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:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me clearly it isn't bribery. I think when you look at some of the things FIFA go tup to it's world away and even they are fighting those accusations. By saying Wales are bribing openly you're probably going to get all these comments removed (and I still want to know what Rowanbi means by inferior nations, though he will continue to ignore) or have the thread closed.

ok but answer this then (my request to you obviously)

This is a below definition of bribery.

Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter

Now in case of the France 07 and England 15...

a) did the host act in giving goods of other forms of recompense to Wales/WRU? In my opinion, giving them matches and home matches the answer is yes.
b) was it to their benefit? Absolutely, both financially and from a rugby perspective too.

Then if you answer yes to both... its a bribe.

To prove bribery you have to prove that the behaviour "was altered" by the "act of giving".

The International Rugby Board originally insisted that the World Cup this year would be a stand-alone tournament, that is it would be held only in one country. England and France both submitted bids to that effect, but the French, at the 11th hour and with the connivance of the Board, offered matches to the Celtic unions in return for their votes. Wales, citing an agreement with France in 1999, pressed for, and got, a quarter-final

In my line of business you can't accept even a gift from a client even if its a one off.. why because it could be seen as a bribe. That's without anything lined up, any deal on the table.

fa0019 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me clearly it isn't bribery. I think when you look at some of the things FIFA go tup to it's world away and even they are fighting those accusations. By saying Wales are bribing openly you're probably going to get all these comments removed (and I still want to know what Rowanbi means by inferior nations, though he will continue to ignore) or have the thread closed.

ok but answer this then (my request to you obviously)

This is a below definition of bribery.

Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter

Now in case of the France 07 and England 15...

a) did the host act in giving goods of other forms of recompense to Wales/WRU? In my opinion, giving them matches and home matches the answer is yes.
b) was it to their benefit? Absolutely, both financially and from a rugby perspective too.

Then if you answer yes to both... its a bribe.

To prove bribery you have to prove that the behaviour "was altered" by the "act of giving".

The International Rugby Board originally insisted that the World Cup this year would be a stand-alone tournament, that is it would be held only in one country. England and France both submitted bids to that effect, but the French, at the 11th hour and with the connivance of the Board, offered matches to the Celtic unions in return for their votes. Wales, citing an agreement with France in 1999, pressed for, and got, a quarter-final

In my line of business you can't accept even a gift from a client even if its a one off.. why because it could be seen as a bribe. That's without anything lined up, any deal on the table.

In my line of business, you have to prove by way of deducing via evidence all elements are proven, so in this instance to establish (not prove) bribery you have to prove that the behaviour was altered.

To me its just lobbying

Either way, World Rugby needs restructuring - and soon - to put an end to this kind of manipulation by the select few nations which hold the balance of power on the committee and more fairly represent the interests of its 100 or so member nations plus affiliates.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For me clearly it isn't bribery. I think when you look at some of the things FIFA go tup to it's world away and even they are fighting those accusations. By saying Wales are bribing openly you're probably going to get all these comments removed (and I still want to know what Rowanbi means by inferior nations, though he will continue to ignore) or have the thread closed.

ok but answer this then (my request to you obviously)

This is a below definition of bribery.

Bribery is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter

Now in case of the France 07 and England 15...

a) did the host act in giving goods of other forms of recompense to Wales/WRU? In my opinion, giving them matches and home matches the answer is yes.
b) was it to their benefit? Absolutely, both financially and from a rugby perspective too.

Then if you answer yes to both... its a bribe.

To prove bribery you have to prove that the behaviour "was altered" by the "act of giving".

The International Rugby Board originally insisted that the World Cup this year would be a stand-alone tournament, that is it would be held only in one country. England and France both submitted bids to that effect, but the French, at the 11th hour and with the connivance of the Board, offered matches to the Celtic unions in return for their votes. Wales, citing an agreement with France in 1999, pressed for, and got, a quarter-final

In my line of business you can't accept even a gift from a client even if its a one off.. why because it could be seen as a bribe. That's without anything lined up, any deal on the table.

In my line of business, you have to prove by way of deducing via evidence all elements are proven, so in this instance to establish (not prove) bribery you have to prove that the behaviour was altered.

To me its just lobbying

Given in the above case it seems like France made the offer for their votes in return for matches... its more like bribery. Had it been the celtic nations suggested it and they put it in their initial bid... I would agree to your suggestion of lobbying.

However they submitted a bid and apparently (according to the Guardian who I understand were not sued for slander on this case) changed their bid late on and made a final offer. That's clear cut to me.

Lobbying and Bribery , the line between them and cultures are very different so I accept that some may think so some may not... but given it ticks all the boxes even if the IRB/WR were on board... it's for me definitive.

You're on dodgy groung thats all fa.

Rowanbi care to elaborate your comment yet, you're starting to come across as prejudiced.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're on dodgy groung thats all fa.

Rowanbi care to elaborate your comment yet, you're starting to come across as prejudiced.

Nothing many heads of unions and global newspapers haven't already said before. I'll check under my car tonight!

I was just on about the mods but ok!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was just on about the mods but ok!

Mods have upped the ante a bit huh!

Rowanbi wrote:
It comes up as 7 1/2 hours on my google search, and 10 1/2 hours to the West Coast. Hardly a day trip, nor even a weekender for that matter. 7 1/2 hours is actually the same as from Istanbul to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (I've done it), while 10 1/2 hours would get me to South Africa. So your claims of "close proximity" are indeed ludicrous.

