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.

I would need to have access to their prospectus in order to answer that for you, and as yet it hasn't been made public.

So why do they need those 4 years then if you don't know?

Just a comment on a chat forum, 7&1/2. 2023 is only 7 years away. They had an average World Cup (yes again) and a horrible 6 Nations, and although that has no bearing on their ability to stage a World Cup, I do feel Italy could use another few years and would love to see them host (or co-host) the 2027 tournament.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What specifically in relation to the organisation structure around holding the WC does Italy need to improve on then please? On the pitch doesn't affect that at all so should be quite easy for you?

There is no connection between managing a professional sports team to success on the pitch and organising a major sporting event. None. Completely different professions, skill sets, and businesses. No connection whatsoever.

Completely agree doc.

Can somebody please put this thread out of it's misery ?

Or are we going to keep going over the same thing until WC 2023 happens ?

So much of the same subject has be re-hashed over and over on this thread it like flogging a dead horse.

Yes, as I've already mentioned at least once, there is no connection between a national team's onfield performance and its national administration's ability to stage a World Cup, although it is my experience that unions with progressive administrations tend to field successful teams. & after Italy's performance in this year's 6 Nations I feel more strongly than ever that Italy could use an extra few years to prepare itself for hosting the RWC, thus 2027 seems more timely.

As for putting a thread "out of it's misery,' that's one of the silliest comments I've ever read. Chat forums are for discussing things, no matter how banal or trivial it may appear to others. The simple answer, of course, is that if you're not interested, don't open the thread. I presume nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it . . .

You contradict yourself Rowanbi.

No, it's you who contradict yourself, 7&1/2. What's more, you actually contribute nothing to this thread. Your posts are completely devoid of ideas and opinions. They are simply repetitive one line snipes at someone who does not think as you do. That's neither clever nor constructive.

You say that Italy needs to improve administration but acjnowledge that this is not linked to on field performance. You also don't know what they need to improve, or haven't so far. What do Italy need to do?

England failed to get out their pool in the RWC yet still staged a very good RWC.

That shows that administration of a tournament and performance on the pitch can be different.

That's not what I said at all, 7&1/2. On the contrary, I agreed there was no tangible link but noted a correlation between progressive administrations and successful teams. Is that concept beyond you, perhaps? Do you only see things in black and white? Is that why your posts are so brief and lacking in substance? Is this a chat forum or the grand jury. I simply believe Italy could use a few more years to prepare for hosting a World Cup and therefore 2027 seems timely. & if I am repeating myself it is only because I am being asked more or less the same questions time and again...

Why do they need more time to prepare exactly?

Let's hope the Azzurri start to show some genuine improvement over the next several years; perhaps even finish in the top half of the 6 Nations table. A few years ago that appeared quite within their grasp, and undoubedly it still is. More success will generate more enthusiasm and help raise the profile of the sport in a country where it is largely confined to a select few regions and elsewhere regarded as minor.

So again you fail to answer.

I'm no longer interested in your repetitive questions. Deal with it.

Repetitive as you can't answer them. You simply say it as some sort of justification about your own preference of SA. If you had real concerns about Italy's ability to host a rugby world cup it should be easy for you to state what they are and what you feel they would need to do in those extra 4 years.

Already did.

Which was...

Japan have never finished in the top half of anything and theyre holding the next World cup.

In any case, the closer we get, the more I suspect the next two World Cups will be awarded to SA & Ireland, and Italy will actually be forced to wait until the 2030s. Quite possibly it will be Ireland in 2023, returning the event to the Home Unions for the 5th time in 10 tournaments and proving World Rugby has failed in its self-proclaimed objective to 'globalize' the game, and SA in 2027, announced simultaneous as were the 2015 & 2019 host nations, thereby allaying objections from SA and the Southern Hemisphere. Needless to say, I would be disgusted, but I think that's the most likely scenario, having followed the event since the outset and knowing the wheelings and dealings of World Rugby as well as I do,.

So you're still not going to say what needs improving for Italy and why is will take nearly 7 years to complete? You complain about a narrow focus but rather than take the WC to 1 or 2 debut countries you want to take it back to SA; logical.

