for one game in Dublin, and 9000 for another in Belfast.  (The match attendances were for a game in Belfast at Ravenhill between Japan and Zimbabwe. Ravenhill capacity at the time was 12,200 and they got a crowd of 9,500 in 1991. Ignoring the fact that 54,000 turned up to watch Aus v NZ in the same tournament.
The 3,000 game was between USA and Romania at Lansdowne Road , held the day before Ireland played Australia to a full house.)

The weather would be pretty chilly and wet - unless they held it in the middle of summer.

South Africa receives direct flights from most major European cities.  Its infrastructure is the equal of Ireland's - only on a much bigger scale."



I saved you the bother of having to say everything all over again, Q.  Your reputation precedes you on this and many other message boards around the world.

profitius wrote:

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

Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now.

Well if Goodwill said it... Do you also believe homosexuality to be rotten and that foreigners are the root of all evil?

kingraf wrote:

profitius wrote:

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

Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now.

Well if Goodwill said it... Do you also believe homosexuality to be rotten and that foreigners are the root of all evil?

No one could ever accuse Goodwil of being homosexual, in fact he should be the last person to criticise others for their rooting.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

kingraf wrote:

profitius wrote:

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

Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now.

Well if Goodwill said it... Do you also believe homosexuality to be rotten and that foreigners are the root of all evil?

No one could ever accuse Goodwil of being homosexual, in fact he should be the last person to criticise others for their rooting.

Goodwill is a clown. Of course he preferred apartheid. He actually had power over Bantus in Natal as a chief then. Now he's merely a figure head tolerated by the ANC because Zulu people are their biggest monolithic voting group.

kingraf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

kingraf wrote:

profitius wrote:

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

Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now.

Well if Goodwill said it... Do you also believe homosexuality to be rotten and that foreigners are the root of all evil?

No one could ever accuse Goodwil of being homosexual, in fact he should be the last person to criticise others for their rooting.

Goodwill is a clown. Of course he preferred apartheid. He actually had power over Bantus in Natal as a chief then. Now he's merely a figure head tolerated by the ANC because Zulu people are their biggest monolithic voting group.

I dont think the Zulu king would lead the same lifestyle as your average black in South Africa.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

kingraf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

kingraf wrote:

profitius wrote:

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

Good point there. I saw an article a few months back of the Zulu leader saying how much better SA was when Whites were running things. Its fast becoming like all the other African countries now.

Well if Goodwill said it... Do you also believe homosexuality to be rotten and that foreigners are the root of all evil?

No one could ever accuse Goodwil of being homosexual, in fact he should be the last person to criticise others for their rooting.

Goodwill is a clown. Of course he preferred apartheid. He actually had power over Bantus in Natal as a chief then. Now he's merely a figure head tolerated by the ANC because Zulu people are their biggest monolithic voting group.

I dont think the Zulu king would lead the same lifestyle as your average black in South Africa.

No... the average Black South African doesn't have $6.9 million gifted to them annually.

Rowanbi wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Too soon for SA again.

28 years? Australia waited 16, NZ & England 24. France is bidding for a second tournament on 16 years as well. The UK has been involved in co-hosting every 8 years since the tournament's inception. But somehow 28 years - an entire generation - is too soon for the world's second biggest rugby community and second most successful rugby nation  

The only thing is it's now or never for Ireland. If they don't get it now, they never will as the competition is getting too big along with the ever increasing amount of countries that want it. I'm not saying we should get it btw.

SA will always be able to host it.

You say this because you are aware of Ireland's shortcomings - its tiny geographical proportions, relatively small population & only two major cities, along with a scarcity of suitable stadia. & this is precisely why Ireland should NOT host it alone - ever. Indeed the tournament is growing, indeed the competition is increasing. Another small nation World Cup in 2023 would be like a giant step backward. Ireland's been involved as a co-host twice and I think that's as much as they warrant. Dublin may well be used again for the purpose, of course, even though the trend is supposed to be toward single-nation tournaments.

"Yup definitely when you look at the increasing number of 'new' countries now capable and bidding."

There is only one 'new' country bidding for 2023, and I've already explained why 2027 would be far more appropriate for that particular nation.

No there is italy and Ireland. I'd prefer for Italy there myself with Ireland as back up.

"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."

That logic doesn't stand up. Japan is in the NH but it is closest to Australia and NZ than the main NH countries. Secondly and more importantly SA has already hosted the WC whereas Italy and Ireland have not.

It would be ridiculous for SA, a country to have only participated in 6 world cups  to be given the opportunity to host twice before Ireland hosts even one despite being involved in every WC to date.

GunsGerms wrote:"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."

That logic doesn't stand up. Japan is in the NH but it is closest to Australia and NZ than the main NH countries. Secondly and more importantly SA has already hosted the WC whereas Italy and Ireland have not.

It would be ridiculous for SA, a country to have only participated in 6 world cups  to be given the opportunity to host twice before Ireland hosts even one despite being involved in every WC to date.

Japan is no closer to NZ & Australia than South Africa is to Britain and France. So by your method of evaluation we should be including South Africa as a "Northern Hemisphere" nation. & South Africa is as far from New Zealand as Japan is from Britain. In rugby there are very much two hemispheres: the one with the much larger population, and the one which overwhelmingly dominates rugby. So I'm personally in favor of alternating the tournament between the two. If you're not, we can agree to disagree. It's clearly a subjective issue with no right or wrong answer.

Ireland has co-hosted twice. Australia hosted for a second time after just five tournaments. NZ and England both only had to wait six tournaments to host for a second time. If South Africa were to host again in 2023 they will have waited seven tournaments. So I think this is grasping at staws, a very weak argument basically. & you simply can't compare Ireland to South Africa in rugby. They're a fraction of the size, have a fraction of the population, have a fraction of the stadia and haven't been a fraction as successful at the World Cup nor in general. Why not compare them to Brazil in football?

I see ghostie is back posting again.

Cyril wrote:I see ghostie is back posting again.

?? It isn't ghostie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2017 looks a long long way away.

I can't remember a South African version Cyril. Change can be good.

Feeding Troll Time.

Hasnt mentioned Barnes or England !!!

Personally.

1st choice would be Italy

2nd choice - SA

3rd choice - Ireland.