Its 7 hours there and 6 hours back (round trip is 13 hours flying) between New York & Dublin. The facts are though, that it is not regarded as a big commute from Ireland to the US and as I've mentioned previously, 40K came over for a weekend from the mid-west US to attend a league game between Notre Dame & Navy.

It works the other way as well - 10,000 travelled over to Las Vegas from Ireland to see Conor McGregor's fight just before Christmas.

More waffle. The Home Unions have two votes apiece on the core committee which dominates the board that will determing the World Cup host. That's all that's relevant here.

Nope. Its all changed now.

World Rugby announces expansion to ruling Council amid governance reform process:

Expanded game representation and independence at the heart of World Rugby governance reform
World Rugby Council has approved historic and wide-ranging reform of its governance structures, creating a dynamic environment for wider union and regional representation and an independent skills-based voice on the international federation's decision-making bodies.

Expanded tier two union and regional representation on Council
Executive Committee to include independent representatives
Women's Advisory Committee to be established
New governance model to operate after May 2016 Council meeting
Reform follows most successful Rugby World Cup to date and wide consultation
Rugby experiencing record-breaking global growth with 7.2 million players

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/122987

I haven't suggest otherwise. Athough Madagascar is a lot further from South Africa than Ireland is from Britain. Namibia and South Africa would have been a more apt comparison. But the other three Home Unions are part of the same nation.

You have continually referred to Ireland as a Home Nation. Its not. Its an independent country. I chose Madagascar because Ireland is similar to Madigascar - an island off the continent of Europe.

Rugby 7s players from Northern Ireland will compete with Ireland in the Olympics, whereas players from Scotland, Wales & England compete together as Great Britain. (other sports, Northern Ireland players can opt to play with others).

If they have the infrastructure, stadia, transport etc to stage and want to, why not?[/b]
Why not? Because there are much larger and vastly superior nations capable of staging the tournament is why not.

Wow. South Africans are superior now, are they?

Rowanbi wrote:Either way, World Rugby needs restructuring - and soon - to put an end to this kind of manipulation by the select few nations which hold the balance of power on the committee and more fairly represent the interests of its 100 or so member nations plus affiliates.

How have you missed all of this?


Expanded game representation and independence at the heart of World Rugby governance reform

World Rugby Council has approved historic and wide-ranging reform of its governance structures, creating a dynamic environment for wider union and regional representation and an independent skills-based voice on the international federation's decision-making bodies.

Expanded tier two union and regional representation on Council
Executive Committee to include independent representatives
Women's Advisory Committee to be established
New governance model to operate after May 2016 Council meeting
Reform follows most successful Rugby World Cup to date and wide consultation
Rugby experiencing record-breaking global growth with 7.2 million players
The World Rugby Council has approved historic and wide-ranging reform of its governance structures, creating a dynamic environment for wider union and regional representation and an independent skills-based voice on the international federation's decision-making bodies.

With Rugby World Cup 2015 the most competitive, attended, viewed and connected Rugby World Cup to date, and rugby experiencing unprecedented growth and inspiring new audiences in more nations than ever before, the reforms will increase the number of unions and voting rights on World Rugby's Council.

Designed to deliver a dynamic and representative decision-making environment, the reforms follow an extensive period of game-wide and external consultation and recognise the enormous contribution that member unions and regions make to the game. Revisions to Council include:

Subject to meeting dedicated governance criteria (outlined in the notes to editors below), Council voting rights expanded to include unions who have qualified for the previous two Rugby World Cups and additionally unions who have made a major contribution to the growth and development of the game.

All six regional associations to receive two votes on Council
The World Rugby Executive Committee's remit and composition will be extended to deliver an even more modern, dynamic and streamlined governance structure and ensure an independent voice through the appointment of skills-based independent directors. The revisions include:

Executive Committee to comprise 12 members (Chairman, Vice-Chairman, nine elected officials, two of which are independent members, and the Chief Executive)
All World Rugby standing committees and advisory groups to report to the Executive Committee
A new dedicated Nominations Committee to make recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding persons to be considered for membership of any World Rugby Committee or Working Group. The nominations committee will be made up of the two independent members from the Executive Committee, the Chairman of World Rugby and an elected member of the Executive Committee. One of the independent members will chair the Nominations Committee.
Dynamic and streamlined environment to allow the Executive Committee to take any urgent decision between Council meetings. This now includes Laws and Regulations of the game.

A transitional Nominations Committee has been formed to begin the process of identifying the independent directors to be appointed to the Executive Committee, while the changes relating to Council composition and voting rights will be implemented after the May 2016 Annual Meeting of Council following detailed evaluation against the required criteria. This group will be chaired by Peter Sutherland, former European Commissioner, former Attorney General of Ireland and chairman/board member of many major international companies.

These robust reforms, coupled with a revised strategic plan to be launched in 2016, and World Rugby's vibrant and inclusive new brand, reflect the international federation's commitment to further the sport's reach and engage and inspire new participants.

World Rugby Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: "We have enjoyed a very special and record-breaking Rugby World Cup in England and rugby is experiencing record participation growth, media interest and commercial appeal. We are reaching, engaging and inspiring more audiences than ever before. We are redistributing record sums in the development and sustainability of the game. Together we are successful and growing as a sport. That is the best reason for change.

"This exciting new model, developed following extensive review and consultation, will ensure that World Rugby, and by extension, the sport, has the governance structures and tools to support future growth as rugby continues to inspire and thrive.”

The changes follow extensive member union and independent consultation and represent an exciting development for the global rugby family ahead of its Olympic Games return and a first Rugby World Cup in Asia.