Japan have never finished in the top half of anything and theyre holding the next World cup.



Besides the PNC (which they've won twice), the Asian champs (which they always win) and their pool at last year's World Cup, you mean?

Sorry not 7 seven years, 11 years.

Rowanbi wrote:
Japan have never finished in the top half of anything and theyre holding the next World cup.



Besides the PNC (which they've won twice), the Asian champs (which they always win) and their pool at last year's World Cup, you mean?

Any competition to the level that you demand Italy to improve performance in.

Japan was awarded the 2019 World Cup prior to having three wins in pool play at the 2015 Rugby world cup, so I fail to see how you can regard such a criteria as necessary for Italy to have to meet?

I was just replying to your comment, Sir. Nothing to do with my views on World Cup hosting at all.

But on that issue, I'm not demanding anything at all, just suggesting Italy could probably use an extra few years, and that an improved showing by the national team might generate more enthusiam and raise the profile of the sport there. That's very different.

Ah so they need an improved showing which they can only demonstrate in the next 11 years to raise rugbys profile. What better way to raise it than a wc.

Some interesting information on SH economics. SARU just issued their annual report, which, for a big nation is quite poor.

SARU made a profit of £1.5m with a turnover of £44m.
Ireland, which is a very small Union with a small population.
Turnover £54m with a profit of £8.2m.

Looks like South Africa could really use the huge boost a World Cup tournament invariably brings to the national coffers then . . .

Some interesting info from a recent Tourism Ireland survey conducted recently (winter months):

Reasons for Choosing Ireland:

Friendly people: 96pc
Beautiful Scenery: 96pc
Safe and secure destination: 92pc
Plenty to see and do: 92pc
Good range of natural attractions: 90pc
Interesting history and culture: 87pc
Natural unspoilt environment: 86pc

Reasons for Exceeding Expectations:

Irish People: 69pc
Scenery: 65pc
History & Culture: 37pc
Nature & Wildlife: 29pc
Weather better than expected: 28pc
Good quality & variety of food: 27pc

Almost two thirds (64pc) of holidaymakers said that they would definitely return within the next few years – up from 57pc last year.

http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/ireland/revealed-the-top-seven-reasons-tourists-say-they-visit-ireland-34617332.html

Cutting & pasting from the tourist promotion magazines now

Are you suggesting Ireland is even in the same ballpark as South Africa in terms of weather, beautiful scenery, nature and wildlife, unspoilt environment, natural attractions and things to see and do?

Are you suggesting it is any better than South Africa in terms of friendly people, history and culture and the quality and variety of food?

Cutting and pasting information from a recent Visitor Survey to Ireland (winter months) which shows that a safe and secure destination is a high priority for tourists to counteract your claims that the high crime rate and security problems would not be an issue for World Rughy when choosing a hosting venue for a world cup.

The 2nd Cut and paste is to illustrate that visitors to Ireland found the weather to be much better than they expected it to be in winter time.

Africa is a beautiful continent, but not any more beautiful than Ireland or France or Italy or Japan. They all have their own unique attractions. From world tourism survey, guidebooks, Ireland is usually up there in the top 10 destinations in the world to visit and does not have cities or town that make Top 10 most dangerous places to visit.

I think many part of Europe are beautiful. Admittedly haven't been to Ireland but assume its much like Scotland, Wales etc in terms of its scenic beauty.

However SA takes some beating. Been to all continents, travelled through Brasil, Argentina, USA, Canada, Australia, SE Asia, much of Europe but Southern Africa and SA in particular..... in terms of tourism its very hard to beat. The western cape for instance is remarkable.

In one holiday you can go on Safari to see the big five, the only place in the world where you can see the big 7 (whales and sharks) without flying inbetween, visit beautiful vinyards to rival those in California and Australia, iconic beaches and yes its very safe for tourists. I don't think you can do that anywhere else in the world... literally.
The garden route of the Western Cape would take the Pepsi challenge with any holiday in the world. Not saying its the best but its pretty unique and right up there with the finest experiences you can have.