The reform programme was overseen by a dedicated governance working group, chaired by World Rugby Vice-Chairman Oregan Hoskins, and comprising Mike Hawker (Australia), Ian Ritchie (England), Steve Tew (New Zealand), Gareth Davies (Wales), Octavian Morariu (Rugby Europe), Pierre Camou (France), Brett Gosper (World Rugby) and Peter Sutherland (Independent).

Working Group Chairman Hoskins added: "Our world is changing rapidly and guided by our values of integrity and respect, we have delivered a dynamic, modernised structure that now opens the way for greater representation within our sport. I would like to thank our membership for their full and open contributions and members of the working group for their commitment to drive positive change for the benefit of the game at all levels.”

With women's rugby now one of the world's fastest-growing team sports and more than 1.5 million women and girls regularly participating, a dedicated Women's Advisory Committee will be established to oversee the implementation of the women's rugby strategy as the world's top female players look towards rugby sevens' debut at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games and Women's Rugby World Cup 2017 in Ireland.

Additional notes

Key principles of the new World Rugby governance model

Recognising the aim of promoting the game universally, recognising the objectives of ensuring that the governance structure of World Rugby is fit for purpose and complying with the principles of good governance in sport, the Governance Working Group set out to achieve the following key principles:

That the World Rugby governance model is adaptive to emerging trends given World Rugby mission of growing of the game
World Rugby always acts with integrity
Accountability and transparency in all decision making and processes
That structures permit and facilitate timely and quality decision making and implementation
World Rugby should be a model of best practice when compared to Olympic and other international federations
That channels be created to address appropriate gender representation within the World Rugby governance model
To be eligible for Council membership a union must (as referenced within the main release):

Fully comply with World Rugby Membership Criteria
Be in good standing with World Rugby (and in particular that it has filed and continues to file all appropriate paperwork/reports required by World Rugby and has paid all fees which are due for its membership or the renewal thereof)
Be a member of its regional association recognised by Council
Be in good standing with its National Olympic Committee (NOC) and/or National Sports Ministry
Be able to demonstrate good governance practice is in operation including but not limited to the following areas:
1. Constitution, Bye-Laws and Regulations fully applied
2. Five years of unqualified audited accounts
3. Five years of AGM minutes provided
4. Transparent links with membership evident
5. That unions have jurisdiction and control over players and the professional game in their union territory.
6. Comply with any national or regional legislation, in the area of good governance for sporting bodies.

World Rugby Council composition and voting rights

The number and spread of nations and their voting rights will increase for unions which conform to dedicated requirements.

Member union voting rights on Council will operate as follows, with unions receiving one vote for each criteria that is met up to a maximum of three votes:

One vote and one representative: to member unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period
One vote and one representative: to unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period and who participate in the Six Nations or The Rugby Championship
One vote: to unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period and:
have an annual audited average investment in rugby of £20 million over the last four years
have bid to host major World Rugby events over last eight years or who are bidding for a World Rugby event in next four years
have a sustainable women's programme with participation in the Women's Rugby World Cup or qualifiers in the past eight years
have men's and women's sevens programmes – reflected by a minimum participation in regional competitions and or the World Rugby Sevens Series (men's and women's)
In addition:

Two votes: to each of the six World Rugby regional associations
Subject to good governance criteria and the above criteria being met, a maximum of 20 unions and six regional associations will be eligible for a vote on Council. The process to determine union compliance with the criteria is already underway in order to facilitate implementation following the May 2016 Annual Meeting of Council.

World Rugby Executive Committee composition and remit

The World Rugby Executive Committee's remit will be:

All World Rugby standing committees and advisory groups to report to the Executive Committee from 1 November
The Executive Committee will appoint persons to World Rugby's standing committees and advisory groups
Formation of a new Nominations Committee to make recommendations to Council regarding persons to be considered for Executive Committee membership
Right of attendance and audience of Chief Medical Officer at Executive Committee
The Executive Committee may make decisions in relation to any emergency and/or urgent matter that would ordinarily be within the purview of Council under Bye-Law 9.4 (excluding changes to the Bye-Laws, Laws or Regulations) as it sees fit by simple majority.
EXCO may make decisions in between Council in relation to any genuine emergency and/or urgent matter

The interesting bit will be coming up shortly for the election of the next Chairman of World Rugby. It looks like Lapassat will not be putting himself forward as he is now involved with Paris's Olympic Bid.

The contenders are likely to be Old v New - Bill Beaumont v. Octavian Morariu of Romania (who is head of Rugby Europe).

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1034189/exclusive-lapasset-may-step-down-as-chairman-of-world-rugby-to-concentrate-on-paris-2024-bid

Sin é wrote:The interesting bit will be coming up shortly for the election of the next Chairman of World Rugby. It looks like Lapassat will not be putting himself forward as he is now involved with Paris's Olympic Bid.

The contenders are likely to be Old v New - Bill Beaumont v. Octavian Morariu of Romania (who is head of Rugby Europe).

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1034189/exclusive-lapasset-may-step-down-as-chairman-of-world-rugby-to-concentrate-on-paris-2024-bid

I'd vote for Octavian simply because its the most heroic name I've heard in ages.

Good to see that Romania is having a greater influence on rugby matters.

World Rugby has been changing slowly but surely over the last while. I remember looking them up recently to see was across the Executive Council and various committees expecting to see all these British and Irish old F@rts that are regularly referred to by SH commentators and journalists in particular.

It would appear that Gosper and Lappasset have changed things substantially in terms of representation and membership.

Equally, the old canard that the four "Home Unions" as they are often referred to, vote with each other all the time and sometimes the French collude as well, is a long way off the mark when you consider some of the voting directions on various developments over the years, including the original founding of the IFRB through to more modern day issues e.g. the hosting of a trial RWC in 1987, the infamous ELVs, voting on different RWC bids, PI Nations players getting second chance for being capped for another country, etc, etc.

Rowanbi wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:I wonder why the FIFA World Cup has never gone back to England, though they've bid a number of times since hosting it half a century ago.

Because unlike South Africa, England failed to make a payment of ten million dollars to "support Caribbean football". I wonder why South Africa which is not a very rich country would be wanting to "support Caribbean football" as opposed to developing its own. Of course there is no need to wonder. The fact that Thabo Mbeki and Sepp Blatter agreed the deal and the money ended up in Jack Warner's bank account tells you all that you need to know.

The FBI have the South

This doesn't explain why England has been rejected repeatedly over the past half century. They failed in their bids for the 1990, 2006 and 2018 tournaments as well. I'm sure you will claim bribery was a factor in 2018, but probably there has never been a more controversial decision than when New Zealand's Oceania delegate defied the wishes of his federation and voted for Germany in 2006, thereby single-handedly robbing South Africa of the tournament.

It does explain it. FIFA has been totally corrupt since João Havelange took control of FIFA in 1974 through to the current day. Since 1974 no major decision at FIFA has been made for any reason other than bribery. Unfortunately for the crooks they have now come to the attention of the FBI. Let us hope for some long jail sentences.

Pot Hale wrote:Good to see that Romania is having a greater influence on rugby matters.

World Rugby has been changing slowly but surely over the last while.  I remember looking them up recently to see was across the Executive Council and various committees expecting to see all these British and Irish old F@rts that are regularly referred to by SH commentators and journalists in particular.  

It would appear that Gosper and Lappasset  have changed things substantially in terms of representation and membership.  

Equally, the old canard that the four "Home Unions" as they are often referred to, vote with each other all the time and sometimes the French collude as well, is a long way off the mark when you consider some of the voting directions on various developments over the years, including the original founding of the IFRB through to more modern day issues e.g. the hosting of a trial RWC in 1987, the infamous ELVs, voting on different RWC bids, PI Nations players getting second chance for being capped for another country, etc, etc.

Not sure all this change is for the best. Two Irishmen have had reason to resign recently in the last couple of years under Lapassat's rule.
1. Dr Barry O'Driscoll (IRB Medical Advisor) - over IRB's attitude to concussion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/9317838/International-Rugby-Board-insists-recruitment-drive-to-appoint-new-chief-executive-remains-very-much-on-track.html

2. Peter Boyle over the procedures of the recruitment of a new CEO. Boyle was on the selection committee. He says that recruitment procedures were not followed (with Lapassat shortlisting it to 4 candidates and claiming that the Selection Committee had done so).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/9317838/International-Rugby-Board-insists-recruitment-drive-to-appoint-new-chief-executive-remains-very-much-on-track.html

There seems to be a bit of an alliance between Australia and France going on there.

France & England really don't see eye-to-eye. I think Lapassat is a bit of a schemer and I expect him get into man into the job if he isn't going to be there himself.

Australia, France, England, South Africa, New Zealand.

The Big 5 control things for the most part - hopefully that will change in time.

Pot Hale wrote:Australia, France, England, South Africa, New Zealand.

The Big 5 control things for the most part - hopefully that will change in time.

You have just named the 5 nations which make up the huge majority of both player numbers, fans and tv markets in world rugby... and i'm not talking just over 50% here... I's be surprised if the above 5 didn't consistute over 90% in all 3 highlighted listings.

How have you missed all of this?

Thanks. I had read about this, in fact, but I didn't realize the details had been confirmed and that it was going to take effect so soon. This is indeed good news for international rugby and surely the most revolutionary step the organization has taken since the advent of professionalism. Kudos to them. I am only surprised there hasn't been more new about this. I've seen nothing on the international rugby web-sites, aside from World Rugby's itself.

FIFA has been totally corrupt since João Havelange took control of FIFA in 1974 through to the current day.

Havelange revolutionized the game and turned it into a world sport. That process needed to happen. Regrettably there were inevitable teething problems, notably bribery. & Regrettably the organization has failed to deal with the issue, and for the past couple of decades it has been under European leadership. But I don't believe any of this is the reason England has failed to secure hosting rights for the FIFA World Cup again. One complaint I have repeatedly read about England's bids has to do with its notoriously inclement weather.

you're starting to come across as prejudiced.

I'm not the one opposing the only non-white majority member of World Rugby's current core committee from hosting the World Cup, and scrambling for obscure reasons to do so - Sunwolves in Super Rugby, Lions tours & the "Irish-American connection (while ignoring the African-American connection), for example.

You have just named the 5 nations which make up the huge majority of both player numbers, fans and tv markets in world rugby... and i'm not talking just over 50% here... I's be surprised if the above 5 didn't consistute over 90% in all 3 highlighted listings.

Good point. I don't know where the Celtic nations get off imagining they should receive the same treatment as the SANZAR nations on all matters and issues; not when the tier 1 nations themselves are so elitist and refuse to deal with the rest of the international rugby community on an equal footing. South Africa is the second biggest rugby playing nation in the world, and actually tied with England in first place if we are talking about registered players. There are more players in South Africa than there are in the Celtic nations combined. In fact, with the exception of Europe, the two-time World Champions have more registered players than all of the other continents.