Over the holidays this year I rented a beach house about 2hrs north of Cape Town with some friends and family. Whilst eating dinner on our dining table we literally were given a 30 min show of dolphins fishing about 30-50 metres off the break right in front of us. People pay hundreds of £s and hrs of miserable boat tours for such delights.

Everyone is different in the end. I love the Dordogne for instance, could easily stay their forever albeit I'd need to invest in far wider trousers if I did... that and I hate the French!

Can't beat the Italians when it comes to food and drink in my opinion.

You can talk about scenic beauty all you want but I don't think the South Africans or Irish are famed for their cuisine.

Italy also trumps Ireland and South Africa in history and culture in my opinion.

I guess it depends what's the priority. I would of course pick Italy.

beshocked wrote:Can't beat the Italians when it comes to food and drink in my opinion.

You can talk about scenic beauty all you want but I don't think the South Africans or Irish are famed for their cuisine.

Italy also trumps Ireland and South Africa in history and culture in my opinion.

I guess it depends what's the priority. I would of course pick Italy.

I think for food the South of France beats Italy to be fair IMO. Most Italian food is rather intense whereas French to my begrudged admittance, French food is so wide ranging and ridiculously high in quality.
Italy is great, spent a lot of time there (got family there) and you can go see lots of culture.. but for me, walking around loads of statues of 500yr nude icons in a procession of thousands of tourists at any one time isn't as enjoyable as the vastness of Africa.
Europeans like Europe because true Italy/France etc are close. You can go to Italy for a few hundred quid, SA will probably cost you £5k for 2 if you want to do things proper. My problem with Europe is that even countries like France/Italy are now getting ruined by the Ryanair/Air Berlin/Easyjet generation.

fa0019 okay if you bring France into the equation it becomes debatable. I was talking about South Africa and Ireland compared to Italy.

Depends where you go in Italy. If you go to the tourist spots only like Venice,Florence,Pisa and Rome of course you are going to have a different perception.

beshocked wrote:fa0019 okay if you bring France into the equation it becomes debatable. I was talking about South Africa and Ireland compared to Italy.

Depends where you go in Italy. If you go to the tourist spots only like Venice,Florence,Pisa and Rome of course you are going to have a different perception.

You don't go to SA for the food that is true although the restuarants in Stellenbosch, Somerset West & Franschhoek (mainly in the vinyards themselves) are as good as you'll find in continental Europe. Whilst I can appreciate good food, I doubt anything would satisfy a typical rugby fan more than a spit bbq which SA does very well (although I reckon Argentina pips it for that.... then again Argentina is the best place to eat steak hands down).

Well, since we're bringing out the tourist brochures now, Britain's Telegraph just named Cape Town the world's best city (according to a readers' poll). Didn't see any Irish cities mention, however

It may require a long journey – it sits a precise 6,000 miles from London Heathrow – but it is not hard to understand why you have picked Cape Town (capetown.travel) as your favourite city for the second successive Telegraph Travel Awards. South Africa’s most fabled place could never be described as a question mark – the brooding Table Mountain is too recognisable; the beach resorts of Camps Bay too enticing; the history which swirls around the metropolis, reaching its dark zenith on Robben Island, too absorbing.

But a destination does not need unknown charms when it can bask in the mid 20s Celsius as Europe is going through winter – and have the decency to do so just two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time. Throw in the city’s status as a gateway to the Cape wine lands and the road-trip joys of the Garden Route – and those 6,000 miles seem a hop and a skip.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/galleries/The-worlds-best-cities-in-pictures/cape-town/

The thing about SA and particularly the garden route of the Western Cape + a little bit of the Eastern Cape up to PE..... is its range.

Go to south of France and you gorge yourself on food, rent a chateau, drink wine etc.
Go to Italy you can gorge yourself on food, rent a villa, drink wine... maybe tick off a few cultural icons from the bucket list albeit its like ordering a meal from Macdonalds.
Go to Ireland for the Craic no? The culture, like Edinburgh, the seafood?