Why should non white majority come into it. And again what do you mean by inferior nations?

Non white majority is the basis upon which South Africa will have to select its Rugby team in 2023. so I guess it does come into it.

Didn't even read the inclement weather comment at first! I have to ask Rowanbi, what on earth are you on?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Didn't even read the inclement weather comment at first! I have to ask Rowanbi, what on earth are you on?

Yes, when I read it I thought that might be a genuine casee of clutching at straws???

Why should non white majority come into it. And again what do you mean by inferior nations?

I'm suggesting you shouldn't be accusing others of 'prejudice' when you are quite obsessively opposed to a bid by the only non-white majority member nation of the core committee. & by inferior I mean in terms of their credentials to host a RWC. But that's perfectly obvious, so leave the shoot-the-messenger approach at home. It only weakens your own credibility.

Yes, when I read it I thought that might be a genuine casee of clutching at straws???

Perhaps, but I wasn't experessing my own view. It just happens to be one reason a number of national football association figures have cited in their opposition to England's hosting another FIFA World Cup. In fact, that was during the 1990 bidding, as I recall, so it's a long time ago now anyway. I'm not sure what other reasons have been given.

SA is behind Italy and Ireland as they've hosted before. It's yourself who think the population 'deserve' it and you give a reason as they are mainly non white. Your credentials appear to be population size, the largest number of stadia (whether they are racing tracks or not!) and now hot weather!

As long as the bids meet the criteria it doesn't matter what other surplus stadia they have etc. Giving the WC on racial breakdown of the population is frankly preposterous.

To be honest your arguments don't seem to have moved on from 2008 version pot pointed out.

you're starting to come across as prejudiced.

rowanbi wrote:I'm not the one opposing the only non-white majority member of World Rugby's current core committee from hosting the World Cup, and scrambling for obscure reasons to do so - Sunwolves in Super Rugby, Lions tours & the "Irish-American connection (while ignoring the African-American connection), for example.

TATSUZO YABE represents Japan on the Executive Committee
Bob Latham represents the North American & Caribbean

http://www.worldrugby.org/organisation/structure/executive-committee

Most of the other countries on the executive have multi cultural societies where the colour of your skin is irrelevant.

As for Lions Tours, from what I'm reading is that there will be some reform of the Lions Tours. It was worth £40m to the ARU in 2013 which helped them clear off all their debts (of about 14m).

I'm not ignoring the African Connection - I just have not seen any evidence of being much of a connection between South Africa & US, other than commercial and both are extremely racist societies.

Good point. I don't know where the Celtic nations get off imagining they should receive the same treatment as the SANZAR nations on all matters and issues; not when the tier 1 nations themselves are so elitist and refuse to deal with the rest of the international rugby community on an equal footing. South Africa is the second biggest rugby playing nation in the world, and actually tied with England in first place if we are talking about registered players. There are more players in South Africa than there are in the Celtic nations combined. In fact, with the exception of Europe, the two-time World Champions have more registered players than all of the other continents.

Well, those 3 little celtic countries set up the original organisation in Dublin to organise rugby. Just think what England would be like if we were not there keeping them under control. As well as that the Northern Hemisphere run their own very successful tournament not to mention the British & Irish Lions that help provide a useful cash injection to the much 'bigger' Unions when they tour. I'd imagine the ARU, NZRU & SARU want to keep those 'unions' on board.

Your credentials appear to be population size, the largest number of stadia (whether they are racing tracks or not!) and now hot weather!

Those would be some fairly useful criteria, except that I excluded the racing track stadia by putting it in brackets, as I've been required to explain twice already. Btw, outside of the UK, Ireland, Finland  Iceland, 15 to 20 degrees on average is not most people's idea of 'hot' weather.

Giving the WC on racial breakdown of the population is frankly preposterous.

Agreed. Opposing a nation's bid for the same reason would be equally so.

Well, those 3 little celtic countries set up the original organisation in Dublin to organise rugby. Just think what England would be like if we were not there keeping them under control. As well as that the Northern Hemisphere run their own very successful tournament not to mention the British & Irish Lions that help provide a useful cash injection to the much 'bigger' Unions when they tour. I'd imagine the ARU, NZRU & SARU want to keep those 'unions' on board.

Agree with this as well. I just question this sense of entitlement on certain issues. The Celtic nations are a lot smaller, both geographically and in terms of registered playing numbers, than England, France & the SANZAR nations. So the argument that South Africa has already hosted and Ireland hasn't just doesn't hold water. The Celtic nations are actually very lucky in my view, that their close proximity to England has allowed them to co-host World Cups on a number of occasions. But South Africa has the second biggest rugby community in the world - bigger than the Celtic nations' combined, and bigger than any other entire continent's except Europe. So demanding they be treated precisely the same as Ireland on an issue such as World cup hosting rights is ridiculous. In fact, were it to go the IRFU's way in 2023 that would effectively mean Ireland were receiving preferential treatment to South Africa, as they will have been a host nation as well as a co-host on two additional occasions.

Those criteria are pointless as soon as the minimum criteria are met which they are. Weather only comes into it with extremes not relevant here. Race shouldn't come into it.

I already agreed with that. Just as I put the race track in brackets. You seem to have a hearing problem.

Reading rather hearing surely. So back to the thing really separating the bids is the debut hosts of Italy and ireland.

Rowanbi wrote:Why should non white majority come into it. And again what do you mean by inferior nations?

I'm suggesting you shouldn't be accusing others of 'prejudice' when you are quite obsessively opposed to a bid by the only non-white majority member nation of the core committee. & by inferior I mean in terms of their credentials to host a RWC. But that's perfectly obvious, so leave the shoot-the-messenger approach at home. It only weakens your own credibility.

Yes, when I read it I thought that might be a genuine casee of clutching at straws???

Perhaps, but I wasn't experessing my own view. It just happens to be one reason a number of national football association figures have cited in their opposition to England's hosting another FIFA World Cup. In fact, that was during the 1990 bidding, as I recall, so it's a long time ago now anyway. I'm not sure what other reasons have been given.

I just thought I'd remind you that this is a rugby forum and not soccer, which you keep raising consistantly throughout the last half dozen pages of thread.

I think England should be permanent host of the RWC. The last RWC brought in the most attendance, the highest tv ratings globally, and the most money. It had fantastic weather, great atmosphere, terrific beer, and beautiful women.

Done.

fa0019 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Australia, France, England, South Africa, New Zealand.

The Big 5 control things for the most part - hopefully that will change in time.

You have just named the 5 nations which make up the huge majority of both player numbers, fans and tv markets in world rugby... and i'm not talking just over 50% here... I's be surprised if the above 5 didn't consistute over 90% in all 3 highlighted listings.

Correct, Watson. Which is why they are called the Big 5.

Rowanbi wrote:Your credentials appear to be population size, the largest number of stadia (whether they are racing tracks or not!) and now hot weather!

Those would be some fairly useful criteria, except that I excluded the racing track stadia by putting it in brackets, as I've been required to explain twice already. Btw, outside of the UK, Ireland, Finland  Iceland, 15 to 20 degrees on average is not most people's idea of 'hot' weather.

You certainly would not want it more than 20 degrees for it to be comfortable. It will be interesting to see how the humidity in Japan affects the games, and of course the very high rainfall (3 times that of Ireland). A lot of greasy balls.

I would imagine that the average temperature of 28°C for Sept/Oct and with an average rainfall of 80m in South Africa. Average rainfall for Dublin is only 60m in September and 80m in October.

You really have not researched this very well, have you?

Giving the WC on racial breakdown of the population is frankly preposterous.

Agreed. Opposing a nation's bid for the same reason would be equally so.

You have not been saying that. You have been claiming that as SA have a large black/colored population, it is more deserving of hosting the Rugby World Cup. Its rather amusing that the USA in particular have a completely multiracial society and Japan is an Asian country!

Agree with this as well. I just question this sense of entitlement on certain issues. The Celtic nations are a lot smaller, both geographically and in terms of registered playing numbers, than England, France & the SANZAR nations. So the argument that South Africa has already hosted and Ireland hasn't just doesn't hold water. The Celtic nations are actually very lucky in my view, that their close proximity to England has allowed them to co-host World Cups on a number of occasions. But South Africa has the second biggest rugby community in the world - bigger than the Celtic nations' combined, and bigger than any other entire continent's except Europe. So demanding they be treated precisely the same as Ireland on an issue such as World cup hosting rights is ridiculous. In fact, were it to go the IRFU's way in 2023 that would effectively mean Ireland were receiving preferential treatment to South Africa, as they will have been a host nation as well as a co-host on two additional occasions.

So, only large countries with big populations should be allowed host the world cup. South Africa has already hosted the world cup, Ireland or Italy have never.

Extra brownie points for Ireland for its Women's Programme and hosting the Women's Rugby World Cup next year in Dublin & Belfast (a dry run for the 2023 event )

world rugby wrote:- have bid to host major World Rugby events over last eight years or who are bidding for a World Rugby event in next four years
- have a sustainable women's programme with participation in the Women's Rugby World Cup or qualifiers in the past eight years

Surprising that South Africa don't seem to be anyway competitive.

I just thought I'd remind you that this is a rugby forum and not soccer, which you keep raising consistantly throughout the last half dozen pages of thread.



I think the majority of my comments have been responses. I've only actually initiated debate on a few points relating to soccer. & I think it is wrong to dismiss it as off-topic, because the RWC is modelled entirely on the FIFA World Cup, and continues to evolve in a similar fashion. There comparisons to the parent code are both relevant and instructive to any discussions on the World Cup tournament, and we can certainly learn from their successes as well as from their mistakes. It's puerile to dismiss the world's most popular team sport out of hand with across-the-board accusations of bribery.

You certainly would not want it more than 20 degrees for it to be comfortable.

That would be unusual, & a lot less likely than rain and chilly weather in Ireland, of which there is a 74% chance in Belfast during October (according to the Irish Meteorological web-site I accessed). That obviously would not be a biggy for the players, but it would be for the fans, and slush and mud doesn't usually make for the most attractive style of rugby.


You really have not researched this very well, have you?

A lot better than you have, by the looks of it.


You have not been saying that.

Yes I have. You, also, appear to have a hearing problem. South Africa's non-white majority is not a reason to award them the tournament. But let it not be a reason to discriminate against them either.

I do think that the cultural diversity South Africa has to offer will be one of the most pleasing factors of the tournament, should they stage it; just as it was in 1995. In addition to which, a World Cup in South Africa will be one for the continent, and will have a ripple effect right through one of international rugby's most fertile developing regions.

So, only large countries with big populations should be allowed host the world cup. South Africa has already hosted the world cup, Ireland or Italy have never.