Cape Town - PE attraction is thus

You can do the vinyard tour like south of France, California, Australia (and vinyards like Rus en Vrede, Vergelegen, Dieu Donne etc are as good as any). You could easily do a week in that place alone.
You can do close to as good as places like Zambia/Kruger etc for big 5 safari's and better... its outside the Malaria belt around PE. Shark Diving, Whale and Dolphin watching too on same route... don't get that anywhere else in Africa or the world. Horse back safari's are outstanding for example, crap yourself but still amazing. Maybe not Serengeti but if Serengeti is 10/10 then PE is 7-8.
You can do the beach holiday, good surfing spots too.

What its appeal is its vast range.... I can't think of any other place which has such options, such versatility within about 450 miles of themselves. Part of this is due to the climate being vastly different from one point to the other, the meeting of the 2 oceans brings such diversity. Penguin colony's within 100km's of 45C heat in the bush with free ranging springbok etc.

People talk about crime but tourists aren't really targeted. Crime is a big problem in some parts but mainly the squatter camps and certain residential areas.

Look Jo'burg, Pretoria, Sun City, Kruger, Durban, Bloemfontein... forget about them. Hands up, its dull. But Cape Town to Port Elizabeth.......

Not to say its any better but I'd be confident it the garden route would take the pepsi challenge with the finest of regions and if not win it would be all the way up there.
If you haven't done it in your life, do it.... spend 3 weeks there and then come back and say it wasn't the best holiday of your life. It will be a challenge (unless you're Jordan Belfort).

Just a short video of Ireland to give you some idea as to how beautiful the landscape in Ireland is. What makes it so beautiful is the variety and how it looks different because of the light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5gNrs2p__c

Luke FitzGerald's sister made this. Luke is one of the people who is featured on it.

That video makes it look like it never stops raining (and the sun never comes out) in Ireland.

Still, better than being car-jacked in SA I suppose.

Italy all the way.

Cape Town came 1st for best city in the world in the Daily Telegraph travel poll 2016 (I understand over 70,000 people voted) and has come 1st for 4 years running.

Cyril - ever been to South Africa? Or is this the no... but I know people who have, I know ex South Africans. etc.

fa0019 wrote:Cape Town came 1st for best city in the world in the Daily Telegraph travel poll 2016 (I understand over 70,000 people voted) and has come 1st for 4 years running.

Cyril - ever been to South Africa? Or is this the no... but I know people who have, I know ex South Africans. etc.

Yea, Telegraph readers. (Old fogies who like sipping G&Ts in the bar of 5 star hotels).

I see they say Dublin only squeezed into the Top 50 because of the reputation of Temple Bar being party city!

The top 20 is as follows. From 70,000 people regardless its pretty impressive.

Cape Town
Vancouver
Venice
Sydney
Tokyo
New York
San Francisco
St Petersberg
Seville
Rome
Rio De Janiero
Barcelona
Florence
Krakow
Singapore
Istanbul
Melbourne
Vienna
Buenos Aires
Washington DC

fa0019 wrote:The thing about SA and particularly the garden route of the Western Cape + a little bit of the Eastern Cape up to PE..... is its range.

Go to south of France and you gorge yourself on food, rent a chateau, drink wine etc.
Go to Italy you can gorge yourself on food, rent a villa, drink wine... maybe tick off a few cultural icons from the bucket list albeit its like ordering a meal from Macdonalds.
Go to Ireland for the Craic no? The culture, like Edinburgh, the seafood?

Cape Town - PE attraction is thus

You can do the vinyard tour like south of France, California, Australia (and vinyards like Rus en Vrede, Vergelegen, Dieu Donne etc are as good as any). You could easily do a week in that place alone.
You can do close to as good as places like Zambia/Kruger etc for big 5 safari's and better... its outside the Malaria belt around PE. Shark Diving, Whale and Dolphin watching too on same route... don't get that anywhere else in Africa or the world. Horse back safari's are outstanding for example, crap yourself but still amazing. Maybe not Serengeti but if Serengeti is 10/10 then PE is 7-8.
You can do the beach holiday, good surfing spots too.