On the first point, large nations are certainly preferable. The Rugby World Cup is now one of the biggest events in international sports; the age of small nation hosts ought to be behind us. On the second point, Ireland has hosted 12 World Cup matches, including three play-offs. Repetition is not improving your argument. Meanwhile, Italy would certainly be my choice for 2027. But it is a relative newcomer to big time rugby, its previous bid included Marseille among its proposed venues (no reason to think that has changed), and the sport still has a fairly minor status there. Were the World Cup to coincide with the Serie A, it might well be overshadowed by the round-ball code. Give them another 4 years. It's not so far away.

Rowanbi wrote:

That would be unusual, & a lot less likely than rain and chilly weather in Ireland, of which there is a 74% chance in Belfast during October (according to the Irish Meteorological web-site I accessed). That obviously would not be a biggy for the players, but it would be for the fans, and slush and mud doesn't usually make for the most attractive style of rugby.

On the first point, large nations are certainly preferable. The Rugby World Cup is now one of the biggest events in international sports; the age of small nation hosts ought to be behind us. On the second point, Ireland has hosted 12 World Cup matches, including three play-offs. Repetition is not improving your argument.

Equally, repetition is not improving your argument.

You decide to post your topic on a number of different rugby sites. And proceed to be banned on a number of them and antagonise others.

You still haven't explained why you felt it necessary to do this.

You arrive onto this rugby forum and proceed to lecture existing rugby members who mainly, but not exclusively, come from Britain and Ireland. You proceed to tell them what their country is like, their weather is like, although you have no real life experience of this for any period of time. You are ignorant of their culture, its places, its politics and geography.

You claim you are seeking a discussion and yet completely ignore the views and experiences of those who actually live in the countries you lecture people about.

You talk in generalist terms, and avoid being drawn into providing specific detail on anything. You cite Wikipedia extracts as your sources to supposedly underpin your credibility.

You continue to behave like a troll on this forum and seek to portray your input merely as impartial observer with no axe to grind, when in reality it is bent to the one sole focus of your topic, and reveals your lack of objectivity and evident disdain for most anywhere else.

You say you were brought up in NZ but weren't born there. You supported South Africa against your fellow countrymen in a RWC. You have seeming little or no regard for anywhere else. Yet you say you have never been to South Africa. You have an evident dislike for "small" countries eg NZ, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Fiji, etc and it would appear to extend beyond their sporting prowess. So what nation or nationality do you pledge support for - either in sporting or other national terms?

And what is your point in perpetuating this topic since any contribution you have to make is already clear and you have added nothing new?

Pot Hale wrote:And what is your point in perpetuating this topic since any contribution you have to make is already clear and you have added nothing new?

it's psych stuff, brother.

Sorry to jump in, but I'd like to see Ireland host the 2023 World Cup. The people are great (the one's i've met at least), they seem to love their rugby and having not hosted it before, they deserve a go. I reckon they'd do a stand up job and no doubt the atmosphere would be fantastic.

The only downside (for me) would be the crap viewing times.

Maybe with the home support they might get past the 1/4's

Pot Hale wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

That would be unusual, & a lot less likely than rain and chilly weather in Ireland, of which there is a 74% chance in Belfast during October (according to the Irish Meteorological web-site I accessed). That obviously would not be a biggy for the players, but it would be for the fans, and slush and mud doesn't usually make for the most attractive style of rugby.

On the first point, large nations are certainly preferable. The Rugby World Cup is now one of the biggest events in international sports; the age of small nation hosts ought to be behind us. On the second point, Ireland has hosted 12 World Cup matches, including three play-offs. Repetition is not improving your argument.

Equally, repetition is not improving your argument.

You decide to post your topic on a number of different rugby sites.  And proceed to be banned on a number of them and antagonise others.  

You still haven't explained why you felt it necessary to do this.

You arrive onto this rugby forum and proceed to lecture existing rugby members who mainly, but not exclusively, come from Britain and Ireland.  You proceed to tell them what their country is like, their weather is like, although you have no real life experience of this for any period of time. You are ignorant of their culture, its places, its politics and geography.

You claim you are seeking a discussion and yet completely ignore the views and experiences of those who actually live in the countries you lecture people about.  

You talk in generalist terms, and avoid being drawn into providing specific detail on anything.  You cite Wikipedia extracts as your sources to supposedly underpin your credibility.  

You continue to behave like a troll on this forum and seek to portray your input merely as impartial observer with no axe to grind, when in reality it is bent to the one sole focus of your topic, and reveals your lack of objectivity and evident disdain for most  anywhere else.  

You say you were brought up in NZ but weren't born there. You supported South Africa against your fellow countrymen in a RWC.   You have seeming little or no regard for anywhere else. Yet you say you have never been to South Africa.  You have an evident dislike for "small" countries eg NZ, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Fiji, etc  and it would appear to extend beyond their sporting prowess.  So what nation or nationality do you pledge support for - either in sporting or other national terms?

And what is your point in perpetuating this topic since any contribution you have to make is already clear and you have added nothing new?

He was actually deported from New Zealand as an undesireable, we tried to send him to Syria but so far hes only made it to Turkey. since his arrival in Turkey he has been advising the Minister of the Interior on addressing Turkeys problem of Internally Displaced Persons, Rowan is regarded as an expert on this subject and has written many famous text books on the subject, trouble is Rowan is a bit confused because he is actually an Internationally Displaced Person.

And what is your point in perpetuating this topic

Mostly just replying to other people's arguments, some of which are repetitive, yes. But if you are weary of this discussion, why continue participating in it? Why bother even opening the thread and upsetting yourself? I think the truth is that you are intent on bludgeoning me into accepting your views, it's absolutely vital to you that you come away feeling like a winner, but your vision is not superior to mine nor any other non-British/non-Irish person's. The shoot-the-messenger approach is only a sign of your frustation, because you are not winning this argument and you have not succeeded in bludgeoning me into accepting your views. & for the record, I have lived in Britain, I have been to Ireland, and one of my passports is British.

Sooooo, back to the discussion. To remind you, these were my replies to the last on-topic comments put to me:

I just thought I'd remind you that this is a rugby forum and not soccer, which you keep raising consistantly throughout the last half dozen pages of thread.



I think the majority of my comments have been responses. I've only actually initiated debate on a few points relating to soccer. & I think it is wrong to dismiss it as off-topic, because the RWC is modelled entirely on the FIFA World Cup, and continues to evolve in a similar fashion. There comparisons to the parent code are both relevant and instructive to any discussions on the World Cup tournament, and we can certainly learn from their successes as well as from their mistakes. It's puerile to dismiss the world's most popular team sport out of hand with across-the-board accusations of bribery.

You certainly would not want it more than 20 degrees for it to be comfortable.

That would be unusual, & a lot less likely than rain and chilly weather in Ireland, of which there is a 74% chance in Belfast during October (according to the Irish Meteorological web-site I accessed). That obviously would not be a biggy for the players, but it would be for the fans, and slush and mud doesn't usually make for the most attractive style of rugby.


You really have not researched this very well, have you?

A lot better than you have, by the looks of it.


You have not been saying that.

Yes I have. You, also, appear to have a hearing problem. South Africa's non-white majority is not a reason to award them the tournament. But let it not be a reason to discriminate against them either.

I do think that the cultural diversity South Africa has to offer will be one of the most pleasing factors of the tournament, should they stage it; just as it was in 1995. In addition to which, a World Cup in South Africa will be one for the continent, and will have a ripple effect right through one of international rugby's most fertile developing regions.

So, only large countries with big populations should be allowed host the world cup. South Africa has already hosted the world cup, Ireland or Italy have never.



On the first point, large nations are certainly preferable. The Rugby World Cup is now one of the biggest events in international sports; the age of small nation hosts ought to be behind us. On the second point, Ireland has hosted 12 World Cup matches, including three play-offs. Repetition is not improving your argument. Meanwhile, Italy would certainly be my choice for 2027. But it is a relative newcomer to big time rugby, its previous bid included Marseille among its proposed venues (no reason to think that has changed), and the sport still has a fairly minor status there. Were the World Cup to coincide with the Serie A, it might well be overshadowed by the round-ball code. Give them another 4 years. It's not so far away.

It's starting to feel like Just A Minute. I'm buzzing for repetition.

I might equally ask where all the supposition of 'expertise' about South Africa comes from. There was only one South African engaged in this discussion, & his views were more or less the same as mine. In the geographical sense I'm a neutral. If anything, I should lean slightly toward the Irish bid due to my paternal ancestry. But my only allegiance is to the game of rugby itself and what is in the best interests of its global development.

So what nationality are you?

Cyril wrote:So what nationality are you?

Hong Kong born, raised mostly in NZ, been abroad since last century. Yourself?

Rowanbi wrote:And what is your point in perpetuating this topic

Mostly just replying to other people's arguments, some of which are repetitive, yes. But if you are weary of this discussion, why continue participating in it? Why bother even opening the thread and upsetting yourself? I think the truth is that you are intent on bludgeoning me into accepting your views, it's absolutely vital to you that you come away feeling like a winner, but your vision is not superior to mine nor any other non-British/non-Irish person's. The shoot-the-messenger approach is only a sign of your frustation, because you are not winning this argument and you have not succeeded in bludgeoning me into accepting your views. & for the record, I have lived in Britain, I have been to Ireland, and one of my passports is British.

It's called shooting the troll round these parts.

The only person claiming superiority is yourself largely by denigrating other countries and their putative bids.
There are no winners or losers in discussions.    You are the one who used the phrase earlier in this thread that you claimed 'victory' in the discussion, akin to a schoolyard argument of 'I won'.

If that's what you want to claim and makes you feel happy, then be our guest.

And which rugby club and nation do you support Rowanbi?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And which rugby club and nation do you support Rowanbi?

A lot of teams for various reasons, but mostly the underdogs with the most potential. Argentina remains a favourite in international competition, notably the RC, I always back Italy in the 6 Nations, Japan in the PNC, Russia in the ENC, Brazil in CONSUR A (& now the ARC), and anyone but Namibia in the African Cup. Super Rugby: Jaguares (I was a Canes supporter until last year's Super Rugby disaster) 7s: Fiji (because it means so much to them and they're so dam enjoyable to watch), along Kenya & the US, in particular. Yourself?

Who's your favourite player for Russia and why?

I support England but don't really have a team at club level. Due to getting into rugby quite late in my life I'd moved away from my home town and it still feels a bit wrong supporting Boro in football and another town in rugby. Donny Knights is the nearest I get.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who's your favourite player for Russia and why?

Don't have one. I just support the national team in the ENC, but I haven't seen them play in a good long while. I'm not much into favorite players either, not even for the big teams.

World Rugby announces expansion to ruling Council amid governance reform process:

So this has been described on another thread as likely "cowpat." Wouldn't surprise me either. The founding members of the board are unlikely to relinquish their strangehold on the decision-making process so easily, don't you think?

Didn't think you would somehow!