What its appeal is its vast range.... I can't think of any other place which has such options, such versatility within about 450 miles of themselves. Part of this is due to the climate being vastly different from one point to the other, the meeting of the 2 oceans brings such diversity. Penguin colony's within 100km's of 45C heat in the bush with free ranging springbok etc.

People talk about crime but tourists aren't really targeted. Crime is a big problem in some parts but mainly the squatter camps and certain residential areas.

Look Jo'burg, Pretoria, Sun City, Kruger, Durban, Bloemfontein... forget about them. Hands up, its dull. But Cape Town to Port Elizabeth.......

Not to say its any better but I'd be confident it the garden route would take the pepsi challenge with the finest of regions and if not win it would be all the way up there.
If you haven't done it in your life, do it.... spend 3 weeks there and then come back and say it wasn't the best holiday of your life. It will be a challenge (unless you're Jordan Belfort).

Ireland has the Wild Atlantic Way (newly defined - 2,500km - longest coastal route in the world).

fa0019 wrote:The top 20 is as follows. From 70,000 people regardless its pretty impressive.

Cape Town
Vancouver
Venice
Sydney
Tokyo
New York
San Francisco
St Petersberg
Seville
Rome
Rio De Janiero
Barcelona
Florence
Krakow
Singapore
Istanbul
Melbourne
Vienna
Buenos Aires
Washington DC

As I said, Cape town appeals to a certain demographic. How does Lonely Planet rate it?

fa0019 wrote:The top 20 is as follows. From 70,000 people regardless its pretty impressive.

Cape Town
Vancouver
Venice
Sydney
Tokyo
New York
San Francisco
St Petersberg
Seville
Rome
Rio De Janiero
Barcelona
Florence
Krakow
Singapore
Istanbul
Melbourne
Vienna
Buenos Aires
Washington DC

Italy has 3 in the top 20 then....

Cyril wrote: That video makes it look like it never stops raining (and the sun never comes out) in Ireland.

Still, better than being car-jacked in SA I suppose.

Italy all the way.

I thought the opposite - that the sun is always shining!

It is beautiful though, isn't it?

Oh, and Ireland has some of the best food in the world. I wouldn't touch Argentinian beef (or any South American beef). Riddled with disease and growth hormones.

You haven't lived until you have tasted wild Connemara Lamb or Wild Athlantic salmon caught fresh. As for the prawns and mussels on the west coast - just out of this world.

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:The top 20 is as follows. From 70,000 people regardless its pretty impressive.

Cape Town
Vancouver
Venice
Sydney
Tokyo
New York
San Francisco
St Petersberg
Seville
Rome
Rio De Janiero
Barcelona
Florence
Krakow
Singapore
Istanbul
Melbourne
Vienna
Buenos Aires
Washington DC

Italy has 3 in the top 20 then....

I've been to 10 of those cities. I'd rate Rome, Venice and Florence being top 5. How did Singapore get in there!

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:The top 20 is as follows. From 70,000 people regardless its pretty impressive.

Cape Town
Vancouver
Venice
Sydney
Tokyo
New York
San Francisco
St Petersberg
Seville
Rome
Rio De Janiero
Barcelona
Florence
Krakow
Singapore
Istanbul
Melbourne
Vienna
Buenos Aires
Washington DC

As I said, Cape town appeals to a certain demographic. How does Lonely Planet rate it?

Well one is a poll of 70,000 people, the other is ranked by a company with personal interest I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Lonely planet is a little bit of the film critic type snobs of travel though wouldn't you say?
I do have a lot of Lonely planet/rough guide stuff to be fair. I recall they said one of the top things to do in Buenos Aires was visit this market... here was me expecting a vast vibrant market similar to east Asia or North Africa, what we got was a 2nd hand flea market selling 2nd hand goods and old VHS copies of such movies as Police Academy 3 and that George Clooney Batman. It was worse than a school car boot sale.  

http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/top-10-cities-visit-2016-7138743

I see Dublin is ranked 3rd. Manchester is 8th, sort of ruins it the second you see that name pop up.